Did the apostles teach baptism?

[Corban]

Mark would fully understand being immersed into the body by the Holy Spirit at the time of writing Mark ( his mini summary of Acts in 16 towards the end. ) Thats why the later part of 16.16 - says but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Yes. Mark did accompany Paul and would have been privy to the revelation of the Church as the Body of Christ. I understand Mark 16:16 as water because of five other references to what Water Baptism does, and because of John 3:3-5 and 1st Corinthians 10. The main meaning of water immersion is the killing and burying of the old and unworthy flesh and the conscience. The immersion into the Holy Spirit is not to be saved, but to empower one for the ministry (Lk.24:49, Act.1:8). Here are the five:

1. It is given to all God's people to pass through a flood to leave the old behind - Noah, Abraham, Israel and the Church (Josh.24:2, 14)
2. It is the replacement for circumcision because we have been made seed of Abraham and heirs to the Promise (Gal.3:29, Col.2:10-12)
3. It is the burying of the old man of sin (Rom.6:1-5)
4. It is to clear the conscience (1st Pet.3:21)
5. It is so that we are like Christ in resurrection (Rom.6:5)

All of these "save" us from the effects of the old man and usher us into the new. John 3:5 must be water. If we give the "Spirit" a literal meaning we must also, within the same thought, accord "water" a literal meaning. This harmonizes with Colossians 2:10-12 where we cannot inherit the earth without circumcision, as per Covenant (see point 2 above).

Of course, I do not believe that Baptism has anything to do with the effects of rebirth. The Bible does not entertain any thoughts of rebirth by any other method than the Holy Spirit. Israel are already "sons" of Abraham when they cross the Red Sea and Jordan. We are "sons" of God already when we are immersed in water.

And also of course, the matter is deeper than my few lines here. The grand type of Baptism is the Laver of the Tabernacle and/or the Temple. It's purpose and situation in the outer court reveal much.

I am aware that this matter of Baptism is complicated, and appreciate that you might have some differences. That why we discuss here.

 

[throughfaith]

Yes. Mark did accompany Paul and would have been privy to the revelation of the Church as the Body of Christ. I understand Mark 16:16 as water because of five other references to what Water Baptism does, and because of John 3:3-5 and 1st Corinthians 10. The main meaning of water immersion is the killing and burying of the old and unworthy flesh and the conscience. The immersion into the Holy Spirit is not to be saved, but to empower one for the ministry (Lk.24:49, Act.1:8). Here are the five:

1. It is given to all God's people to pass through a flood to leave the old behind - Noah, Abraham, Israel and the Church (Josh.24:2, 14)
2. It is the replacement for circumcision because we have been made seed of Abraham and heirs to the Promise (Gal.3:29, Col.2:10-12)
3. It is the burying of the old man of sin (Rom.6:1-5)
4. It is to clear the conscience (1st Pet.3:21)
5. It is so that we are like Christ in resurrection (Rom.6:5)

All of these "save" us from the effects of the old man and usher us into the new. John 3:5 must be water. If we give the "Spirit" a literal meaning we must also, within the same thought, accord "water" a literal meaning. This harmonizes with Colossians 2:10-12 where we cannot inherit the earth without circumcision, as per Covenant (see point 2 above).

Of course, I do not believe that Baptism has anything to do with the effects of rebirth. The Bible does not entertain any thoughts of rebirth by any other method than the Holy Spirit. Israel are already "sons" of Abraham when they cross the Red Sea and Jordan. We are "sons" of God already when we are immersed in water.

And also of course, the matter is deeper than my few lines here. The grand type of Baptism is the Laver of the Tabernacle and/or the Temple. It's purpose and situation in the outer court reveal much.

I am aware that this matter of Baptism is complicated, and appreciate that you might have some differences. That why we discuss here.

But from Mark s perspective and the context of the ending of Mark ( I see it as a mini summary of Acts ) what makes you see Hes talking about water in 16 16 ? I can see that if someone is not baptised by the Holy Spirit he will not be saved. So Mark ,as he has already seen the giving of the Holy Spirit to Jews AND gentiles , would confirm ' believe and recieve the Holy Spirit to be saved . Of course without believing there is no receiving.
This makes more sense than ' He who believes and is ' water baptised will be saved ' and then the but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

[soggykitten]

All these pages of back and forth and the OP SN answers the question. Mark 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

BTW, Jesus' ministry began in the Book of Mark. And it is in Mark that we learn of Jesus baptism by John the Baptist. Are there really arguments concerning the import of Baptism to Salvation?

Any questions? If so, read all of John 3.
There's your answer.

 

[Magenta]

I hope they were not baptised with fire?

Yup . The Fire was not fire but ' as of fire ' in Acts 2

Did John the Baptist lie, then? (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16)

Or do you simply disbelieve him?

