Baptism: is it required to be baptized in water?

[notuptome]

In some respect they are being taught of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but in this context they are actually being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We agree that the word "baptizing" used in Mat 28:19 comes from the Greek baptizo; however, according to Strongs (G0907) and other texts it means: to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: — Baptist, baptize, wash.

It is used in submersion like a sunken ship. To submerge without reemerging. The word most associated with water baptism is bapto which is dipping. Also in Strongs as I'm certain you already know.

Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows
the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. #Mr 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle!
(Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989).

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Magenta]

The question is by no means "moot".

​

It most certainly is. You cannot attain righteousness of yourself aside from Christ, and you do that by putting on His righteousness through faith in His shed blood for the forgiveness of your sins. Or do you think you can? Good luck with that. I'm pretty sure I have wished you luck with that before I think twice is more than enough to get the point across regardless of the fact that you fail to grasp it; maybe somebody else will
​

Matthew 3:15

Yes? I just went into that in detail. Did you miss it?

Regardless of why, there is a proper way to do everything that God

requires

of ​

us

. There is no putting on of His righteousness without our obedience.

Christians are never encouraged to be baptized, they are commanded to be baptized.​

I do not see this command in the list of ten. Where can I find it? Jesus never told anyone to be baptized in any of the gospel accounts. I see Peter commanding it for Cornelius and those with him at that time, because they had already received the saving baptism of the Holy Spirit. I see Jesus commanding His disciples to baptize, though Paul attested to baptizing only two people, and another's household. How many people have you baptized???

I see where Jesus commanded the apostles 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, for to Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins. Nothing about water baptism saving there. Where is the command for us to be water baptized in order to attain salvation?

The idea that baptism is required for justification perpetuates the Jewish notion of salvation through works of the law, which was rejected by the apostles.​

​

 

[notuptome]

I...,

You are almost there. Perhaps a little more study will work.

Baptism is required as the final cleansing step of removing sin.

I suggest you go thru The Bible and list all references. They are convincing.

Wait a minute.... let's don't confuse this issue by bringing facts into it....

Got it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[IAm1]

Jesus never commanded anyone to be baptized, but TO baptize. Since there are those who are saying it is a command to BE baptized, I would like to see where this is specifically articulated, without saying what you have just said, in drawing conclusions from the command that was actually given.

There are many things that can be learned from God's Word that are not articulated, for example the Trinity. The word itself is not mentioned anywhere in scripture, but through study and guidance for the Holy Spirit an understanding, and simple reasoning an understanding can be learned. I could say is the term "Bible" in scripture, if not why do we use that term?

Anyhow, I hope this helps: Acts 10:45-48 NASB: All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Ask yourself, was Peter acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit? If so where did the order come from?

 

[Magenta]

There are many things that can be learned from God's Word that are not articulated, for example the Trinity.

That is not the point. Since it has been claimed that we are COMMANDED to be baptized, I would like to see where this is articulated. Otherwise, I must conclude that people are making things up to bolster their position, which just makes them dishonest. The command was TO baptize. How many have you water baptized? I must admit, I have not water baptized anybody. Nor am I equipped to baptize with the Holy Spirit of God, which is the saving Baptism Jesus administers.

 

[IAm1]

It is used in submersion like a sunken ship. To submerge without reemerging. The word most associated with water baptism is bapto which is dipping. Also in Strongs as I'm certain you already know.

Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows
the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. #Mr 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle!
(Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989).

For the cause of Christ
Roger

In using contextual comparison, the term "baptizing" in Mat. 28:19 to the term "baptized" in Acts 10:47-48, we can learn that the Greek term "baptizo" a derivative of 911 is used for both. In Acts we are told: "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." I'm certain that the water Peter was referring to was not being considered for the use of making pickles, rather for the submersion for the new converts who had been blessed with the Holy Spirit. If anything, Acts 10:47-48 confirmed that the command or commission was being carried out, and it clearly shows the baptism is submersion by water.

 

[IAm1]

That is not the point. Since it has been claimed that we are COMMANDED to be baptized, I would like to see where this is articulated. Otherwise, I must conclude that people are making things up to bolster their position, which just makes them dishonest. The command was TO baptize. How many have you water baptized? I must admit, I have not water baptized anybody. Nor am I equipped to baptize with the Holy Spirit of God, which is the saving Baptism Jesus administers.

