Did the apostles teach baptism?

  • 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.

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,571
13,548
113
58
In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”

In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.

*Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism.

In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit. See the connection?
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,369
113
i'm going to take this as an evasive way of saying "yes" to the simple question of whether you believe the Bible is corrupt & untrustworthy.

i disagree; i believe the scripture.

thanks
I understand you're incapable of keeping to an actual discussion wherein you read the persons words as written and don't corrupt them with your tainted darkness rewrite.
Then have the nerve to charge that person whose words you corrupted to then account for having "said them". That's your burden and deep entrenched sin. Deal with it.
Don't share your corruption with me. I never said what your imparting in that reply above. Never have!

YOU SAID IT! And that speaks of and to your heart and that of your ally that :).
And it absolutely proves the last of your remarks due to your conduct are a falsity.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Or he could mean exactly what Peter meant when he said get up and be baptized and wash your sins away.
No hoops had to jumped through no wrangling with words necessary, and no insertion of metaphors into a literal explanation.
He could have
but if this is the case one would have expected Jesus to say so when he told him how to be born again

John 3:14–18 (NKJV): And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

As you can see here. Not one mention of baptism anywhere

The only thing requires us faith

As they had faith to look up to the serpent we who look up to the Christ who was lifted up will have eternal life

Who who believes is not condemned. He who does not believe etc etc

No word of baptism. So how one could see baptism in water I just can not explain if it is that important Jesus left it out
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
I would rather read the scriptures for what they say than try to wrangle words and dig for hidden meaning. Yeah I know that there are allegorical statements, and poetry, and apocalyptic language throughout the Bible, but the context makes that clear so when you come to it, it's actually quite easy to recognize.
Not sure who your talking to. But I pray your not taking about John 3. Is it is cut and dry. Jesus did not say the word baptize for a reason
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
The only problem here is, why would Jesus tell Nicodemus, a man well steeped in the scriptures, that he needed to be born of the word and of the spirit? It just don't contextually hold water.
Why would he tell him to be baptized. That does not hold water either. As baptism was not even commanded yet
What do you think Nicodemus thought when Jesus said that which is born of flesh is flesh?
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,369
113
Or he could mean exactly what Peter meant when he said get up and be baptized and wash your sins away.
No hoops had to jumped through no wrangling with words necessary, and no insertion of metaphors into a literal explanation.
We're told even Satan can quote scripture. He's the deceiver, the liar, the antithesis of God's righteousness, the adversary of the Gospel truth.
Don't discount that there is a force in this world that wants to warp the actual message of salvation by denying all parts of it on an individual basis so as to make the whole of none effect.
Satan didn't fall from Heaven alone. One third of the angels were cast down with him. And we know Satan has his allies on earth who act in human form.
That's why we're told to test the spirits.
1 John 4:1.Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,369
113
B

Blackpowderduelist

Guest
According to John chapter 3 even if he didn't actually baptise a single person he presided over disciples and directed them to do so, or there would have been a correction from Jesus. Contextually speaking there were quite a few because the pharisees were keeping count.
So it looks like baptism is sanctioned by Jesus and a prerequisite to discipleship.
 
B

Blackpowderduelist

Guest
Jesus was training them to do what would be his last directive before he left
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Different kinds of Baptism surely. However, in John 3 Jesus did Baptize. 22 After this,[au] Jesus and his disciples came into Judean territory, and there he spent time with them and was baptizing.

What is the reason to ignore that?
Because it once in Jesus discussion with Nicodemus did he mention baptism
What he did mention is Moses lifting the serpent where was baptism
In that OT reference? Because he made it clear. As that serpent was raised so
Must he be raised. That whoever believes has life (born again)

Your trying to add baptism where it can not be added. Jesus left the word out for a reason
We're told even Satan can quote scripture. He's the deceiver, the liar, the antithesis of God's righteousness, the adversary of the Gospel truth.
Don't discount that there is a force in this world that wants to warp the actual message of salvation by denying all parts of it on an individual basis so as to make the whole of none effect.
Satan didn't fall from Heaven alone. One third of the angels were cast down with him. And we know Satan has his allies on earth who act in human form.
That's why we're told to test the spirits.
1 John 4:1.Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
that sad pet us you assume your not doing this

