Baptism, the simple version.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,816
29,195
113
John was already Baptizing. While John's Baptism was upon evidence of Repentance of sins - Baptism - nevertheless,
was taking place. John the Baptizer was unique. He had one foot in the Old Testament dispensation and the other in
the New Testament dispensation but there is no record of a Baptismal ordinance being issued in the Old Testament era.
There was for priests .:)
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,816
29,195
113
That was not really a Baptismal ordinance. I assume you are referring to the need for ceremonial cleansing.
See Leviticus 16... specifically that which pertains to the priestly need for baptism before taking on the sins of the people.
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
See Leviticus 16... specifically that which pertains to the priestly need for baptism before taking on the sins of the people.
That was part of the portion I was referring too. The need for ceremonial cleansing. The washing of the body and clothing but this is not Baptism. I have seen some that have equated this to a form of Baptism but it in no way represents the Baptism that we have today - which represents our solidarity in the death and resurrection in Christ.

Are do you see this differently?
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,816
29,195
113
That was part of the portion I was referring too. The need for ceremonial cleansing. The washing of the body and
clothing but this is not Baptism. I have seen some that have equated this to a form of Baptism but it in no way
represents the Baptism that we have today - which represents our solidarity in the death and resurrection in Christ.

Are do you see this differently?
It was a requirement for priests before performing their duties... and Jesus is now our high priest.

Of course we do not do it for the same reason. It is still baptism.

And I keep coming back to this:

Jeremiah 2:13 My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring
of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,816
29,195
113
In what other way would Jesus be "fulfilling all righteous" in having John the baptist baptize Him?
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
It was a requirement for priests before performing their duties... and Jesus is now our high priest.

Of course we do not do it for the same reason. It is still baptism.

And I keep coming back to this:

Jeremiah 2:13 My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring
of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.
Okay... if you wish to see it that way. It is not worth an argument over.

Yes, Jeremiah 2:13 is a beautiful warning. The people have turned from the true God and the living waters - the living waters that are said of Christ Himself. These living waters quicken the dead, refresh the Saints and provide an abundant spiritual life for God's people. These living waters were exchanged for that which can be had in the world. Cisterns primarily collected rain water, thus what the world gave and at best, would only last a short season. However, being broken cisterns, they would hold nothing to sustain one.

A foolish decision indeed.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,816
29,195
113
Okay... if you wish to see it that way. It is not worth an argument over.
In what other way would Jesus be "fulfilling all righteous" in having John the baptist baptize Him?
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
In what other way would Jesus be "fulfilling all righteous" in having John the baptist baptize Him?
That is a good question. What do we know is appropriate here and what is not.

We know that John was baptizing on evidence of ones repentance of sin but in Jesus' case there was no need for Him to repent of anything. This is why John objected.

However, Jesus came to do His Father's will and part of that was to fulfill His association with Baptism. Since Jesus is building His body, the church and the ordinance of Baptism belongs to that body, how could Christ not be a part of it. After all, He is called the first of the many that will make up the body. John Gill had this to say:

It became John to administer the ordinance of baptism to Christ, as he was his forerunner, and the only administrator of it, and that he might fulfil the ministry which he had received; and as it became Christ to fulfil all righteousness, moral and ceremonial, and baptism being a part of his Father's will, which he came to do, it became him to fulfil this also.

In this way, He fulfilled all righteousness. As we know, there is more to this all righteousness but this is one of the needs.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,816
29,195
113
That is a good question. What do we know is appropriate here and what is not.
It was appropriate (and required) for high priests to be baptized prior to taking on the sins of the people .:)

It became John to administer the ordinance of baptism to Christ, as he was his forerunner,
and the only administrator of it, and that he might fulfil the ministry which he had received;
and as it became Christ to fulfil all righteousness, moral and ceremonial, and baptism being
a part of his Father's will, which he came to do, it became him to fulfil this also.
What is this from? .:unsure:
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
It was appropriate (and required) for high priests to be baptized prior to taking on the sins of the people .:)


What is this from? .:unsure:
That was from John Gill's commentaries.

Any who - it's late and it is time to say goodnight. Pleasant dreams.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
See Leviticus 16... specifically that which pertains to the priestly need for baptism before taking on the sins of the people.
That was definitely not baptism. "...therefore shall he wash his flesh in water..." simply means taking a bath.
 

