Baptism: is it required to be baptized in water?

[DJ2]

Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience," through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

We could paraphrase Peter's statement by saying, "Baptism now saves you--not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents." By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.

*BTY 1 Peter 3:20 does not teach that Noah and his family were literally saved "by" the water (See Hebrews 11:7), but were saved "through" water -- brought safely through the water (ASV; NIV; NKJV: NASB; ESV).

*See Acts 10:43 - "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 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. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. (BEFORE WATER BAPTISM) Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

I've done more than take a peek. I was raised in the Roman Catholic church and was beat over the head with the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration for years. *Once you come to believe in the name of the Son of God and know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13) there is no more peeking or second guessing whether or not Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption alone and not based on the merits of our works (Romans 3:24-28; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9 etc..). Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed. Will you ever have the courage to just take a peek behind your "water and works" regeneration theology? Just a peek?

Spend time as part of the Campus Crusade for Christ, left it. Your beef with the Roman Catholic Church is common as is any church but this does not excuse ignoring scriptures for the sake of our sensibilities. The Bible speaks of water baptism as the point of salvation to deny this to defend faith alone regeneration theology is foolish. If the bible said "repent and be baptized in vanilla pudding so that your sins will be forgiven and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit", I would not debate it but obey it.

 

[hornetguy]

What makes you think that passage is about water baptism? Introducing a false value into the equation will result in an inaccurate conclusion.

Are disciples made by water baptism? Are disciples made by teaching doctrine?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

What makes me think it was about water baptism? Because to everyone in that day and time, when you say "baptism", it was understood to be water baptism. They had NO CONCEPT of spiritual baptism. "Repent and be immersed..." meant to repent, and be immersed into water.... baptized. There was no other type of baptism that would be understood by the people of that day.

You are trying to insert YOUR understanding of spiritual baptism (which happens the same time we are water baptized) into the command to the 1st century Jews to be water baptized. That is what they heard, and understood.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Spend time as part of the Campus Crusade for Christ, left it. Your beef with the Roman Catholic Church is common as is any church but this does not excuse ignoring scriptures for the sake of our sensibilities. The Bible speaks of water baptism as the point of salvation to deny this to defend faith alone regeneration theology is foolish. If the bible said "repent and be baptized in vanilla pudding so that your sins will be forgiven and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit", I would not debate it but obey it.

As I said before. Go ahead and take all your works, and when judgment day comes, stand proud of all your heard work when the judge is sitting.

Then when the judge throws all your works out the door. And says he never knew you, You have no one to blame but yourself. You have been warned.

 

[so-jesus-e-deus]

No. What Jesus wanted to said is that we have to be baptized in Him and in His teachings (see Matthew 28.18-20 calmly).

 

[notuptome]

What makes me think it was about water baptism? Because to everyone in that day and time, when you say "baptism", it was understood to be water baptism. They had NO CONCEPT of spiritual baptism. "Repent and be immersed..." meant to repent, and be immersed into water.... baptized. There was no other type of baptism that would be understood by the people of that day.

You are trying to insert YOUR understanding of spiritual baptism (which happens the same time we are water baptized) into the command to the 1st century Jews to be water baptized. That is what they heard, and understood.

Quite the opposite. The superficial modern teaching that baptism is water is your understanding not biblical understanding. When you see the word in English baptism you automatically jump to ritual water baptism when the context in the original languages is not water baptism at all.

The fact remains that disciples are made by teaching not by baptism. The disciples that followed Christ were following Him because He taught them of the Father and correctly taught the doctrines of the word of God. It was the teaching of the word of God that made disciples.

Philip after he taught the eunuch of Christ and after the eunuch believed Philip said he could be baptized. Philip did not command him to be baptized only permitted him to receive baptism. The eunuch received the Holy Spirit before he requested water baptism not after.

The doctrinal teaching of the apostles was to those who heard clear biblical doctrine in concept of Holy Spirit baptism and conversion of sinners to believers in Christ.

It is a mistake to permit water baptism to someone who is not founded on the word of God and has a biblical knowledge of Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[tourist]

If the bible said "repent and be baptized in vanilla pudding so that your sins will be forgiven and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit", I would not debate it but obey it.

Personally, I'm trending towards tapioca but that's just me. I'm not gonna obey it but I will eat it.

 

[notuptome]

Personally, I'm trending towards tapioca but that's just me. I'm not gonna obey it but I will eat it.

It will certainly stick with you longer than water.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Magenta]

What makes me think it was about water baptism? Because to everyone in that day and time, when you say "baptism", it was understood to be water baptism. They had NO CONCEPT of spiritual baptism.

In all four gospels, John the Baptist foretells of Spirit baptism, also mentioned in Acts:

Matt. 3:11, "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Mark 1:8, "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Luke 3:16, "John answered and said to them all, 'As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

John 1:33, "And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, "He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit."

Acts 1:5, "for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Acts 11:16, "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

 

[Jabberjaw]

Quite the opposite. The superficial modern teaching that baptism is water is your understanding not biblical understanding. When you see the word in English baptism you automatically jump to ritual water baptism when the context in the original languages is not water baptism at all.

