baptized with what - water or holy spirit?

Acts 1:5

(KJV) For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence

(YLT) because John, indeed, baptized with water, and ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit—after not many days.’

(NASB) for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

(ASV) for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

(ESV) for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Jesus made a rather emphatic statement to the apostles prior to his ascension only a few days before pentecost, and it concerned the topic of BAPTISM ... a topic which even today seems a matter like a "theological holy cow" that somehow must not be re-considered from Scripture but believed as taught in the group.

Well, I'd like to invite to a re-consideration of Jesus' words ... not of church creeds and dogmas. What did Jesus say? what happened with his words, did they come to pass? what did Jesus state about baptism in water? what did Jesus teach about baptism with holy spirit? were they to be experienced by the apostles? to be administered by them?

Insights are welcome.

Comments

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,050
    edited September 9

    @Wolfgang said:

    Well, I'd like to invite to a re-consideration of Jesus' words ... not of church creeds and dogmas. What did Jesus say? what happened with his words, did they come to pass? what did Jesus state about baptism in water? what did Jesus teach about baptism with holy spirit? were they to be experienced by the apostles? to be administered by them?

    Thanks for the questions. Let's begin with the word "baptism": It is from the Greek word “Baptizo” which means, “submerge,” or, “put under,” or “immerse.” In my view, it is necessary to share what is the bibli­cal meaning of baptism? Short answers:

    • The forgiveness and washing away of our sins.
    • Our death and our resurrection with Christ into a new being.
    • The public confession of repentance and of our covenant with Christ, by which we become a member of His people.

    However, none of these meanings applies directly to Christ's baptism. The mean­ing of Jesus’ baptism was that He received His divine ordination to the ministry (Matt. 3:13-17; John 1:29-34).

    Jesus promised His disciples to be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts 1:5). This was to be a new endowment of power given that Christ's visible presence was about to be withdrawn from the disciples. Why did Christ promise this? The Holy Spirit was to enable His disciples to witness effectively for Him.

    The Spirit confer upon some people special gifts or talents like the ones mentioned in First Corinthians 12. With or without every believer of God can bear witness to Jesus by his life and his spoken testimony.


    @Wolfgang said: What happened with his words, did they come to pass?

    • ¥es!
    • Acts 2:4-11. The disciples were able to speak in many languages--In order to witness quickly to the whole world. The Holy Spirit did for them what they couldn't accomplish for themselves in a lifetime.
    • Acts 2 describes transformed people.


    @Wolfgang said: what did Jesus state about baptism in water?

    First of all, The historical event that took place in A.D. 27 was the baptism of Jesus. According to Luke 3:1-3, 21. John started baptizing in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. At this time Jesus was baptized (Luke 3:21).

    Jesus did not receive baptism as a confession of guilt on His own account. He identified Himself with sinners, taking the steps that we are to take, and doing the work that we must do.

    Secondly, the Bible makes clear, Conversion continues after baptism:

    1. Converted through the power of the Spirit (John 16:8-13, 14:26)
    2. Walking in newness of life (Romans 7:18-25)
    3. Putting on a new man, putting off the old man (Colossians 3, Romans 13:12)
    4. Crucified with Christ daily (Galatians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 15:31)
    5. Living a transformed life in the same body (Romans 12:1-2)

    Thirdly, Jesus’ baptism is recorded as the starting point of His ministry. It represented His “anointing” as the Messiah (Acts 10:38 NKJV). This is also affirmed by Peter (Acts 10:37. 38, NASB).

    Fourthly, the proper mode of baptism is by immersion (like Jesus and not sprinkling or pouring). A person has not been baptized unless he has been completely submerged, meaning, “buried in water.” Col. 2:12Buried with Him in baptism. There is one baptism: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4).

    • The Spirit of God descended upon Jesus at the time of His baptism in a visible display of God's blessing. "This is my Son, whom I love; with Him, I am well pleased". Matt 3:16,17. The voice echoes Ps 2:7 with the descent of the Holy Spirit signifying anointing.
    • The baptism of Jesus was followed immediately by a special manifestation of the Holy Spirit, which descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove (Matt 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22). The term "Christ," as applied to Jesus of Nazareth, refers specifically to the anointing by the Holy Spirit after His baptism.