DJT_47

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2022
1,040
187
63
I think I see where you are trying to go with the Ref. in Hebrews 9 - but I will have to say this is stretching things a bit far. The subject of Baptism is not in view in this chapter. The comparison is the shed blood of beasts, over and against the shed blood of Christ. Thus, Christ's redemptive work is in view and His death (then Resurrection), established His mediatorial authority over the now activated "New Covenant or New will".

His death and resurrection did alter the methodology of Baptism - from John's Baptism to being Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but it should be remembered that John was already Baptizing. While John's Baptism was upon evidence of Repentance of sins - Baptism - nevertheless, was taking place. John the Baptizer was unique. He had one foot in the Old Testament dispensation and the other in the New Testament dispensation but there is no record of a Baptismal ordinance being issued in the Old Testament era.

This leads us to an interesting question then... Why did John Baptize and where did he get his authority to do so? We are left with two possible answers but neither are definitive. 1.) John had a revelation from God to do so and it was not recorded in Scripture. 2.) John got the idea as a way to pave the way for another.

We do know that some of those that were Baptized by John were later Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ:

Act 19:3 And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism.
Act 19:4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus.
Act 19:5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.


But John Baptized many, many people. Should we then conclude, that they were not saved if they were not Baptized in the name of Jesus our Lord? Of course they were saved because Salvation worked the same for the OT Saints as it does for us today. We have the ordinance of Baptism - they did not. They had the sacrifice of animals - we do not. BUT God's Grace is God's Grace.

The misunderstanding of the purpose of Baptism and it's role in Salvation, is brought about by a misunderstanding of the following:

1.) God's Omnipotence.
2.) God's Sovereignty in His Plan of Salvation.
3.) God's Sovereignty in His actions in Salvation.

A proper understanding of these MUST be had before one can understand the rest. Being Baptized and not being a true believer will not bring about salvation - Just as, being a true believer and not having the opportunity to be Baptized will not forfeit one's salvation but if the opportunity presents itself, the true believer should be Baptized.
1st of all, Hebrews 9 is clear as relates to when the NT took effect and how that further effects the poor argument made regarding the thief in the cross. You couldn't be baptized into Christ while he was yet alive. You couldn't be baptized into his death as Romans 6 says or be buried with him by baptism. He forgave the thief no different than he did the adulterous woman and others, while the old covenant was still in effect, not that it was done according to Jewish law but simply done while the old covenant was operative, nor the NT.

And the scriptures say, or rather strongly infer, what the origin of John's baptism was as Jesus asked that rhetorical question of the chief priests as recorded in Luke 20:4.

And John's baptism, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (luke 3:3) was identical to the baptism described in Acts 2:38 except in the later scripture it was also done "in the name of Jesus Christ". By John's baptism, you weren't baptized into Christ, didn't receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, nor added to the church (Acts 2:47) by tye Lord. John's baptism would also had to been repeated upon sinning thereafter unlike that of Acts 2:38 afterwhich future sins are dealt with by repentance. That's why the Ephesians had to be re-baptized as well as would anyone else baptized unto John's baptism.
 

DJT_47

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2022
1,040
187
63
I agree, all Scripture most harmonize in order to see the Truth. However, personal bias often gets in the way of that harmony.

I believe in an earlier post, you said that one is Baptized and then receives the Holy Spirit. This agrees with Acts 2:38:

And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter is saying: First Repent - then be Baptized - then in the future you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, in the interest of Biblical Harmony - one must note that this verse does not denote a particular order of events. On other occasions, they had already received the gifts of the Holy Spirit before they were Baptized:

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


Therefore, we can conclude, that the Holy Spirit may come upon a believer at anytime because the Holy Spirit is Sovereign in His work and not at the whim of mankind. He does work independent of the agency of man or He may work in harmony with the agency of man.

It must be noted here - That this falling/receiving of the Holy Spirit - in both Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:44 is the bestowal of gifts upon the believers of the early Church and is the fulfillment of Jesus' promise in Acts 1:5 & 8. However, this is not the "New Birth" or "Being born from above" of John 3:3-10.
You are not looking at Acts 2 and 10 correctly as the falling of the Holy Ghost in these 2 instances were not the norm but anomalies and can't be used as you've suggested. There are numerous postings covering this subject as well as threads entitled "Spiritual gifts: them" parts 1 thru 4. Please see them.