Your pride and remarks like this just destroy your trustability
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
According to John chapter 3 even if he didn't actually baptise a single person he presided over disciples and directed them to do so, or there would have been a correction from Jesus. Contextually speaking there were quite a few because the pharisees were keeping count.
So it looks like baptism is sanctioned by Jesus and a prerequisite to discipleship.
It does not matter
he did not tell Nicodemus to be baptized. Or that the process of being given life (born again) required baptism

Why have neither if you responded to Jesus words on lifting the serpent. And how we recieve life by belief?

Jesus commanded water baptism. No one here is arguing against it. I was water baptized as commanded after I was saved
 

JBTN

Active member
Feb 11, 2020
220
79
28
Note: to be baptized with (is to be filled with or receive) the Holy Ghost, which was a promise, not a command (Acts 2:38). However, the baptism administered by the apostles was a command (Acts 10:47). The baptism with the Holy Spirit was not for all people, but only those who were obedient (Acts 5:32).
You can be baptized and still not receive the Holy Ghost. The act of water baptism can be performed but all of the Acts 2:38 conditions must be met in order to receive the Holy Ghost.
“The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:6-9‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/59/act.15.6-9.esv

Doesn’t this passage show that the elders present received the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the Apostles and the house of Cornelius? It says no distinction was made between any of them.

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭11:15-17‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/59/act.11.15-17.esv

In this passage “us” and “we” refer back to the circumcision party. Also, here we see that the Holy Spirit was received upon belief by the circumcision party and the house of Cornelius.

Is there any other way to see this?
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,369
113
“The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:6-9‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/59/act.15.6-9.esv

Doesn’t this passage show that the elders present received the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the Apostles and the house of Cornelius? It says no distinction was made between any of them.

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭11:15-17‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/59/act.11.15-17.esv

In this passage “us” and “we” refer back to the circumcision party. Also, here we see that the Holy Spirit was received upon belief by the circumcision party and the house of Cornelius.

Is there any other way to see this?
I would submit yes, there is. Firstly, in proper context of the whole of the chapter you first excerpt from in Acts 15 I believe we have to first consider that contrary to your order of posting scripture, Acts 11 events led to the Acts 15 debate. Acts 13 & 14 would also however, 11 is pertinent to the matter of Peter and his teachings.

In this way we learn of a debate and the factors present at the JC.
I think we should consider what is the Jerusalem Council in order to understand the context of the entire debate. Would you agree?
First I think we should inform readers who may not know what the Jerusalem Council was, as pertains to Acts 15.
Jerusalem Council
When the early Christians met in Jerusalem, the leaders still saw themselves as full-fledged Jews. Thus the meeting was about whether or not Gentiles needed to follow Jewish religious law, including circumcision, dietary codes.

In addition, Jews were also not sure if they could eat at the same table as their new Gentile brethren – observant Jews did not eat with Gentiles because by definition Gentiles were unclean, according to the Law of Moses. Peter and Paul are at each other's throats – seemingly because of James' opinion on this issue. Paul, the new kid, took Peter to task over the issue of Jews sharing table fellowship – eating a meal – with Gentiles.