    @Wolfgang said: what did Jesus teach about baptism with the holy spirit?

    • They will have the power to witness and stare down demons.
    • Spiritual gifts are given by the Holy Spirit to equip the body of Jesus Christ.
    • Wagner said, “A spiritual gift is a special attribute given by the Holy Spirit to every member of the body of Christ according to God’s grace for use within the context of the body” (See sources below, p. 42). Dick, acknowledged that “the God-given empowerment to make a meaningful difference in the world through the guidance of God’s Spirit” when it comes to spiritual gifts.
    • Baptism by water is an outward demonstration of inward transformation by the Holy Spirit.
    • Every person has skills and talents. Spiritual gifts are made manifest when a person is empowered by the Holy Spirit at his/her baptism. Peter said on the day of Pentecost, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).

    @Wolfgang said: were they to be experienced by the apostles? to be administered by them?

    Yes!

    • This Holy Spirit Power gives encouraging assurance that the whole world will be evangelized. See Rev. 18:1, 4.
    • The caring ministry of Christ is to evangelize (Luke 4:18).
    • "He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor."
    • In our baptism, we received our ordination to the ministry, and thereby the Holy Spirit’s special gifts to enable us to be a fruitful ministers of Jesus Christ.

    As followers of Christ (disciples) receive the Holy Spirit and His gifts:

    • In Ephesians 4, Paul says that God has called us, and urges us to live up to our calling. To enable us to do the work of the ministry, the apostle continues, God has given to each of us His gift (Eph. 4: 7).
    • Eph. 4:11, 12, he lists some of these gifts, and says that they are given "to equip the laity for its ministry."
    •  In Romans 12, Paul asserts that “God has given each of us a special gift to be a minister”.
    • 1 Cor. 12:7, Paul says that “In each of us the Spirit is manifested in one particular way for the sake of the ministry.” Some have the gift of speech, others the gift of administration; some received the gift of teaching, others the gift to help persons in distress; some have received the gift of faith, others the gift of kindness and of friendliness.

    The baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, in the Scripture, goes together. The apostle emphasizes that there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; varieties of ministry, but the same Lord; many forms of work, but the same God (1 Cor. 12:4-6). Paul continues by saying: In each of us the Spirit of Cod is manifested in one particular way.

    Wolfgang, I hope this shares light on this great topic of Baptism? CM


    SOURCES:

    • Wagner, P. C. (1994). The acts of the Holy Spirit: Spreading the fire, a new look at acts, God’s training manual for every believer. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.
    • Dick, R. D., & Dick, B. A. (2001). Equipped for every good work: Building a gifts-based church. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
    • Mauro, Philip. The Seventy Weeks and the Great TribulationSwengel. PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1944.
    • Barth, K. (1969). Baptism with the Holy Spirit. In G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Eds. and Trans.), Church Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
    • Unger, M. F. (1978). The baptism & gifts of the Holy Spirit. Chicago, IL: Moody Press
    Post edited by C Mc on
  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552
    edited September 9

    @Wolfgang Well, I'd like to invite to a re-consideration of Jesus' words ... not of church creeds and dogmas. What did Jesus say? what happened with his words, did they come to pass? what did Jesus state about baptism in water? what did Jesus teach about baptism with holy spirit? were they to be experienced by the apostles? to be administered by them?

    @C Mc Thanks for the questions. Let's begin with the word "baptism": It is from the Greek word “Baptizo” which means, “submerge,” or, “put under,” or “immerse.”

    I also understand "immerse, immersion etc." to be the meanings of the words "baptize / baptism". It is the context then that defines IN WHAT (water, holy spirit) the particular baptism in the context takes place.

    In my view, it is necessary to share what is the bibli­cal meaning of baptism? Short answers:

    - The forgiveness and washing away of our sins.

    - Our death and our resurrection with Christ into a new being.

    - The public confession of repentance and of our covenant with Christ, by which we become a member of His people.