But simply put, in both Acts 2 and 10, the Holy Spirit fell unilaterally without the laying on of the apostle's hands, and in both cases did so as a heavenly sign and validation of what was occurring to those present. In both cases, the church began; 1st in Jerusalem amongst the Jews, and then in Caesarea amongst the Gentiles. No other time did the Holy Spirit become manifested in the form of miraculous gifts without the laying on of the apostle's hands.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
I understand all that. But how are the 2 scriptures resolved? And what's important at the immersion of a new believer who has done everything he/she was required to do, and all that remains necessary is immersion for the forgiveness of sins, to receive the Holy Ghost so it dwells in you, and be added to the body of Christ? Does it all, the entirety of
new believer’s eternal soul, fate, and ultimate eternsl destination, rest upon what the baptizer does or doesn't do correctly? The Ethiopian eunuch who knew nothing at all about the Lord, simply believed what Philip said, confessed his belief, and was baptized. The new believer isn't expected to know much other than what was just stated, not the nuances as we've been discussing, so, the oness can't fall on the baptizer, he simply needs to do his part and immerse the individual. God knows why and God knows the hearts of men including that of the new believer that knows nothing. Why must more be said? Why has it become a ceremony with the importance of exact words or phrases being the emphasis and necessary, which if violated, then nullifies the event? If Matt 28:19 is used, or Acts 2:38 is used, or if nothing is said at all, would it matter upon immersion after the believer has done all prerequisites? Would he be saved or not upon immersion? And why would it matter what the one immersing does or says or doesn't say? Something is wrong if salvation is contingent upon the baptizer vs the one being baptized. Im not sure what the resolution is and simply thinking out loud about this, but I for sure don't believe that Matt 28:19 conflicts with Acts 2:38. It can't, and if it appears that it does, it's because of how we are looking at it, and not the scriptures themselves conflicting.
The baptizer does bear responsibility. He is accountable to God for what he teaches and how he administers baptism. The reality of remitting sin that comes about through obedience to God-ordained water baptism is no small matter. (John 20:21-23)

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:21-23)

There are man-made preachers and Jesus disciples. Jesus disciples have received the Holy Ghost and are sent. (Luke 24:46-49) Whereas man-made preachers proceed into ministry prior to being equipped for the task; and sadly some may never be.

Albeit sincere, many teach baptism from the standpoint of man-made tradition. One begun years after the apostolic era by the forerunners of a church that consistently goes against God's word. And even considers Protestant church members as daughters of their self-proclaimed mother church; since they still conform to the water baptize practice they distorted. (Roman Catholic Church) Jesus cautioned about accepting tradition that makes the word of God of none effect. (Matt. 15:6, Mark 7:13)

I relied upon the teachings of a "man of God" prior to receiving revelation in God's word concerning baptism.

As a young believer seeking God, I was instructed to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as a public display of my belief in Jesus and His sacrifice. Some years later I was surprised to realize that what I had been taught did not line up with the word.

I believe it was the Holy Ghost that led me on a journey pointing out the truth as revealed in scripture. I became aware of just how the apostles administered baptisms. And that they baptized everyone in Jesus' name because it was He who was crucified for the sins of everyone. And that it is through obedience to baptism in His name that one's personal sin is washed away. (Acts 22:16, 2:38...) Also, the reality that Paul pointed out; that those who are baptized have been connected with Jesus; being buried with Him into His death. (Rom. 6:3-6)
I was very surprised that there was no evidence that anyone in the NT was ever baptized an other way then in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And that was a powerful witness of the truth in and of itself.

Consider also the believers of Jesus, to whom He will profess, I never knew you. Wow. What a shock. Clearly they had been misled by some erroneous teaching; what was missing? They believed in Jesus there is no question of that, Yet they still heard those dreaded words. It brings to mind the possibility that they had not been buried with Him through baptism. It is a convincing argument considering after Jesus made that profound statement, (Matthew 7:23) He goes on to point out the error of the foolish man that built on a wrong foundation. Immediately after receiving the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost Peter presented details of what the foundation consisted of; believers were told what they must do, they believed and obeyed him, and were added to the body of whom Jesus is the head.