Then we may wish to consider Acts 11 precedes the gathering of the council and their debate as described in Acts 15.
With regard to your question then, I think the best answer is surmised in the Footnote of Acts 11.
  1. Acts 11:17 tn Or “gave us when we believed”; or “gave us after we believed”; or “gave us who believed”; or “gave them when they believed the same gift as he also gave us.” The aorist dative plural participle πιστεύσασιν (pisteusasin) can be understood in several different ways: (1) It could modify ἡμῖν (hēmin, “us”) or αὐτοῖς (autois, “them”). Proximity (it immediately follows ἡμῖν) would suggest that it belongs with ἡμῖν, so the last option (“gave them when they believed the same gift he also gave us”) is less likely. (2) The participle could be either adverbial or adjectival, modifying ἡμῖν. This decision is primarily a contextual one. The point Peter made is not whether or not the Gentiles believed, since both groups (“us” and “they”) had believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. The point was whether or not the Gentiles received the Spirit when they believed, just as Jewish Christians had received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost when they believed. Translated as an adjectival participle, πιστεύσασιν only affirms the fact of belief, however, and raises somewhat of a theological problem if one realizes, “Would God have given the Gentiles the Spirit if they had not believed?” (In other words, belief in itself is a theological prerequisite for receiving the Spirit. As such, in the case of the Gentiles, it is assumed.) Thus in context it makes more sense to understand the participle πιστεύσασιν as adverbial, related to the time of belief in connection with the giving of the Spirit. (3) The participle πιστεύσασιν as a temporal participle can refer to action antecedent to the action of the main verb ἔδωκεν (edōken) or contemporaneous with it. Logically, at least, the gift of the Spirit followed belief in the case of the original Christians, who had believed before the day of Pentecost. In the case of Cornelius and his household, belief and the reception of the Spirit were virtually simultaneous. One can argue that Peter is “summarizing” the experience of Jewish Christians, and therefore the actions of belief and reception of the Spirit, while historically separate, have been “telescoped” into one (“gave them the same gift as he gave us when we believed”), but to be technically accurate the participle πιστεύσασιν should be translated “gave them the same gift as he also gave us after we believed.” A number of these problems can be avoided, however, by using a translation in English that maintains some of the ambiguity of the Greek original. Thus “if God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing” is used, where the phrase “after believing” can refer either to “them” or to “us,” or both.


Therein, while Acts 15 covers a number of matters debated or at issue between Jewish faithful to Christ and Gentile believers, Gentiles referring to all non-Jews, then we can presume those who believe received the holy spirit regardless of their being a Jew or Gentile.
I think that would be applicable given what Paul said in Galatians 3. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

And all that is predated if you will by God's plan as described in John 3: 16 For this is the way[a] God loved the world: He gave his one and only[b] Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish[c] but have eternal life.[d]
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,369
113
According to John chapter 3 even if he didn't actually baptise a single person he presided over disciples and directed them to do so, or there would have been a correction from Jesus. Contextually speaking there were quite a few because the pharisees were keeping count.
So it looks like baptism is sanctioned by Jesus and a prerequisite to discipleship.
I can't say Jesus didn't baptize a single person in John 3. 22 After this,[au] Jesus and his disciples came into Judean territory, and there he spent time with them and was baptizing.

I like where you go with your explanation after that though. And would ask you to consider the question, how best would Jesus have instructed or directed his disciples to baptize? By word alone, or by example?

I am adding this after writing what is above. And speaking of by example, when did Jesus receive the holy spirit?
After his baptism by John. John 1
 

JBTN

Active member
Feb 11, 2020
220
79
28
I would submit yes, there is. Firstly, in proper context of the whole of the chapter you first excerpt from in Acts 15 I believe we have to first consider that contrary to your order of posting scripture, Acts 11 events led to the Acts 15 debate. Acts 13 & 14 would also however, 11 is pertinent to the matter of Peter and his teachings.

In this way we learn of a debate and the factors present at the JC.
I think we should consider what is the Jerusalem Council in order to understand the context of the entire debate. Would you agree?
First I think we should inform readers who may not know what the Jerusalem Council was, as pertains to Acts 15.
Jerusalem Council
When the early Christians met in Jerusalem, the leaders still saw themselves as full-fledged Jews. Thus the meeting was about whether or not Gentiles needed to follow Jewish religious law, including circumcision, dietary codes.

In addition, Jews were also not sure if they could eat at the same table as their new Gentile brethren – observant Jews did not eat with Gentiles because by definition Gentiles were unclean, according to the Law of Moses. Peter and Paul are at each other's throats – seemingly because of James' opinion on this issue. Paul, the new kid, took Peter to task over the issue of Jews sharing table fellowship – eating a meal – with Gentiles.