Your reasoning would indicate than that in a similar manner you do not believe in the Trinity because it is not articulated in God's Word?

 

[DJ2]

That is not the point. Since it has been claimed that we are COMMANDED to be baptized, I would like to see where this is articulated. Otherwise, I must conclude that people are making things up to bolster their position, which just makes them dishonest. The command was TO baptize. How many have you water baptized? I must admit, I have not water baptized anybody. Nor am I equipped to baptize with the Holy Spirit of God, which is the saving Baptism Jesus administers.

Nor am I equipped to baptize with the Holy Spirit of God, which is the saving Baptism Jesus administers.​

Claims of "Holy Spirit" baptisms are conjecture. Conjecture that is based not on sight but assumed to be valid based on personal interpretation and feelings or emotions. Claims of Holy Spirit baptisms are simply that, "claims" they hold no weight, no matter how sincere the belief.

If we are intellectually honest, we will admit that we cannot prove our individual salvation or Holy Spirit baptism. Those who do claim such proof are basing their claims on esoteric knowledge. I realize this is not a popular stand but nevertheless is factual. We live in an age of faith without sight, an age based on our faith in the unseen and unprovable.

Truly a remarkable age to be in.

 

[Magenta]

Claims of "Holy Spirit" baptisms are conjecture.

Holy Spirit baptism was affirmed in all four gospels, as well as Acts 1:4-5.

 

[IAm1]

Your reasoning would indicate than that in a similar manner you do not believe in the Trinity because it is not articulated in God's Word?

And not everyone is called to baptize: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of it's power" 1 Cor. 1:17.

 

[Magenta]

Your reasoning would indicate than that in a similar manner you do not believe in the Trinity because it is not articulated in God's Word?

Your logic is faulty

 

[IAm1]

Claims of "Holy Spirit" baptisms are conjecture. Conjecture that is based not on sight but assumed to be valid based on personal interpretation and feelings or emotions. Claims of Holy Spirit baptisms are simply that, "claims" they hold no weight, no matter how sincere the belief.

If we are intellectually honest, we will admit that we cannot prove our individual salvation or Holy Spirit baptism. Those who do claim such proof are basing their claims on esoteric knowledge. I realize this is not a popular stand but nevertheless is factual. We live in an age of faith without sight, an age based on our faith in the unseen and unprovable.

Truly a remarkable age to be in.

I'm not certain it would be wise to say they hold no weight, considering the influence Christ has had upon this world, like no other. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but when one consider the conscious state, one might question if our thoughts are our own, or are they given through an unseen state? "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal" 2 Cor. 4:18. And does that unseen state manifest itself through our being? For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" Rom 1:20(NIV).

Just look at the accumulation of traditional and contemporary music, and literature focused on One person; who is Jesus Christ. It would be difficult to say there is not an inner motivating factor (Spirit), and considering that most of the apostles died a horrible death, yet were still highly motivated unto death.​

 

[IAm1]

Your logic is faulty

Thanks...but I'll let God be my judge. I noticed you didn't really answer the question.

 

[DJ2]

It most certainly is. You cannot attain righteousness of yourself aside from Christ, and you do that by putting on His righteousness through faith in His shed blood for the forgiveness of your sins. Or do you think you can? Good luck with that. I'm pretty sure I have wished you luck with that before I think twice is more than enough to get the point across regardless of the fact that you fail to grasp it; maybe somebody else will
​

Yes? I just went into that in detail. Did you miss it?


I do not see this command in the list of ten. Where can I find it? Jesus never told anyone to be baptized in any of the gospel accounts. I see Peter commanding it for Cornelius and those with him at that time, because they had already received the saving baptism of the Holy Spirit. I see Jesus commanding His disciples to baptize, though Paul attested to baptizing only two people, and another's household. How many people have you baptized???

I see where Jesus commanded the apostles 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, for to Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins. Nothing about water baptism saving there. Where is the command for us to be water baptized in order to attain salvation?