What about the parable of the person rejected from attending the marriage supper of the Lamb? What was missing? He had no garment. (Matt. 22:11-14) When is the garment applied? The OT reveals this. Important to note upon reading the following is NT believers are considered a royal priesthood. (1 Peter 2:9)

"And thou shalt anoint the laver and his foot, and sanctify it.
And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.
And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats:" Ex 40:11-14
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
The articles cover the scriptures from the Bible and puts them into perspective that baptizing in Jesus’ name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus. To baptize in Jesus' name is not meant as a legalistic prescription formula for salvation as you teach.
Accepting or rejecting that the word means what it says is a decision all must make. It requires a step of faith. The fruit follows...
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
If you look at Acts 2:38 in Greek the word in from “in the name of” is actually not the word for in. It is epi which means on. So this seems to actually be “on the authority”. So, be immersed, every one of you, on the authority of Jesus Christ into the forgiveness of the sins of you.

“Kefa answered them, “Turn from sin, return to God, and each of you be immersed on the authority of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh!”
‭‭Acts of Emissaries of Yeshua (Act)‬ ‭2‬:‭38‬ ‭CJB‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/1275/act.2.38.CJB

So its not actually a water immersion its an immersion into forgiveness of sins. Which is the same as saying immersion into Christ.

“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭7‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/eph.1.7.ESV

We see how it happens here.

“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭13‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/eph.1.13.ESV

We are sealed or immersed in him by the Holy Spirit when we believe. This allows this verse to be true.

“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5‬:‭1‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/1jn.5.1.ESV

If water baptism is a requirement, then nobody has been born of god until they are baptized. That is not what 1 John 5:1 says.
The scripture you reference in no way contradicts the truth, it actually confirms the truth concerning the commands associated with the NT rebirth including the need to be baptized in water in the name of Jesus.
What is the word of truth, the gospel of salvation that is heard, believed, and acted upon that promises the Gift of the Holy Ghost? (Acts 2:38)

If your understanding of 1 John 5:1 is correct then the need to repent, and also be filled with the Holy Spirit are not required. Scripture contradicts this. Consider Matthew 7:23. That group believed that Jesus is the Christ yet Jesus said, I never knew you. What was missing? Immediately after His statement Jesus addresses concepts relative to the laying of different foundations. The book of Hebrews reveals foundational concepts that relate to eternal judgment:

"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Heb 6:1-2

Jesus is the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him. (Heb. 5:9)
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
Sowing seeds of spiritual confusion is definitely not what God had in mind. So who is behind spiritual confusion?
There is no confusion upon acceptance of the evidence provided through the entirety of scriptures relative to water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

My prayer is that people will search the scriptures for themselves and not just rely upon what is being taught. I for one am glad to have been prompted to what was actually expressed in the word.


"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people." Acts 17:11-13
 

JBTN

Active member
Feb 11, 2020
220
79
28
The scripture you reference in no way contradicts the truth, it actually confirms the truth concerning the commands associated with the NT rebirth including the need to be baptized in water in the name of Jesus.
What is the word of truth, the gospel of salvation that is heard, believed, and acted upon that promises the Gift of the Holy Ghost? (Acts 2:38)

If your understanding of 1 John 5:1 is correct then the need to repent, and also be filled with the Holy Spirit are not required. Scripture contradicts this. Consider Matthew 7:23. That group believed that Jesus is the Christ yet Jesus said, I never knew you. What was missing? Immediately after His statement Jesus addresses concepts relative to the laying of different foundations. The book of Hebrews reveals foundational concepts that relate to eternal judgment:

"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Heb 6:1-2

Jesus is the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him. (Heb. 5:9)
If the Greek work metanoia(repent) means to change your mind or think differently, hasn’t someone who comes to believe done that?
 

DJT_47

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2022
1,040
187
63
If the Greek work metanoia(repent) means to change your mind or think differently, hasn’t someone who comes to believe done that?[/QUOT
It not only means that, but can also mean sorrow. Repentance is an ongoing process. The bible says even God repented such as in Genesis 6:6