Baptism
- Thread starter Mansolo
- 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.
Only certain parts of sacrifices had to be washed, such as the entrails and legs, before being
burned on the altar. However, priests were to undergo a ritual baptism before assuming their
duties, usually at the age of thirty, which is about how old Jesus was (Luke 3:23) when Jesus
started His ministry, following His baptism by John (in order to fulfill all righteousness),
signaling also a change in priesthood from Aaron to being after the order of Melchizedek.
burned on the altar. However, priests were to undergo a ritual baptism before assuming their
duties, usually at the age of thirty, which is about how old Jesus was (Luke 3:23) when Jesus
started His ministry, following His baptism by John (in order to fulfill all righteousness),
signaling also a change in priesthood from Aaron to being after the order of Melchizedek.
-
2
- Show all
I agree that in these instances, this was the case. However, in these scenarios, we see something very specific happening, in particular, the Gospel going to entirely new people groups.
As you mentioned, the Samaritans first received the Spirit when the Apostles laid their hands on them. It seems evident from the text was that the purpose of this was to gain solidarity from the leadership of the new church by accepting personally the Samaritans into the Church. As you may be aware, the Samaritans were not well liked by the Jews, so embracing them as part of the Church was something God did through the Apostles and the giving of the Spirit by the laying on of their hands.
Likewise, Acts 10 marks the first time the Gentiles were being accepted into the Church. Here also, we see God direct Peter to this Gentile’s home to preach to Gospel to him. In fact, Peter even explains the situation later on suggesting that he was hesitant to baptize these Gentiles and accept them immediately into the Church. The vision and outpouring of the Spirit was a sign to them that they should not withhold baptism and accepting them as part of the church. For Peter himself says,
So, its clear that there was resistance in accepting people into the Church and God used the Apostles and the supernatural outpouring of the Spirit as a means of showing believers that these outsiders were accepted as they were, by faith. As far as Acts 19 goes, I think this is a poor case study. Clearly these people were baptized for repentance after John. They were not being baptized by faith in Jesus. That is the issue why they had not received the Spirit. If anything, this text discounts your argument because the first thing Paul does when he learns they did not have the Spirit was ask about their water baptism!!
I think Christians need to be cautious using narratives to dictate normative practices in Christian life. Especially when the didactic teaching THROUGHOUT the NT indicate that water baptism is critical for making disciples and receiving the Spirit. We dont expect every Christian to raise the dead because we recognize that these narratives are unique situations where God was using “signs” and Apostles to do extraordinary things to validate the Gospel. So, just as we dont expect every Christian to be able to raise the dead and walk on water, so we should not expect that every narrative in the NT is normative for Christian practice, especially when we have clear instruction about what is normative and what God does in those normative practices.
As you mentioned, the Samaritans first received the Spirit when the Apostles laid their hands on them. It seems evident from the text was that the purpose of this was to gain solidarity from the leadership of the new church by accepting personally the Samaritans into the Church. As you may be aware, the Samaritans were not well liked by the Jews, so embracing them as part of the Church was something God did through the Apostles and the giving of the Spirit by the laying on of their hands.
Likewise, Acts 10 marks the first time the Gentiles were being accepted into the Church. Here also, we see God direct Peter to this Gentile’s home to preach to Gospel to him. In fact, Peter even explains the situation later on suggesting that he was hesitant to baptize these Gentiles and accept them immediately into the Church. The vision and outpouring of the Spirit was a sign to them that they should not withhold baptism and accepting them as part of the church. For Peter himself says,
So, its clear that there was resistance in accepting people into the Church and God used the Apostles and the supernatural outpouring of the Spirit as a means of showing believers that these outsiders were accepted as they were, by faith. As far as Acts 19 goes, I think this is a poor case study. Clearly these people were baptized for repentance after John. They were not being baptized by faith in Jesus. That is the issue why they had not received the Spirit. If anything, this text discounts your argument because the first thing Paul does when he learns they did not have the Spirit was ask about their water baptism!!
I think Christians need to be cautious using narratives to dictate normative practices in Christian life. Especially when the didactic teaching THROUGHOUT the NT indicate that water baptism is critical for making disciples and receiving the Spirit. We dont expect every Christian to raise the dead because we recognize that these narratives are unique situations where God was using “signs” and Apostles to do extraordinary things to validate the Gospel. So, just as we dont expect every Christian to be able to raise the dead and walk on water, so we should not expect that every narrative in the NT is normative for Christian practice, especially when we have clear instruction about what is normative and what God does in those normative practices.
