I would agree with your opinion that water baptism is not a necessary part for one's salvation if scripture evidenced that view. However, scripture expresses the need for everyone to submit to it. Peter introduced it to, and commanded it be done by all; Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans. Even after Cornelius and others received the Holy Spirit Peter commanded they all be water baptized in Jesus' name. (Acts 10:44-48)
Baptism: is it required to be baptized in water?
- Thread starter KelbyofGod
- Start date
-
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.
Acts 10
10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead.
10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
It's pretty obvious that the horse came before the chicken. It is not even insinuated that water baptism had any causal relationship with their salvation.
10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead.
10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
It's pretty obvious that the horse came before the chicken. It is not even insinuated that water baptism had any causal relationship with their salvation.
-
1
- Show all
Why does it seem like you and Mailmandan think I somehow believe Baptism in water has to come before receiving the Holy Ghost??
BTW, according to your definition of baptism, there was zero need for baptism in this set of scriptures. There was no need for these people to make some external proclamation by ritual baptism. The holy ghost itself had already shown up IN these people and proven by the clear witness of speaking in tongues, that God was now living inside them. Was there a need for them to externally proclaim "Hey, we're open to what God has" when the Holy Ghost itself had already VERY clearly proven that? (Nope. none at all)
They'd just been given the baptism in the spirit(born of the spirit) but they still needed to have the other part...baptism in water (born of water) because Jesus said we need both. Peter recognized this and not only said they should... he COMMANDED them to be baptized. Why? because God wants to do TWO things for us. ONE = Give us his Spirit, the Holy Ghost. And TWO = to take away our sins (remission) which is what Baptism accomplishes. It doesn't matter which one comes first, but one is not a replacement for the other. Both are necessary. These Gentiles had indeed received the Holy Ghost and that was NOT a replacement for what baptism in water does.
This next part is actually for everyone whoever reads it, not particularly directed at yourself:
One reason people have a problem grasping this concept is because they've been constantly fed this idea that Christianity is a single-moment event and not a life-long venture. Taking up your cross and following him (a Jesus requirement) isn't a momentary action. Repentance isn't a momentary thing. (You'll likely have to repent MANY times in your life). The Holy Ghost does NOT always come at the moment of belief (if the examples in Acts are trustable). People's faith both waivers and grows. And we are instructed to STRIVE to enter in, NOT to believe something for a moment and then for the rest of our lives say "Wow, I'm glad I got that done and don't need to do anything else". Sometimes a person can believe, and other times they lose faith. BTW, That's why God gives us the Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues...So it can pray the things we aren't able to utter, whether by lack of knowing what to pray, or because of the unbelief we might possess at that instance.
I'll leave more for another post..
Love in Jesus to all who read this,
Kelby
BTW, according to your definition of baptism, there was zero need for baptism in this set of scriptures. There was no need for these people to make some external proclamation by ritual baptism. The holy ghost itself had already shown up IN these people and proven by the clear witness of speaking in tongues, that God was now living inside them. Was there a need for them to externally proclaim "Hey, we're open to what God has" when the Holy Ghost itself had already VERY clearly proven that? (Nope. none at all)
They'd just been given the baptism in the spirit(born of the spirit) but they still needed to have the other part...baptism in water (born of water) because Jesus said we need both. Peter recognized this and not only said they should... he COMMANDED them to be baptized. Why? because God wants to do TWO things for us. ONE = Give us his Spirit, the Holy Ghost. And TWO = to take away our sins (remission) which is what Baptism accomplishes. It doesn't matter which one comes first, but one is not a replacement for the other. Both are necessary. These Gentiles had indeed received the Holy Ghost and that was NOT a replacement for what baptism in water does.
This next part is actually for everyone whoever reads it, not particularly directed at yourself:
One reason people have a problem grasping this concept is because they've been constantly fed this idea that Christianity is a single-moment event and not a life-long venture. Taking up your cross and following him (a Jesus requirement) isn't a momentary action. Repentance isn't a momentary thing. (You'll likely have to repent MANY times in your life). The Holy Ghost does NOT always come at the moment of belief (if the examples in Acts are trustable). People's faith both waivers and grows. And we are instructed to STRIVE to enter in, NOT to believe something for a moment and then for the rest of our lives say "Wow, I'm glad I got that done and don't need to do anything else". Sometimes a person can believe, and other times they lose faith. BTW, That's why God gives us the Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues...So it can pray the things we aren't able to utter, whether by lack of knowing what to pray, or because of the unbelief we might possess at that instance.