Then we may wish to consider Acts 11 precedes the gathering of the council and their debate as described in Acts 15.
With regard to your question then, I think the best answer is surmised in the Footnote of Acts 11.
  1. Acts 11:17 tn Or “gave us when we believed”; or “gave us after we believed”; or “gave us who believed”; or “gave them when they believed the same gift as he also gave us.” The aorist dative plural participle πιστεύσασιν (pisteusasin) can be understood in several different ways: (1) It could modify ἡμῖν (hēmin, “us”) or αὐτοῖς (autois, “them”). Proximity (it immediately follows ἡμῖν) would suggest that it belongs with ἡμῖν, so the last option (“gave them when they believed the same gift he also gave us”) is less likely. (2) The participle could be either adverbial or adjectival, modifying ἡμῖν. This decision is primarily a contextual one. The point Peter made is not whether or not the Gentiles believed, since both groups (“us” and “they”) had believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. The point was whether or not the Gentiles received the Spirit when they believed, just as Jewish Christians had received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost when they believed. Translated as an adjectival participle, πιστεύσασιν only affirms the fact of belief, however, and raises somewhat of a theological problem if one realizes, “Would God have given the Gentiles the Spirit if they had not believed?” (In other words, belief in itself is a theological prerequisite for receiving the Spirit. As such, in the case of the Gentiles, it is assumed.) Thus in context it makes more sense to understand the participle πιστεύσασιν as adverbial, related to the time of belief in connection with the giving of the Spirit. (3) The participle πιστεύσασιν as a temporal participle can refer to action antecedent to the action of the main verb ἔδωκεν (edōken) or contemporaneous with it. Logically, at least, the gift of the Spirit followed belief in the case of the original Christians, who had believed before the day of Pentecost. In the case of Cornelius and his household, belief and the reception of the Spirit were virtually simultaneous. One can argue that Peter is “summarizing” the experience of Jewish Christians, and therefore the actions of belief and reception of the Spirit, while historically separate, have been “telescoped” into one (“gave them the same gift as he gave us when we believed”), but to be technically accurate the participle πιστεύσασιν should be translated “gave them the same gift as he also gave us after we believed.” A number of these problems can be avoided, however, by using a translation in English that maintains some of the ambiguity of the Greek original. Thus “if God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing” is used, where the phrase “after believing” can refer either to “them” or to “us,” or both.


Therein, while Acts 15 covers a number of matters debated or at issue between Jewish faithful to Christ and Gentile believers, Gentiles referring to all non-Jews, then we can presume those who believe received the holy spirit regardless of their being a Jew or Gentile.
I think that would be applicable given what Paul said in Galatians 3. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

And all that is predated if you will by God's plan as described in John 3: 16 For this is the way[a] God loved the world: He gave his one and only[b] Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish[c] but have eternal life.[d]
Would you agree then that the Elders in Acts 15 received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism Since there was no distinction between them, the Apostles, and Cornelius.

And also in Acts 11 those of the party of the circumcision to whom Peter was speaking received the Holy Spirit without baptism.

Doesn’t the same hold true in Acts 10 for the 6 who accompanied Peter as well.
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,369
113
Would you agree then that the Elders in Acts 15 received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism Since there was no distinction between them, the Apostles, and Cornelius.

And also in Acts 11 those of the party of the circumcision to whom Peter was speaking received the Holy Spirit without baptism.

Doesn’t the same hold true in Acts 10 for the 6 who accompanied Peter as well.
There are different kinds of baptism in scripture. Are you aware?
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,369
113
There are different kinds of baptism in scripture. Are you aware?
This didn't post to that post so here it is. The elders were of the church as pertains to the narrative in Acts itself.

The Response to Peter’s Address
Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this,[bz] they were acutely distressed[ca] and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized[cb] in the name of Jesus Christ[cc] for[cd] the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[ce] 39 For the promise[cf] is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” 40 With many other words he testified[cg] and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse[ch] generation!” 41 So those who accepted[ci] his message[cj] were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people[ck] were added.[cl]