The fact remains that disciples are made by teaching not by baptism. The disciples that followed Christ were following Him because He taught them of the Father and correctly taught the doctrines of the word of God. It was the teaching of the word of God that made disciples.

Philip after he taught the eunuch of Christ and after the eunuch believed Philip said he could be baptized. Philip did not command him to be baptized only permitted him to receive baptism. The eunuch received the Holy Spirit before he requested water baptism not after.

The doctrinal teaching of the apostles was to those who heard clear biblical doctrine in concept of Holy Spirit baptism and conversion of sinners to believers in Christ.

It is a mistake to permit water baptism to someone who is not founded on the word of God and has a biblical knowledge of Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

John the baptizer said only Christ could baptize with the holy spirit:

Luke 3:16 NKJV
John answered, saying to all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

The Lord through Paul tells us there is only one saving baptism:

Ephesians 4:5 NKJV
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Again, John the baptizer says we disciples can only baptise with water yet our Lord tells his disciples to "go make disciples" (he didn't say "go, I'll make disciples"...

So you have the Lord not being truthful telling us there is only one saving baptism (of which you wrongly teach to be a baptism of the Holy Spirit baptism) yet sending disciples to baptize of which John says only Jesus can do?:

Matthew 28:19 NKJV
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

You have one to many baptisms

 

[HisCDBride]

My understanding of water baptism is that it’s an act of obedience to follow Jesus, as part of our personal walk with Him.

 

[apostolic862004]

No one has answered my question yet. Those of you who claim that you receive the Holy Ghost the moment you believe, please explain the below passage of scripture:

Acts 8:12-17

12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

These people believed on Jesus Christ and got baptized but they still did not have the Holy Ghost. Not only that, but Simon SAW when they got it. What exactly did Simon see that indicated they had received the Holy Ghost?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

In all four gospels, John the Baptist foretells of Spirit baptism, also mentioned in Acts:

Matt. 3:11, "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Mark 1:8, "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Luke 3:16, "John answered and said to them all, 'As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

John 1:33, "And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, "He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit."

Acts 1:5, "for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Acts 11:16, "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

Even apart from that, The word baptism was not associated generally with water in what was to them modern language.

A baptizer was a person who dyed garments, not a person who immersed people in water

The word baptise in what was then the jewish church was seen as ceremonial washings, of things for the temple

Peopl in war would baptise the tips of their swords with blood.

Even in literature. Immersing a man in water was the furthest things from anyones mind.

John the baptist was the first person to talk about baptising people. Yet at the same time, he said they should not look to his baptism as anythign special. But the one to whome would follow him.; His baptism was more important, as he would baptise with the HS and fire.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

John the baptizer said only Christ could baptize with the holy spirit:

Luke 3:16 NKJV
John answered, saying to all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Look at what was actuallyt said, John did not say only Jesus could. He said Jesus WOULD.

please listen to john, and allow jesus to baptise you, or continue to place yoru faith in some man who immersed you in water.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No one has answered my question yet. Those of you who claim that you receive the Holy Ghost the moment you believe, please explain the below passage of scripture:

Acts 8:12-17

12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

These people believed on Jesus Christ and got baptized but they still did not have the Holy Ghost. Not only that, but Simon SAW when they got it. What exactly did Simon see that indicated they had received the Holy Ghost?

Then you have to look at Acts 10. Where people recieved the HS and had not yet been baptised in water. And in acts 2. Where people recieved the gift of the spirit. And told on that basis, get baptised

 

[apostolic862004]

Then you have to look at Acts 10. Where people recieved the HS and had not yet been baptised in water. And in acts 2. Where people recieved the gift of the spirit. And told on that basis, get baptised

But the problem here is that I believe you can receive the Holy Ghost before or after you get baptized. But either way, you must still be baptized to complete the new birth that Jesus spoke of in John 3:3-5. But for those claiming that you don't have to be baptized, some are saying that you receive the Spirit as soon as you express your faith in Jesus. My point in using Acts chapter 8 is that this is a clear example of people who believed and had been baptized but still were not saved. So they obviously did not get baptized as a result of them having been saved.

The same scenario takes place in Acts 19:1-4:

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Paul came upon some people who were already believers but they did not have the Holy Ghost, nor had the been baptized properly. They had already been baptized unto John's baptism but obviously that was no longer valid because Paul re-baptized them in Jesus' name. It was only after their baptism in Jesus' name that they received the Holy Ghost.

My whole point is that you do not get baptized as a result of salvation, you get baptized as part of the process to obtain salvation (John 3:5, Mark 16:16).

 

[eternally-gratefull]

But the problem here is that I believe you can receive the Holy Ghost before or after you get baptized. But either way, you must still be baptized to complete the new birth that Jesus spoke of in John 3:3-5. But for those claiming that you don't have to be baptized, some are saying that you receive the Spirit as soon as you express your faith in Jesus. My point in using Acts chapter 8 is that this is a clear example of people who believed and had been baptized but still were not saved. So they obviously did not get baptized as a result of them having been saved.