    This is not really the biblical "meaning" of baptism, but rather already an interpretation of effects ascribed to baptisms mentioned in Scripture, mixing together info from various different passages. The biblical MEANING of the words "baptize, baptism" is rather - as you mentioned above - "submerge, immerse, immersion in".

    Unfortunately, you then went at great length to expound on points regarding items that I had not even asked about and which touch on matters beyond the question in this thread (See quote above of my words).

    Now then, does Jesus mention in his words to the apostles in WHAT immersion had been done and/or would be done? Does Jesus mention different effects of the immersions done by John and the one the apostles were to experience? Do Jesus' words to his apostles address differences and thus a change in immersions or a continuation of the same?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    Fourthly, the proper mode of baptism is by immersion (like Jesus and not sprinkling or pouring). A person has not been baptized unless he has been completely submerged, meaning, “buried in water.” Col. 2:12Buried with Him in baptism. There is one baptism: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4).

    What does this have to do with Jesus' words in Acts 1:5 to his apostles ????

    This is the type of not sticking with the text but instead "jumping the gun" to verses that have nothing really to do with what Acts 1:5 states aaaas Jesus having told his apostles. All of this passage "A person has not been baptized unless he has been completely submerged, meaning, “buried in water.” Col. 2:12Buried with Him in baptism. There is one baptism: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4)" is theological interpretation with much adding to text rather than true attempt to understand what the text being examined actually states.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    @Wolfgang said: what did Jesus state about baptism in water?

    @C Mc First of all, The historical event that took place in A.D. 27 was the baptism of Jesus. According to Luke 3:1-3, 21. John started baptizing in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. At this time Jesus was baptized (Luke 3:21).

    Again, I was asking about what Jesus said in Acts 1:5 to his apostles about baptism in water ... the information about Jesus' experience with John at river Jordan has nothing to do with what is stated in Acts 1:5.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,394


    @Wolfgang posted:

    Now then, does Jesus mention in his words to the apostles in WHAT immersion had been done and/or would be done? Does Jesus mention different effects of the immersions done by John and the one the apostles were to experience? Do Jesus' words to his apostles address differences and thus a change in immersions or a continuation of the same?

    I'm not clear as to the precise focus of your post, Wolfgang.

    • Is it to define the word "baptism"?
    • Is it to discern substantive differences between water baptism and baptism by the Holy Spirit?
    • Is it to declare the supremacy of baptisms in the Holy Spirit over baptisms in water?
    • Is it to identify possible differences in meanings of the word "immerse" (and its various forms) depending on context and the time frame of its usage?
    • Is it simply to solicit exegetical commentary on Acts 1.5?

    I am intrigued by more than one of those options, so please clarify your intentions in creating this thread (for me, even if no one else is unclear!)

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,050

    Wolfgang,

    I concur with Bill. Be clear about what you want. Better yet, what are you getting at in the text you cited? CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    @Bill_Coley I'm not clear as to the precise focus of your post, Wolfgang.

    I thought I had formulated my various questions arising for me from reading the text rather clearly ...

    Simply exploring together and learning together what a text actually says seems to be impossible; perhaps because others seem not able and/or not willing to do so but instead immediately jump to theological matters ... and only want to then proceed within their theological haven?

    The answers to your questions are:

    Is it to define the word "baptism"?

    No ... however, the actual meaning of the word "baptism" seems already clear.

    Is it to discern substantive differences between water baptism and baptism by the Holy Spirit?

    No ... however, taking a closer look at the text may provide info concerning that point.

    Is it to declare the supremacy of baptisms in the Holy Spirit over baptisms in water?

    No ... however, taking a closer look at the text may provide info concerning that point.

    Is it to identify possible differences in meanings of the word "immerse" (and its various forms) depending on context and the time frame of its usage?

    No ... see above

    Is it simply to solicit exegetical commentary on Act 1:5 ?

    No ... observations concerning the text are solicited and welcome.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    @C Mc I concur with Bill. Be clear about what you want. Better yet, what are you getting at in the text you cited? CM

    See reply to Bill above ....

    I am rather disappointed to learn that folks here seem to always have ulterior motives or suspect those in others' ("what are you getting at?")

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,050

    John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5).

    Water carries symbolic meanings.