I'll leave more for another post..
Love in Jesus to all who read this,
Kelby
-
1
- Show all
I also used to believe that remission came through something we accomplish without anyone else's involvement (specifically mine was belief where some here say repentance) but that falls apart when Jesus is giving what some call "the great commission"...which was commanding the apostles to baptize people.
In one of the gospels he tells them to baptize the people...but in another he is telling them that they hold the power to Remit other people's sins. And if THEY didn't remit them, those sins are NOT remitted for the people to whom Jesus was sending them.
Let me repeat that....Jesus was telling them THEY are going to be the ones who remit the sins of others. John 20:23 KJV
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
You can't "believe" for someone else (it is an internal thing). And you can't "repent" for someone else (because that is also an internal thing). So the disciples couldn't remit someone else's sins by doing the other person's "believing" or "repenting" But they could remit someone else's sins by doing the other person's baptism. In fact that's what Jesus commanded them to do. "Go and baptize".
And yes, I also struggled with that concept when I first read John 20:23. Baptism FOR remission of sins just happens to be the answer.
Love in Jesus.
In one of the gospels he tells them to baptize the people...but in another he is telling them that they hold the power to Remit other people's sins. And if THEY didn't remit them, those sins are NOT remitted for the people to whom Jesus was sending them.
Let me repeat that....Jesus was telling them THEY are going to be the ones who remit the sins of others. John 20:23 KJV
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
You can't "believe" for someone else (it is an internal thing). And you can't "repent" for someone else (because that is also an internal thing). So the disciples couldn't remit someone else's sins by doing the other person's "believing" or "repenting" But they could remit someone else's sins by doing the other person's baptism. In fact that's what Jesus commanded them to do. "Go and baptize".
And yes, I also struggled with that concept when I first read John 20:23. Baptism FOR remission of sins just happens to be the answer.
Love in Jesus.
-
1
- Show all
Telling someone to "Go baptize that person" is effectively the same as telling them to "Go remit their sins" which is also the same as saying "Go wash away their sins".
"Go remit their sins" just seems to convey the NEED for God to be involved a little clearer than the others. A person doesn't remit sins (CAN'T remit sins) on their own authority. God has to be involved or it is nothing more than the disposable ritual some say it is... Which is also why it's important to know that the person baptizing you has truly been sent by God. (Many aren't)
Jesus said that the first person sent to baptize with water (John the baptist) was the greatest prophet to have been born of women. That declaration, and the task John was given are not to be taken lightly.
Seek God out on this. God still speaks.
-Kelby
"Go remit their sins" just seems to convey the NEED for God to be involved a little clearer than the others. A person doesn't remit sins (CAN'T remit sins) on their own authority. God has to be involved or it is nothing more than the disposable ritual some say it is... Which is also why it's important to know that the person baptizing you has truly been sent by God. (Many aren't)
Jesus said that the first person sent to baptize with water (John the baptist) was the greatest prophet to have been born of women. That declaration, and the task John was given are not to be taken lightly.
Seek God out on this. God still speaks.
-Kelby
-
1
- Show all
Why do you suppose Peter refused to neglect administering water baptize to those who had received the Holy Ghost?
Notice Peter's explanation to the Jewish Counsel in Acts 11:17-18:
"Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?"
Peter's own words indicate that he understood that by not administering water baptism to the new believers their sins would not be remitted thus withstanding the purposes of God.
"When they heard these things (the Jewish Counsel), they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."
Notice Peter's explanation to the Jewish Counsel in Acts 11:17-18:
"Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?"
Peter's own words indicate that he understood that by not administering water baptism to the new believers their sins would not be remitted thus withstanding the purposes of God.
"When they heard these things (the Jewish Counsel), they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."