My take on water baptism...

Not seeing that connection at all. It is a baptism of repentance and that is all it is. It is also a testimony of faith that you identify that Jesus was buried and raised for you personally and you believe that your sins are washed away and that you are going to walk in newness of life living for Him. It is that simple. You don't need to know anything about priests or their history. That is esoteric nonsense.

Ceremonial washings in the priesthood like washing their hands and arms etc before they did their service is not connected to the baptism in the river that John began. The levitical priests washings were not the same. The people that flocked by the multitudes to hear John heard him explain that it was for repentance and washing away sins in preparation for the messiah. That is what John preached and that is what they understood. He told them what it was about and they believed it thinking that he was a prophet, which he was and they listened to him and the teachings on repentance that is recorded that he gave. He told them what they should do in turning from sin specifically telling them things like not exacting more taxes than is due, telling the soldiers not to be corrupt, and all sorts of details like that, and preached about the coming messiah that would baptize them in the Holy Ghost and fire. Jesus came and his disciples continued preaching the same message Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Jesus preached the same message. Then Jesus sent his disciples to go into all the world and preach the same message. What Jesus taught the 12 to do was the same thing they were commissioned to do after his resurrection. However on the day of Pentecost they were baptized in the Holy Ghost empowered with the Holy Spirit gifts for ministry and yet still they baptized the three thousand converts that day in water, still preaching that believers are to be baptized. Baptism of repentance must not be skipped or it will result in half baked commitments that the devil will easily come along and snatch out of their hearts like seed on the wayside. WE are the ones that NEED the ceremonial baptism to help our FAITH. It is and ACT of FAITH not a work of the flesh. It is a blinded heart that cannot see that. We should be increasing baptisms today, if we would be doing what Jesus expects us to be busy doing in the light of His soon return.
Whenever I eventually plant a church or start pastoring one it is my heart to have baptism every Sunday morning during the worship time and video it on the big screen while people are singing. No other fan fare than that and hopefully there will be a candidate who has committed to Christ from a previous service who wants to get baptized so that every Sunday there will be new ones being buried with him and raised to newness of life by FAITH. How Exciting would that BE???

Anomaly is the paradigm I operate under. It's my new normal or abnormal as is the case.

i understand that the laver in the the temple court wasn't for immersion - but it does seem natural to suspect a connection between the things in the law requiring a person to be submerged in water, which is different than just dipping ones feet or arms, or being sprinkled. so i am wondering what then the NT complement of something like this is:


how is this speaking of Christ, and does it have anything to do with the immersion in the NT, whether of John or of the Apostles?

actually more pertinent to the thread, particularly the question that @Guojing has been asking, is what is the NT complement of the next verse --

((not that vv. 15 & 16 are really separate things))
interesting that this is speaking of immersion in water, and washing of garments, tho we have Christ washing feet, telling Peter that if He does wash them, Peter has no part with Him.

Someone mentioned can we forbid water in Acts 10:47. The answer must have been yes we can forbid it because they did not baptist in water in verse 48. Your grasping at straws.

(
John was doing something different than anything they had ever seen before. They understood the significance of it because of what he preached about it. He was awakening them for a call to come out of a life of sin and live for God in righteousness if they would have part in this kingdom they had heard about from their prophets. And he was pointing them to Jesus who would actually take away the sin rather than the dirty waters of the Jordan.
False teacher with no shame

Peter that is called "begging the question" i.e. assuming the result.

Here we have H2O literally mentioned in direct context of Christian immersion, with syntax clearly indicating that Simon Peter has seen evidence overwhelmingly precludung any forbidding of H2O is possible.

So i fail to see any legitimate reason to interpret this as Simon Peter forbidding himself from performing H2O immersion. In fact i find your response amazingly untenable.

i do agree that John was doing 'a new thing' but immersion in H2O was not something never before seen; it's in Torah for example.

God doesn't do these things at random; the Torah is testifying of Christ - if Simon Peter shows us that the flood and the ark are figures of baptism into Christ, is it not also of Him, when the Torah says a man who has touched death must be immersed in water, else he will bear his own iniquity?

Please share that scripture that tells me if I don't have communion and I don't get immersed in Baptism that I am not regenerated. I haven't read that but I can always have missed something. Thanks for your help in my understanding.

I didnt say "have" i said "refuse". If someone believes in Jesus and dies unbaptized, of course they are saved. My point was that if someone claims to believe in Jesus, is offered water baptism and refuses and refuses it, then we got ourselves a problem. But here are some verses on the importance of both ordinances:


John 6:53-54 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

1Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

If its as irrelevant as people say it is, the Bible sure does talk a lot about it.

Thanks.

Acts 2: 38 “…Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…”

So if someone NOW were to ask you, “if like in acts 8 account, I believe that Jesus is the son of God and am willing to submit to water baptism, will I be saved?”