-
1
- Show all
You know, you can disagree without being disagreeable. How about we look at THE WORD OF GOD and what it says about baptism so we can “get back to preaching the truth” as you put it. So, what DOES Scripture say?
Here we see Jesus commanding his disciple to MAKE DISCIPLES by BAPTIZING. This isn’t something they were to ask the Spirit to do on their behalf, but something they were supposed to do to their disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
The first time the Gospel is preached the crowd is cut to the heart (convicted due to their belief in the message) and ask how they should respond. Peter replies they should repent and be baptized (not ask the Spirit to baptize them) SO THAT they might receive forgiveness and the Holy Spirit.
Paul said that those who have been baptized have died with Christ and been raised. The clear picture here is someone being lowered into the water (death) and raised from the water (resurrection to new life). Paul’s point is that this act reveals that their new life has begun and they should not go on living as they once had. This illustration makes no sense if he is talking about a purely spiritual experience.
Again, like above, Paul points to baptism in which the believer is buried and raised.
When Paul finds out these people did not have the Spirit he asks about their baptism. Clearly this would make no sense if everyone understood “baptism“ to be a merely spiritual event. It was a physical baptism in water, the problem in this case is they were baptized in the name of John, and not in faith in the grace and resurrection of Jesus.
Jesus tells us that rebirth happens in WATER. This is not amniotic fluid as some errantly suppose. The Greeks had a word for that and it is not used here. Clearly, Jesus is pointing to the future act of baptism as the moment of rebirth.
Again, Jesus says that belief and baptism go hand in hand. Those who believe and are baptized (both acts the individual does, not something that is done to them, based on the grammatical construction here) are saved. Why would he mention baptism if it was irrelevant?
Ananias instructs Paul to get up and be baptized. Why? To “wash away his sins.”
Peter connects the waters of the flood that saved Noah from sin with the waters of Christian baptism that save the believer from sin. It is not the water that saves, obviously, but the waters in conjunction with a faith that appeals to God for cleansing (calling on his name Acts 22:16)
So, as you can see, Scripture is chalked FULL of verses that not only show early believers being immersed in water, but what they understood was happening by engaging in this act. We dont read teaching about Christians needing to stop and call out to the Spirit to baptize them. We dont read anything about water baptism being meaningless and merely a symbol of something that already happened. We dont read anything about the necessity of speaking in tongues or having some “experience” that is a prerequisite to knowing someone has the Spirit and is saved. Rather our salvation comes by FAITH in Jesus (not experiences). And that FAITH is at work when we submit ourselves to Christian baptism and call on the name of Jesus that God might forgive us, bury us, raise us to new life and empower us with his Spirit. There is no “sinners prayer” in the NT. There is Christian baptism that is the moment a Christian calls out to God publicly for cleansing and God promises to respond to that call with forgiveness and the Spirit. As Peter says, “This PROMISE is for you, your children, and all who are far off, for everyone whom the Lord our God will call.”
So dont tell me I dont believe in Scripture. I base all my views on Scripture. You might not agree with it, but thats because you have a different interpretation OF SCRIPTURE. I think it is beneath a Christian person to use such underhanded, snide remarks to another believer regarding their understanding of God’s desires and expectations.
Here we see Jesus commanding his disciple to MAKE DISCIPLES by BAPTIZING. This isn’t something they were to ask the Spirit to do on their behalf, but something they were supposed to do to their disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
The first time the Gospel is preached the crowd is cut to the heart (convicted due to their belief in the message) and ask how they should respond. Peter replies they should repent and be baptized (not ask the Spirit to baptize them) SO THAT they might receive forgiveness and the Holy Spirit.
Paul said that those who have been baptized have died with Christ and been raised. The clear picture here is someone being lowered into the water (death) and raised from the water (resurrection to new life). Paul’s point is that this act reveals that their new life has begun and they should not go on living as they once had. This illustration makes no sense if he is talking about a purely spiritual experience.
Again, like above, Paul points to baptism in which the believer is buried and raised.