The same scenario takes place in Acts 19:1-4:

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Paul came upon some people who were already believers but they did not have the Holy Ghost, nor had the been baptized properly. They had already been baptized unto John's baptism but obviously that was no longer valid because Paul re-baptized them in Jesus' name. It was only after their baptism in Jesus' name that they received the Holy Ghost.

My whole point is that you do not get baptized as a result of salvation, you get baptized as part of the process to obtain salvation (John 3:5, Mark 16:16).

You want to earn your salvation, go right on ahead. There is a baptism which is a process in salvation, it is the baptism John the baptist spoke of. The baptism of the spirit. The baptism of God. NBot the baptism of men.

If what you say is true, then in all instances, no one could get the HS until baptism took place. I have proven that is not the case, Just because a few happenbed to be opposite. Does not prove anything.

I was baptised the moment i was saved, It was by God himself, The washing (baptism) and renewal (New Birth) of the Holy spirit. (Titus 3: 5) which was according to Gods mercy and grace, not by works of righteosness which I did.

You go wash yourself. I trust that God washed me.

 

[apostolic862004]

If what you say is true, then in all instances, no one could get the HS until baptism took place.

This statement proves that you did not actually read what i posted. Let me post the first line of what I said:

But the problem here is that I believe you can receive the Holy Ghost before or after you get baptized

And then i gave supporting scriptures to prove both examples. Some people got it before they were baptized, and others got it after they were baptized. But in every case, ALL of them were baptized. IN WATER i might add. A man baptized them in water, and God baptized them with the Spirit. The order in which it happened did not matter. It takes both to be saved. Born of the water, Born of the Spirit. John 3:5, Acts 2:38

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This statement proves that you did not actually read what i posted. Let me post the first line of what I said:


And then i gave supporting scriptures to prove both examples. Some people got it before they were baptized, and others got it after they were baptized. But in every case, ALL of them were baptized. IN WATER i might add. A man baptized them in water, and God baptized them with the Spirit. The order in which it happened did not matter. It takes both to be saved. Born of the water, Born of the Spirit. John 3:5, Acts 2:38

No, It proves you did not read Or understand what I was saying.

IF baptism was required, it would happen in ALL CASES.. the fact that it did not PROVES it was not required.

what is required is the baptism John spoke of (He WILL baptise you with the Holy Spirit) That jesus spoke of (You Indeed with be baptized with the baptism I am baptized in, and drink the cup I am drinking) The he too prophesied (you will be baptised with the HS not many days from now) and that peter witnessed (if they too were baptised with the same baptism we were baptised with (holy spirit)

 

[hornetguy]

Even apart from that, The word baptism was not associated generally with water in what was to them modern language.

A baptizer was a person who dyed garments, not a person who immersed people in water

The word baptise in what was then the jewish church was seen as ceremonial washings, of things for the temple

Peopl in war would baptise the tips of their swords with blood.

Even in literature. Immersing a man in water was the furthest things from anyones mind.

John the baptist was the first person to talk about baptising people. Yet at the same time, he said they should not look to his baptism as anythign special. But the one to whome would follow him.; His baptism was more important, as he would baptise with the HS and fire.

now you are simply applying eisegesis.... you are putting YOUR idea of what was "commonly" known from the word baptizo... one of the lesser used definitions was about dyeing cloth, or making pickles.... but the common usage was immersion into water, either as a Jewish ceremonial washing, or a purification rite.

So when Peter told all those Jews at Pentecost to repent and be "baptizo'd" you think they assumed he was telling them to all go dip themselves in a vat of dye..... that about cover it?

I'm out of this discussion.... you are being completely dishonest in your argument. I've had enough of the "yes you did" "no I didn't" silliness.

I will believe Jesus and all the apostles, and all the believers down to the 18th century or so. You believe your eisegesis.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

now you are simply applying eisegesis.... you are putting YOUR idea of what was "commonly" known from the word baptizo... one of the lesser used definitions was about dyeing cloth, or making pickles.... but the common usage was immersion into water, either as a Jewish ceremonial washing, or a purification rite.

So when Peter told all those Jews at Pentecost to repent and be "baptizo'd" you think they assumed he was telling them to all go dip themselves in a vat of dye..... that about cover it?

I'm out of this discussion.... you are being completely dishonest in your argument. I've had enough of the "yes you did" "no I didn't" silliness.

I will believe Jesus and all the apostles, and all the believers down to the 18th century or so. You believe your eisegesis.

Yes please leave the discussion. Because we have had this discussion many times, and you always resort to the same strawman

Your argument is that what was a common use of the word (in their literature) is my opinion, and not fact. (Even though ancient literature proves otherwise) And water was a fact, your arguing against yourself because the same argument you use against me could be used against you. (The mere fact John said jesus woudl baptise wiht the HS and fire, and the OT speaks of the children of Isreal baint baptised into moses, which makes sense using the common interpretation I have tries to dhare. Then saying it always must mean water)

In my view, do not believe Jesus, You believe the men who taught you what the word means. You contnue to believe that, and continue to reject the gospel of grace and replace it with the gospel of works.

I will chose to trust God. Not men.