Your answer would be “definitely yes”?

Are you talking about what Paul said in this verse:
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

Yes there were ceremonial cleansing and the idea of ceremonial cleansing with water was not a foreign concept to the Israelites. They may have been comfortable with the idea from their familiarity with ceremonial cleansing prescribed by the Law and by the customs of the Jewish writings that had added to the Law and so they did not feel it was in any way AGAINST the Law.

I could be wrong but I remember reading about it many years ago and that the consensus by most commentators was that what John was doing was not like any of the ceremonial washings they were used to at that time. It was a unique kind of baptism.

Now you may already know this but the original word in Greek should be properly translated into English as immersion but at the time that the KJV scholars translated the church of England was a big proponent of sprinkling and there were great divisions in the church over it. So rather than translate it as immersion they coined a new word from the Greek, by anglicanizing the Greek word and calling it baptism. They dodged the controversy without changing the original word. It was left up to the readers to figure out the definition of baptize, baptism, which was immersion. LOL.

If they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (which means they believe in the message that He is the savior who takes away our sin, so it includes repentance or a desire to have your sin taken away by a savior namely Jesus) they are saved, and water baptism is the confession of that faith. they are saved before they step into the water. Only saved people should be baptized in water. This can all go down simultaneously so that it appears to be all the same event and there is no need to dissect it so carefully for theological philosophical arguments as it has been subjected to through out the centuries by men who are intellectually consumed with philosophically explaining every unseen mystery which they never really accomplish. and therefore the arguments go on, and on, and on.

I see, how does Jesus take away our sins now?

Will my sins be taken away, merely because I believe that he is the Son of God, like what the Ethiopian did in Acts 8, like what the apostle John stated in John 20:31?

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Yes our sins are taken away when we believe (have faith in, cling to, rely on) Jesus.
You and I both know that merely believing that Jesus existed as an historical person is not what the Bible means when it says believe. Even the devils believe in God and tremble.

We live at a time today when many churches and missionaries have adopted a method of presenting the Gospel, invitation for decision, and then a period of teaching new converts to make sure they understand fundamental theological concepts and then baptism. I disagree with this model because it is not biblical. The bible presents an example of baptism being done the same day as the decision. There may have been instructions to make sure the convert understood the simplicity of the Gospel but I am fully persuaded that it was a simple message they were asked to understand and commit to. The teachings came later.

So I plan to emphasize baptism with same day full immersion baptisms and I think it can be done. It might not be as convenient as what we are used to but what we are used to needs to be stepped up a notch or two. Jesus is coming and when he comes will he find faith on the earth?

I do not plan to preach baptism. That would be a mistake. We are to preach Jesus, and the message of the cross and resurrection. Then when people are "saved" by believing which includes Repentance toward God and Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, they should be baptized and then one can emphasize the meaning of the act of faith which is baptism and how the convert is confessing that they believe they have had their sins washed away by the Blood of Christ already, and that they are buried with Christ already, their old life and old man dead with Christ and as they come out of the water they are raised to new life with Christ and they are confessing that they believe they will be resurrected physically literally in the future just like the bible promises.

Think of what a travesty it is that people are not experiencing this biblical faith inspiring experience in our churches as soon as they get saved and instead are waiting for months or even years after making their initial decision for Christ. It does not have the same purpose when done a year after the decision. Now you are just doing it because you feel guilty that you have not done it yet. I believe the purpose of the command is to help people make a RADICAL decision to Forsake all sin and live a new life of holiness. It helps them resist sin and temptations they were addicted to the day before as they face the battles to say no to sin and yes to their Love for Jesus. It is an initiation into a WAR.

Ahh, since you inserted the words that I have bolded, which was not among the point I made to you earlier, why didn't Philip tell the Ethiopian eunuch to believe that Jesus died for his sins and rose again on the 3rd day for his justification instead?

Do you think Philip was aware of 1 Cor 15:1-4, during the time in Acts 8?

Philip went through the Scriptures in Isaiah explaining how Jesus was the one that was being talked about and I am sure he gave the Eunuch a complete interpretation on how Jesus fulfilled these prophesies. There is no question that what Philip taught him was what made him BELIEVE and the BELIEVE was connected to the interpretation of Jesus sacrificial offering written about in Isaiah that Philip told him about. How could you miss that? What do you think the Eunuch believed? How long did Philip teach him out of the book of Isaiah explaining how Jesus fulfilled these prophesies exactly. How could anyone possibly interpret Isaiah and apply it to Jesus without talking about the cross and resurrection? What do you think Philip told the Eunuch about Jesus that made the Eunuch believe. What do you think the Enuuch believed? That there was once a man named Jesus once upon a time in Mexico?