    • It is used in the baptism of John the Baptist to represent repentance (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5; 11:16).
    • Water is also used to symbolize the New Testament baptism (Acts 8:36-39; Heb 10:22; 1 Pet 3:20) and cleansing from all impurities (Heb 10:22).

    My understanding of the text above means that John the Baptist had foretold more after baptism. He said: '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." Matt. 3:11.

    The disciples of Christ fitted for service:

    "But you shall receive power, after, that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Acts 1: 8.

    Jesus’s promised the Holy Spirit to guide the disciples to fulfill the mission, and in the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit was leading the disciples not only telling them what to do and pray, (Acts 13:2-4; Rom 8:26); but also, being the one responsible for the receiver to surrender their lives to God (John 16:7-11).

    Until next time, let's keep studying. CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552
    edited September 10

    @C Mc Water carries symbolic meanings.

    And where did Jesus say something like that in Acts 1:5 ??

    You still do NOT get it, do you? 😪 Can you not stick to even one verse of scripture (Acts 1:5) with just one simple statement?

    Now, granted, the passage in Mt 3:11 (and parallel record in Lk 3) are linked by virtue of the direct reference to "baptism by John with water" and Jesus "baptize you with holy spirit" ... thus, would Jesus in Acts 1:5 have alluded to what John had proclaimed in Mt 3 (Lk 3)?

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,050


    Wolfgang,

    Keep your shirt on! You don't need to have a spiritual hissyfit or a 3.7 tantrum on the anger scale. The sky is not falling. This is a stand-alone point (Water carries symbolic meanings). You don't have to be so linear or be concrete in processing information.

    I should have put it elsewhere in the post. Why do you only see the glass half-empty all the time?

    Can you not stick to even one verse of scripture (Acts 1:5) with just one simple statement?

    I exercised the privilege afforded me in these forums to leave comments as deems necessary. Save your rebuke for a family member. I am sharing, to your chagrin, but I am sharing. Until next time, nicely disagree, if it's not too much for you. CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    well ... this is not the place to have an exchange and studying biblical text. Since I am not interested in exchanges of "sharing" stuff beside what is actually the topic of discussion, I will gladly forfeit the opportunity I (wrongly?) thought I had.

    Have a nice day ...

    For communication I've given the "MS Teams" app a try ... maybe someone would like to chat that way with this "old heretic" ...

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,050

    "Avoidance- avoidance" is not the way forward. Give others a chance to read your post. They may see it differently. In the real world, we will have disagreements, but we move on. I will see you are around the forums. CM


    PS. @Wolfgang said:

    For communication I've given the "MS Teams" app a try ... maybe someone would like to chat that way with this "old heretic" ...

    ???? 🤔

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,394


    @Wolfgang posted:

    I thought I had formulated my various questions arising for me from reading the text rather clearly ...

    Simply exploring together and learning together what a text actually says seems to be impossible; perhaps because others seem not able and/or not willing to do so but instead immediately jump to theological matters ... and only want to then proceed within their theological haven?

    Your comments about what other CD posters are or are not willing/able to do are off-topic and in violation of the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people," so I move on.

    Here are the questions you posed in your OP, and my responses. I look forward to your responses to the questions you posed:

    • What did Jesus say (in Acts 1.5)? As part of his instruction to the disciples not to leave Jerusalem until they had received what the Father had promised and he (Jesus) had told them about (Acts 1.4), Jesus told them they would soon ("not many days from now") be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.5). In the next setting, Jesus also told them that upon receipt of the "power" from the Holy Spirit, they would be his "witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest part of the earth" (Acts 1.8).
    • What happened with his words, did they come to pass? It's not clear from your posts in this thread whether you're open to responses rooted in texts other than Acts 1.5, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that Acts 2 reports the fulfillment of Jesus' words given that therein Luke reports those who were "all together in the same place" (presumably the disciples; Acts 2.1) "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them ability to speak out" (Acts 2.4). And it's notable that the power of the spirit equipped people to communicate with each other across language divides, which I take to be a form of fulfillment of Jesus' words about their being his witnesses to other parts of the world.
    • What did Jesus state about baptism in water? In Acts 1.5, Jesus distinguishes between John's baptism with water and the baptism with the Holy Spirit that was to come upon his disciples. Jesus' statement offers no assessment of the meaning, purpose, or value of water baptism.
    • What did Jesus teach about baptism with holy spirit? In Acts 1.5, Jesus offers no assessment of the meaning, purpose, or value of baptism in with the Holy Spirit. As I noted above, however, he does speak about at least one effect of such a baptism in Acts 1.8.
    • Were they (?) to be experienced by the apostles? to be administered by them? In Acts 1.5, Jesus tells his disciples that they WILL experience baptism with the Holy Spirit, but he does not speak about responsibility for the administration of any form of baptism.