 

[soggykitten]

Did John the Baptist lie, then?

Maybe take into consideration he was referring to the same thing as is in Acts.
The ministry of John the Baptist Matthew 3:11 “I baptize you with water, for repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am—I am not worthy[p] to carry his sandals!
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.[q]

FOOTNOTE
[q]sn With the Holy Spirit and fire. There are differing interpretations for this phrase regarding the number of baptisms and their nature. (1) Some see one baptism here, and this can be divided further into two options. (a) The baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire could refer to the cleansing, purifying work of the Spirit in the individual believer through salvation and sanctification, or (b) it could refer to two different results of Christ’s ministry: Some accept Christ and are baptized with the Holy Spirit, but some reject him and receive judgment. (2) Other interpreters see two baptisms here: The baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to the salvation Jesus brings at his first advent, in which believers receive the Holy Spirit, and the baptism of fire refers to the judgment Jesus will bring upon the world at his second coming. One must take into account both the image of fire and whether individual or corporate baptism is in view. A decision is not easy on either issue. The image of fire is used to refer to both eternal judgment (e.g., Matt 25:41) and the power of the Lord’s presence to purge and cleanse his people (e.g., Isa 4:4-5). The pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost, a fulfillment of this prophecy no matter which interpretation is taken, had both individual and corporate dimensions. It is possible that since Holy Spirit and fire are governed by a single preposition in Greek, the one-baptism view may be more likely, but this is not certain. Simply put, there is no consensus view in scholarship at this time on the best interpretation of this passage.



The Holy Spirit and the Day of Pentecost
Acts 2 Now[a] when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly[b] a sound[c] like a violent wind blowing[d] came from heaven[e] and filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And tongues spreading out like a fire[f] appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. 4 All[g] of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages[h] as the Spirit enabled them.[i]


FOOTNOTE
tn Or “And divided tongues as of fire.” The precise meaning of διαμερίζομαι (diamerizomai) in Acts 2:3 is difficult to determine. The meaning could be “tongues as of fire dividing up one to each person,” but it is also possible that the individual tongues of fire were divided (“And divided tongues as of fire appeared”). The translation adopted in the text (“tongues spreading out like a fire”) attempts to be somewhat ambiguous.


Hebrews 12: 29 For our God is indeed a devouring fire.[aj]
FOOTNOTE
[aj] A quotation from Deut 4:24; 9:3.

They were baptized/anointed by fire=God.

 

[oyster67]

Are there really arguments concerning the import of Baptism to Salvation?

There are definitely no arguments to link water baptism with becoming born again.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:

It is this second kind of baptism that we must seek.

 

[soggykitten]

There are definitely no arguments to link water baptism with becoming born again.

I'm not going to belabor the point. John 3 proves you wrong.

When you are wrong there and attempt to impart there is a different kind of baptism that saves, you're still wrong.
It is as simple as that.

 

[oyster67]

I'm not going to belabor the point. John 3 proves you wrong.

What part of John 3 proves me wrong?

 

[Scribe]

I'm with ya.
Because Jesus said go into all the world make disciples and baptise them, but the Bible left out the part where he said just joking, go see if you can illicit a decision for me and you know make up some repeat after me follow the bouncing ball prayer that will be good enough. I mean I'm going to suffer a horrific tormenting death as will you 12 but let's not take all this stuff too seriously.

"repeat after me follow the bouncing ball prayer"
I've always wondered about it since there is no example of it in scripture but I personally prayed a few of those at the bottom of several Gospel tracts left laying around in a jail cell when I first started my journey, so I understand that they are effective when they help people confess faith in Christ and believe that they have received what the bible promises as a result.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

I'm not going to belabor the point. John 3 proves you wrong.

When you are wrong there and attempt to impart there is a different kind of baptism that saves, you're still wrong.
It is as simple as that.

Meh he is daft. Consider his statement that you quoted. Really, " no scripture links water baptism with salvation" except literally dozens of scriptures, 2000 thousand of years of church history until the emergence of charismaticism we know as Pentecostalism in the late 1800s. Now suddenly baptism is waterless.

 

[soggykitten]

What part of John 3 proves me wrong?

No, I'm not playing that game. I've posted John 3. When I post a scripture, I link to the whole chapter wherein it is contained. This way context is achieved.
As I've said, believe as you will. In the end one of us will be told we were wrong. And by the one who wrote the book.
I read what is there. I don't circumvent God's teaching in order to interject my own preference.
Anyone who claims Baptism has not a thing to do with Salvation, in my view, is ignorant of true scripture. However, when the scripture is linked for them to read for themselves and they insist still that Baptism has not a thing to do with being reborn, or Salvation, then in my view they're intending to mislead the Christians here who may be new and unaware. Or, they're just keen on blasphemy as a hobby.