When Paul finds out these people did not have the Spirit he asks about their baptism. Clearly this would make no sense if everyone understood “baptism“ to be a merely spiritual event. It was a physical baptism in water, the problem in this case is they were baptized in the name of John, and not in faith in the grace and resurrection of Jesus.
Jesus tells us that rebirth happens in WATER. This is not amniotic fluid as some errantly suppose. The Greeks had a word for that and it is not used here. Clearly, Jesus is pointing to the future act of baptism as the moment of rebirth.
Again, Jesus says that belief and baptism go hand in hand. Those who believe and are baptized (both acts the individual does, not something that is done to them, based on the grammatical construction here) are saved. Why would he mention baptism if it was irrelevant?
Ananias instructs Paul to get up and be baptized. Why? To “wash away his sins.”
Peter connects the waters of the flood that saved Noah from sin with the waters of Christian baptism that save the believer from sin. It is not the water that saves, obviously, but the waters in conjunction with a faith that appeals to God for cleansing (calling on his name Acts 22:16)
So, as you can see, Scripture is chalked FULL of verses that not only show early believers being immersed in water, but what they understood was happening by engaging in this act. We dont read teaching about Christians needing to stop and call out to the Spirit to baptize them. We dont read anything about water baptism being meaningless and merely a symbol of something that already happened. We dont read anything about the necessity of speaking in tongues or having some “experience” that is a prerequisite to knowing someone has the Spirit and is saved. Rather our salvation comes by FAITH in Jesus (not experiences). And that FAITH is at work when we submit ourselves to Christian baptism and call on the name of Jesus that God might forgive us, bury us, raise us to new life and empower us with his Spirit. There is no “sinners prayer” in the NT. There is Christian baptism that is the moment a Christian calls out to God publicly for cleansing and God promises to respond to that call with forgiveness and the Spirit. As Peter says, “This PROMISE is for you, your children, and all who are far off, for everyone whom the Lord our God will call.”
So dont tell me I dont believe in Scripture. I base all my views on Scripture. You might not agree with it, but thats because you have a different interpretation OF SCRIPTURE. I think it is beneath a Christian person to use such underhanded, snide remarks to another believer regarding their understanding of God’s desires and expectations.
-
1
- Show all
Relative to the details seen in the accounts of the Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles, you said, "in these scenarios, we see something very specific happening, in particular, the Gospel going to entirely new people groups." One could come to the conclusion that what they experienced was for that sole purpose if not for the account in Acts 19.
The Acts 19 account reveals all individuals are required to submit to water baptism in Jesus name and also experience receiving the Holy Ghost. The account is explicit; going so far as to specifically state the actual number of individuals in verse 7. As such, the account had nothing to do with nationality. What occurred was 12 individuals experienced being reborn of water and Spirit.
Each and every detailed conversion account reveals exactly what Jesus meant when He said, "Except a man be born of water and Spirit he cannot SEE or ENTER into the kingdom of God." The truth is in plain sight. Look; Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-6, 22:16.
The Acts 19 account reveals all individuals are required to submit to water baptism in Jesus name and also experience receiving the Holy Ghost. The account is explicit; going so far as to specifically state the actual number of individuals in verse 7. As such, the account had nothing to do with nationality. What occurred was 12 individuals experienced being reborn of water and Spirit.
Each and every detailed conversion account reveals exactly what Jesus meant when He said, "Except a man be born of water and Spirit he cannot SEE or ENTER into the kingdom of God." The truth is in plain sight. Look; Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-6, 22:16.
-
1
- Show all
Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit. One does not obey a command by repeating it. The apostles obeyed Jesus. They administered water baptism in the singular NAME of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)
-
1
- Show all
Note what is actually stated in Acts 22:16. "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the NAME of the Lord" Jesus is the name Ananias is referring to; for in Jesus dwells all the fulness of the Godhead. (Col. 2:9)
Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles, not names.
Water baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost do not occur simultaneously. Please review the accounts: Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-6.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles, not names.
Water baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost do not occur simultaneously. Please review the accounts: Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-6.
Yes... I might also add to all of your excellent references... what about the Ethiopean eunuch? Philip "taught him Jesus".... riding along in the chariot the eunuch says "look! Here is some water, what would prevent me from being baptized?" He didn't ask for the Spirit to baptize him, he found water.... and they went down into the water, and Philip baptized him....... and if we believe Peter at Pentecost, the eunuch received the Holy Spirit at that point...