    Acts 1.5, which seems to be your sole focus in this thread, doesn't say much about baptism, whether with water or with the Holy Spirit. The NT has MUCH more to say about baptism, of course, but your responses to CM suggest to me that you're not open to that content's inclusion in this thread on the grounds that said content in your view is "theological interpretation." Hence, I stop.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    @Bill_Coley thank you for the note and your comments relating to my questions about Jesus' statement in Acts 1:5

    Acts 1.5, which seems to be your sole focus in this thread, doesn't say much about baptism, whether with water or with the Holy Spirit.

    It was the starting focus ... and it seems that Jesus made a clear distinction (cp his use of "but") between only two baptisms he mentioned, one which was administered by John in water, and one which would be administered to the disciples in holy spirit.

    The NT has MUCH more to say about baptism, of course, but your responses to CM suggest to me that you're not open to that content's inclusion in this thread on the grounds that said content in your view is "theological interpretation." Hence, I stop.

    See above ... and you may notice that I said "starting focus". Also, in a previous note I already made comment on Mt 3 and Lk 3 references where John's words concerning further implications of his baptism are recorded and in which he already emphasizes the change from baptism in water to baptism with holy spirit ... the former being linked to his "preparatory" ministry while the latter is linked to Jesus' accomplishments after John's ministry.

    Any and all of the "NT much more about baptism" must flow with and agree with each other on the basis of what those texts actually say.

    I am open to Biblical text exploration ... I am not interested in exploration of scriptures based on theological commentary. I believe that interpretation and understanding emanate from and must be based on Biblical text, not that commentaries with tradition and dogmas determine how one approaches the actual Bible text.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    As part of his instruction to the disciples not to leave Jerusalem until they had received what the Father had promised and he (Jesus) had told them about (), Jesus told them they would soon ("not many days from now") be baptized with the Holy Spirit (). In the next setting, Jesus also told them that upon receipt of the "power" from the Holy Spirit, they would be his "witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest part of the earth" ().

    Indeed ... In addition, and not to be ignored, he told his disciples that this "baptism with holy spirit" would happen in contrast to the "baptism with water" which John had administered.

    It's not clear from your posts in this thread whether you're open to responses rooted in texts other than , but I think it's reasonable to conclude that Acts 2 reports the fulfillment of Jesus' words given that therein Luke reports those who were "all together in the same place" (presumably the disciples; ) "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them ability to speak out" (). And it's notable that the power of the spirit equipped people to communicate with each other across language divides, which I take to be a form of fulfillment of Jesus' words about their being his witnesses to other parts of the world.

    Yes ... the record in Acts 2 then tells what did happen to the disciples and that Jesus' words about "baptism with holy spirit" became reality ... and, interestingly, without any previous "baptism with water" first or simultaneously taking place and not being mentioned there.

    In , Jesus distinguishes between John's baptism with water and the baptism with the Holy Spirit that was to come upon his disciples. Jesus' statement offers no assessment of the meaning, purpose, or value of water baptism.

    The only assessment Jesus mentions is that the one had been in the past, the other would be in the near future, an the two were in strong contrast to each other. What did Jesus contrast? The time factor (one had been before, one was to follow shortly) and the means (one outwardly with water, one inwardly with holy spirit).

    In Acts 1:5, Jesus offers no assessment of the meaning, purpose, or value of baptism in with the Holy Spirit. As I noted above, however, he does speak about at least one effect of such a baptism in Acts 1:8.