The idea that baptism is required for justification perpetuates the Jewish notion of salvation through works of the law, which was rejected by the apostles.​

​

I see Peter commanding it for Cornelius and those with him at that time, because they had already received the saving baptism of the Holy Spirit.

This is a great example of your reasoning. The Bible does not say they were saved, just that they were speaking in tongues by the power of the Holy Spirit, such as what had happened to the Jews who were with Peter. If you believe in faith alone regeneration theology and that those of Cornelius' household were saved then you must believe that they all came to the point of saving belief (whatever that point is) at the same time.

Chances are, Peter realized that God wanted these Gentiles to be accepted as candidates for the remission of sins by water baptism. The same as he proclaimed to the Jews in Acts 2:38.

The idea that faith alone is required for salvation perpetuates the New Age notion of salvation through easy believism, which was rejected by the apostles.

 

[Magenta]

Thanks...but I'll let God be my judge. I noticed you didn't really answer the question.

It seems you failed to grasp that my answer indicated that you are wrong, and if you cannot deduce from that that I accept the Deity of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Trinity, which attempts to explain to our limited finite minds how God reveals Himself to us personally, then I do not know what else to say to you, aside from the fact that you claim God will be your judge while you give yourself permission to judge me, which, quite frankly, comes across as being hypocritical.

 

[Magenta]

This is a great example of your reasoning. The Bible does not say they were saved, just that they were speaking in tongues by the power of the Holy Spirit, such as what had happened to the Jews who were with Peter.

Let me know when you find the command to be baptized.

Shame on you for saying that claims of Holy Spirit baptism are conjecture.

 

[DJ2]

Let me know when you find the command to be baptized.

Shame on you for saying that claims of Holy Spirit baptism are conjecture.

Peter commanded (not encouraged) water baptism in Acts 2:38.

What is so shameful about personal claims of Holy Spirit baptisms being conjecture? Are they not based on conjecture? Please look up the meaning of conjecture before answering.

 

[notuptome]

In using contextual comparison, the term "baptizing" in Mat. 28:19 to the term "baptized" in Acts 10:47-48, we can learn that the Greek term "baptizo" a derivative of 911 is used for both. In Acts we are told: "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." I'm certain that the water Peter was referring to was not being considered for the use of making pickles, rather for the submersion for the new converts who had been blessed with the Holy Spirit. If anything, Acts 10:47-48 confirmed that the command or commission was being carried out, and it clearly shows the baptism is submersion by water.

Contextually Acts 10:47-48 are clearly water baptism since we can see that these were already Holy Spirit baptized. One can only be baptized one time in the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. The context does not allow us to use these verses for a pretext to make water baptism necessary or essential for salvation. Obedience is not a salvation matter but one of sanctification.

These Gentiles had already given evidence of the Holy Spirit having spoken in tongues so the circumcision could not argue their conversion. The water baptism then would be wholly symbolic and of not consequence in their salvation. Water baptism was a matter of witness and testimony for Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[DJ2]

I'm not certain it would be wise to say they hold no weight, considering the influence Christ has had upon this world, like no other. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but when one consider the conscious state, one might question if our thoughts are our own, or are they given through an unseen state? "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal" 2 Cor. 4:18. And does that unseen state manifest itself through our being? For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" Rom 1:20(NIV).

Just look at the accumulation of traditional and contemporary music, and literature focused on One person; who is Jesus Christ. It would be difficult to say there is not an inner motivating factor (Spirit), and considering that most of the apostles died a horrible death, yet were still highly motivated unto death.​

Not sure how your reply proves personal claims of Holy Spirit baptism are valid?

 

[DJ2]

Contextually Acts 10:47-48 are clearly water baptism since we can see that these were already Holy Spirit baptized. One can only be baptized one time in the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. The context does not allow us to use these verses for a pretext to make water baptism necessary or essential for salvation. Obedience is not a salvation matter but one of sanctification.

These Gentiles had already given evidence of the Holy Spirit having spoken in tongues so the circumcision could not argue their conversion. The water baptism then would be wholly symbolic and of not consequence in their salvation. Water baptism was a matter of witness and testimony for Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

These Gentiles had already given evidence of the Holy Spirit having spoken in tongues so the circumcision could not argue their conversion​

Where in the verbiage of these two verses does it say they were converted/saved before they were baptized?