I've read far too many in far too many Christian dedicated forums that insist on wrong doctrine to the point they're ridiculous. There's an agenda there and it is dark.
This is my point. If someone disagrees with God's own words , what chance does a mortal who understands them have of changing that mind?
If that mind was open to truth they wouldn't argue against God's plan Jesus died to seal.

And that's all I have to say.

 

[soggykitten]

Meh he is daft. Consider his statement that you quoted. Really, " no scripture links water baptism with salvation" except literally dozens of scriptures, 2000 thousand of years of church history until the emergence of charismaticism we know as Pentecostalism in the late 1800s. Now suddenly baptism is waterless.

This is why we're told to not believe everyone but to test the spirits.
1 John 4:
Testing the Spirits
1. Dear friends, do not believe every spirit,[a] but test[b] the spirits[c] to determine[d] if they are from God, because many false prophets[e] have gone out into the world. 2 By this[f] you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses[g] Jesus as the Christ[h] who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but[i] every spirit that refuses to confess[j] Jesus,[k] that spirit[l] is not from God, and this is the spirit[m] of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

4 You are from God, little children, and have conquered them,[n] because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world’s perspective and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God; the person who knows God listens to us, but[o] whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this[p] we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.[q]

1. 1 John 4:1 sn 1 John 4:1-6. These verses form one of three units within 1 John that almost all interpreters consider a single unit and do not divide up (the other two are 2:12-14 and 15-17). The subject matter is so clearly different from the surrounding context that these clearly constitute separate units of thought. Since the Holy Spirit is not the only spirit active in the world, the author needs to qualify for the recipients how to tell if a spirit comes from God. The “test” is the confession in 4:2.

 

[oyster67]

No, I'm not playing that game. I've posted John 3. When I post a scripture, I link to the whole chapter wherein it is contained. This way context is achieved.
As I've said, believe as you will. In the end one of us will be told we were wrong. And by the one who wrote the book.
I read what is there. I don't circumvent God's teaching in order to interject my own preference.
Anyone who claims Baptism has not a thing to do with Salvation, in my view, is ignorant of true scripture. However, when the scripture is linked for them to read for themselves and they insist still that Baptism has not a thing to do with being reborn, or Salvation, then in my view they're intending to mislead the Christians here who may be new and unaware. Or, they're just keen on blasphemy as a hobby.

I've read far too many in far too many Christian dedicated forums that insist on wrong doctrine to the point they're ridiculous. There's an agenda there and it is dark.
This is my point. If someone disagrees with God's own words , what chance does a mortal who understands them have of changing that mind?
If that mind was open to truth they wouldn't argue against God's plan Jesus died to seal.

And that's all I have to say.

Sorry, I did not mean to frustrate you, but is nothing in John 3 to support you.

 

[Magenta]

Sorry, I did not mean to frustrate you, but is nothing in John 3 to support you.

I agree. Baptism in John 3 is referred to as a ceremonial washing.

Compare to earlier in same chapter where Jesus speaks of the necessity of being born again of the Spirit.

 

[Magenta]

Maybe take into consideration he was referring to the same thing as is in Acts.

Do you assume I have not?

I question his tone of mockery.

It is unbefitting.

 

[soggykitten]

Do you assume I have not?

I question his tone of mockery.

It is unbefitting.

Apologies, I should have been more clear. When I said perhaps he was referring to that which is contained in Acts 2 I was referring to John the Baptist. Not our member. Sorry for the confusion. I should have made note of that while adding those passages in comparison.

 

[soggykitten]

I agree. Baptism in John 3 is referred to as a ceremonial washing.

No, the word used is Baptism.
Understanding The Hebrew Mikveh vs Baptism - RYM COVENANT

Compare to earlier in same chapter where Jesus speaks of the necessity of being born again of the Spirit.

Of water and the spirit. Not by spirit alone.

 

[soggykitten]

Sorry, I did not mean to frustrate you, but is nothing in John 3 to support you.

You're false. And that indeed is all I have to say.

 

[Magenta]

Apologies, I should have been more clear. When I said perhaps he was referring to that which is contained in Acts 2 I was referring to John the Baptist. Not our member. Sorry for the confusion. I should have made note of that while adding those passages in comparison.

I knew what you were talking about

 

[Magenta]

No, the word used is Baptism.
Understanding The Hebrew Mikveh vs Baptism - RYM COVENANT

Of water and the spirit. Not by spirit alone.

Baptism in John 3 is referred to as ceremonial cleansing, while earlier in the same chapter Jesus speaks of the necessity of being born again. Being born of the Spirit is stated more often than being born of water, four times to one, in this one paragraph. See? 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”