    Indeed ... Jesus also offers no assessment of - nor even mentions it any further on - baptism in or with water. He does only speak about some further details, effects of being immersed, baptized with holy spirit.

    (?) In Acts 1:5, Jesus tells his disciples that they WILL experience baptism with the Holy Spirit, but he does not speak about responsibility for the administration of any form of baptism.

    I would think that Jesus rather clearly pointed out a change from the one baptism with water as John had actively administered (cp. "John baptized ... ") to the other baptism that the disciples were to passively receive (cp. "you will be baptized ..."). The disciples are not told to actively baptize (e.g. with water), but are told that they would be baptized with holy spirit.

    John's own words in Mt 3:11 (Lk 3:16) show that the Lord Jesus is the one who administers the baptism which came after John's water baptism. John also makes it very plain that his form of baptism in water would be essentially replaced by Jesus' form of baptism with holy spirit,

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,050

    It's still not necessary to have tantrums to have your way in these forums. @Wolfgang, what you wrote above was all I meant when I asked: "Better yet, what are you getting at in the text you cited"?  There is no need to be "hot-headed" in these forums with a fellow poster, especially when you talk about the Holy Spirit, who will guide us, teach us, and convict us into all truth (of God/ourselves). More peace. Better responses. CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,394

    @Wolfgang posted:

    It was the starting focus ... and it seems that Jesus made a clear distinction (cp his use of "but") between only two baptisms he mentioned, one which was administered by John in water, and one which would be administered to the disciples in holy spirit.

    In the two instances of baptism you cite, notice the change in voice: The first (water) was a baptism BY John - that is, he administered the baptism. The second (Holy Spirit) was baptism TO the disciples - that is, they RECEIVED the baptism. I contend the difference in voice matters in that it signals a difference in purpose and effect between the two baptisms. More to come.


    See above ... and you may notice that I said "starting focus". Also, in a previous note I already made comment on Mt 3 and Lk 3 references where John's words concerning further implications of his baptism are recorded and in which he already emphasizes the change from baptism in water to baptism with holy spirit ... the former being linked to his "preparatory" ministry while the latter is linked to Jesus' accomplishments after John's ministry.

    You discern from the Matthew 3 and Luke 3 texts a change from baptism in water to baptism with the Holy Spirit. I disagree.

    • Neither text explicitly reports such a change.
    • John's water baptism had been for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3.3). The baptism in the Holy Spirit will power the disciples' ministry in service to their risen Lord (Luke 24.46-49; Acts 1.4-5,8).
    • The Apostle Peter tells a post-resurrection audience they must repent, turn to God, and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38). The text gives no indication that said baptism will be in the Holy Spirit.
    • In response to Peter's call, 3,000 are baptized and added to the church (Acts 2.41). Again, there is no indication that said baptisms are in the Holy Spirit.
    • In fact, Luke makes a clear distinction between baptism to convey faith and one's receipt of the Holy Spirit when he describes stages of the spiritual journey of Simon the magician in Acts 8. Simon and others are baptized in water (Acts 8.9-13). Then Peter and John arrive to pray for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit because they had only only been baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 8.15-17). Simon then seeks the power to lay hands on people to bring the Holy Spirit to people (Acts 8.18-19), which suggests to me that receipt of the Holy Spirit was a step separate and distinct from the water baptism.
    • A similar distinction occurs in Acts 19.1-7. Paul tells people he meets in Ephesus that John's was a baptism of repentance, which moves those people to be baptized in the name of Jesus. AFTER THAT BAPTISM, Paul lays hands on them and they receive the Holy Spirit. Again, a clear separation between baptism in faith/repentance and the receipt of the Holy Spirit.
    • Philip baptizes an Ethiopian in water (Acts 8.38-39). The text reports that Philip was then carried away by the Holy Spirit, but it makes no claims about the Spirit's impact on the Ethiopian.
    • 1 Peter 3.19-21 says the water of a flood depicts baptism, which saves, "not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience." In my view, Peter clearly has water baptism in mind.

    ALL of those bulleted events occurred AFTER the resurrection. In my view, the disciples' handling of baptism and the Holy Spirit post Jesus' ascension gives no support to your claim that baptism had changed from in water to in the Spirit.