And to emphasize the importance of baptism, think about Saul/Paul.... after not eating or drinking for three days, when he regained his sight after hearing and accepting Jesus, the FIRST thing he did was to be baptized....
Too many people want to make scripture say what they WANT it to say, not accept it for what it actually says....
And to emphasize the importance of baptism, think about Saul/Paul.... after not eating or drinking for three days, when he regained his sight after hearing and accepting Jesus, the FIRST thing he did was to be baptized....
Too many people want to make scripture say what they WANT it to say, not accept it for what it actually says....
Please point out where I have been guilty of being underhanded, and snide. I am in no way trying to be disagreeable. I am attempting to share the truth out of love because each of us is going to be judged by the Word of God. (John 12:48, 2 Tim. 3:16)
As to your post, I agree with all of the scriptures you referenced. Water baptism in the name of Jesus is required for remission of sin, and receiving the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost is essential. Scripture is clear, both are elements of the rebirth experience.
And as mentioned previously, scripture also reveals:
1. Water baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost/Spirit does not occur simultaneously. (Acts 2, 8, 9, 10, 19, 22)
2. Water baptism is to be administered using a name, not titles; that name is Jesus as revealed in scripture. (Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)
In response to your other comments consider what scripture reveals as well:
All detailed conversion accounts confirm there is evidence when a person receives the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost; that evidence is speaking in tongues. The Samaritan account is one that does not specifically record speaking in tongues. However, it does allude to it. And it is very important to consider what that account does reveal. Ask yourself, how did Philip and the others know the people had not received the Holy Ghost? What was missing? Upon consideration of every other detailed conversion account it is clear what was missing. The Samaritans did not speak in tongues. However, days later when Peter and John came to assist notice what the scripture says, "...when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money." (Acts 8:17-18)
As to your post, I agree with all of the scriptures you referenced. Water baptism in the name of Jesus is required for remission of sin, and receiving the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost is essential. Scripture is clear, both are elements of the rebirth experience.
And as mentioned previously, scripture also reveals:
1. Water baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost/Spirit does not occur simultaneously. (Acts 2, 8, 9, 10, 19, 22)
2. Water baptism is to be administered using a name, not titles; that name is Jesus as revealed in scripture. (Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)
In response to your other comments consider what scripture reveals as well:
All detailed conversion accounts confirm there is evidence when a person receives the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost; that evidence is speaking in tongues. The Samaritan account is one that does not specifically record speaking in tongues. However, it does allude to it. And it is very important to consider what that account does reveal. Ask yourself, how did Philip and the others know the people had not received the Holy Ghost? What was missing? Upon consideration of every other detailed conversion account it is clear what was missing. The Samaritans did not speak in tongues. However, days later when Peter and John came to assist notice what the scripture says, "...when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money." (Acts 8:17-18)
"Without spot or blemish". This was the standard for the perfect sacrifice. They were cleaned before offered otherwise they were turned away.
The additional info about the priests is interesting. As Jesus was both the perfect sacrifice and the new priest washing had a double meaning. So cool!
The additional info about the priests is interesting. As Jesus was both the perfect sacrifice and the new priest washing had a double meaning. So cool!
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Of course we know there is a purpose to everyone God does. It would seem scripture answers that question:
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Prov 25:2
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." Jer 29:13
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Prov 25:2
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." Jer 29:13
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
Yes, the honor of kings is to search out a matter, not force their own ideas on a matter. You still haven't explained why the text says what it does. You say Jesus meant "His name," but that's not what the text says. You're trying to force something onto it that it doesn't say. I'll concede that the records show they baptized in the name of Jesus in Acts; however, Matthew 28:19 can't be twisted into something it isn't to account for this. Matthew 28:19 says what is says; and it doesn't say "in My name."
I am not trying to force anything. Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize in a name. Scripture reveals what the name is. The apostles obeyed Jesus command and consistently baptized people in Jesus' name. To deny it is to go against what is clearly revealed in scripture. You don't have to accept it; everyone has a choice.
Also, I thought you would see the answer to your question in the scriptures presented. Consider how much effort a person is willing to put forth when they truly love someone? "I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me." Prov 8:17
Also, I thought you would see the answer to your question in the scriptures presented. Consider how much effort a person is willing to put forth when they truly love someone? "I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me." Prov 8:17