    Any and all of the "NT much more about baptism" must flow with and agree with each other on the basis of what those texts actually say.

    I agree. So where do texts actually say that baptism in the Holy Spirit replaced baptism in water?


    Indeed ... In addition, and not to be ignored, he told his disciples that this "baptism with holy spirit" would happen in contrast to the "baptism with water" which John had administered.

    "In contrast to" baptism with water, yes, but NOT in replacement of baptism with water, which I contend serves a different function from water baptism.


    Yes ... the record in Acts 2 then tells what did happen to the disciples and that Jesus' words about "baptism with holy spirit" became reality ... and, interestingly, without any previous "baptism with water" first or simultaneously taking place and not being mentioned there.

    The absence of reported water baptisms in the Acts 2 story does not prove that none of the participants in the event had been baptized in water.

    If I had to speculate - and that's all it would be - I'd say Jesus' disciples had followed his lead. Since HE - their Lord and the Son of God - had chosen to be baptized in water, so had they chosen to be baptized in water.


    The only assessment Jesus mentions is that the one had been in the past, the other would be in the near future, an the two were in strong contrast to each other. What did Jesus contrast? The time factor (one had been before, one was to follow shortly) and the means (one outwardly with water, one inwardly with holy spirit).

    As I demonstrated above, the "in the past" baptism continued after Jesus' ascension, in my view because it served a different purpose than did baptism in the Spirit.


    I would think that Jesus rather clearly pointed out a change from the one baptism with water as John had actively administered (cp. "John baptized ... ") to the other baptism that the disciples were to passively receive (cp. "you will be baptized ..."). The disciples are not told to actively baptize (e.g. with water), but are told that they would be baptized with holy spirit.

    I won't repeat my argument in full, but put simply, the biblical text does not support your contention of a "change" from one baptism to another. Instead, I contend, the text declares the arrival of another form of baptism, an arrival that does NOT result in the end of the other form.


    John's own words in Mt 3:11 (Lk 3:16) show that the Lord Jesus is the one who administers the baptism which came after John's water baptism. John also makes it very plain that his form of baptism in water would be essentially replaced by Jesus' form of baptism with holy spirit,

    I disagree with your characterization of John's message about his form of baptism principally because the NT record after Jesus' ascension shows that the disciples continued the practice of water baptism.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552
    edited September 12

    You discern from the Matthew 3 and Luke 3 texts a change from baptism in water to baptism with the Holy Spirit. I disagree.

    Neither text explicitly reports such a change.

    Oh ... I must be gravely mistaken in thinking of a change from baptism with water done by John to baptism with holy spirit done by Jesus ?? And I thought both John and Jesus were rather explicit about such a change .... hmn.

    The Apostle Peter tells a post-resurrection audience they must repent, turn to God, and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38). The text gives no indication that said baptism will be in the Holy Spirit

    Yes ... does Peter say anything about water? about first water and then (as a reward for outward water baptism ?) receive holy spirit baptism? A look at the context of the situation described in Acts 2, from where does the idea of different baptisms - with water and with holy spirit - come? Any mention by Peter for someone including himself to please baptize his audience in water? The text actually states that his listeners who would respond to his message and repent of their sins would receive baptism with holy spirit as a gift.

    In response to Peter's call, 3,000 are baptized and added to the church (Acts 2.41). Again, there is no indication that said baptisms are in the Holy Spirit

    Indeed ... they "were baptized ..." (received baptism), just as earlier the disciples "were baptized ..." (received baptism). I note that there is no mention that someone actively baptized (with water), nor is there any mention of baptism in water. The immediate context of the record in Acts 2 indicates rather clearly that "baptism with holy spirit" is what happened at Pentecost in fulfillment of Jesus' - as well as John's - words concerning the overall topic of baptism

    The absence of reported water baptisms in the Acts 2 story does not prove that none of the participants in the event had been baptized in water.

    The question is not if someone among the audience had been baptized in water ... the question is what kind of two mentioned forms of baptism is in view in the context and overall scope.

    If I had to speculate - and that's all it would be - I'd say Jesus' disciples had followed his lead. Since HE - their Lord and the Son of God - had chosen to be baptized in water, so had they chosen to be baptized in water.

    I concur with what was stated earlier about the "so-called" baptism of Jesus by John .... it had nothing to do with "baptism of John with water" as mentioned in the records in question here ... it was a completely different matter.

    If we take into consideration what Peter later (in Acts 10:38) mentioned, it was about Jesus' ordination to his office as high priest by God, where he was anointed with holy spirit.

    As I demonstrated above, the "in the past" baptism continued after Jesus' ascension, in my view because it served a different purpose than did baptism in the Spirit.

    The old water baptism continued ... yes, because certain people desired it (cp. eunuch in Acts 8). But, as God's desired order the baptism in water as done by John was succeeded by what was done by Jesus ... as the text in their respective contexts and overall scope -- such as the change from "outward physical foreshadow" to "inwardly spiritual reality" in biblical development -- clearly indicates and shows.

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552
    edited September 12

    @Wolfgang John's own words in Mt 3:11 (Lk 3:16) show that the Lord Jesus is the one who administers the baptism which came after John's water baptism. John also makes it very plain that his form of baptism in water would be essentially replaced by Jesus' form of baptism with holy spirit,

    @Bill_Coley I disagree with your characterization of John's message about his form of baptism principally because the NT record after Jesus' ascension shows that the disciples continued the practice of water baptism.

    For one, there are not many places in NT scriptures recording the disciples doing (John's) water baptism. In addition, disciples doing something doesn't necessarily mean that such was the actual message, norm or what was required, etc.

    I can do a lot of things and claim all kinds of requirements as "God ordained" and "necessary" (such as OT feast keeping, OT laws keeping, etc.) and continue to live as OT religious Jews under the OT Law taught, etc .... but, would such be in accordance with God's directives for NT age and administration?? Did not Paul address such as false teaching for NT age of grace in Christ??

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,394
    edited September 13

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Oh ... I must be gravely mistaken in thinking of a change from baptism with water done by John to baptism with holy spirit done by Jesus ?? And I thought both John and Jesus were rather explicit about such a change .... hmn.

    If John and Jesus were "rather explicit," then you should be able to answer the question I posed in my previous post: Where do texts actually say that baptism in the Holy Spirit replaced baptism in water?


    Yes ... does Peter say anything about water?

    No. Why does he have to? Does he say anything about Spirit baptism replacing water baptism?


    about first water and then (as a reward for outward water baptism ?) receive holy spirit baptism?

    No NT writer describes one's receipt of the Holy Spirit as a "reward."

    As I demonstrated in a previous post, the resurrected Jesus told his disciples - people who were already following him - to wait for the Holy Spirit, which would power their ministry - that is, people who were already following Jesus would later receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.8).

    As I demonstrated in my previous post, Peter and John laid hands on the baptized "new believers" who were in the company of the magician Simon so that they would receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8.12-17). The text says they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8.16). Receipt of the Spirit FOLLOWED baptism.


    A look at the context of the situation described in Acts 2, from where does the idea of different baptisms - with water and with holy spirit - come?

    The issue is whether baptism in the Spirit replaced water baptism, rendered it ineffectual and improper. You have yet to show that it did.


    Any mention by Peter for someone including himself to please baptize his audience in water? The text actually states that his listeners who would respond to his message and repent of their sins would receive baptism with holy spirit as a gift.

    Again, why do people have to specify water as the form of baptism? When you say you're going to have something to eat, do you always specify that "food" is what you're going to eat, or do you expect those who hear you state your intentions will know you're going to eat food without your stating it explicitly because when people eat, most of the time they eat food?

    Where in the Acts 2 text do you find Peter's declaration that upon their repentance his listeners would receive "baptism with the Holy Spirit"? I find Peter's urging them to be "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ," which would be followed by their receipt of the Holy Spirit. I don't find the baptism in the name of Jesus referred to or defined as a baptism with/in the Holy Spirit.

    PLUS, recall the believer's baptisms of Simon et al in Acts 8, baptisms the text says were administered only "in the name of the Lord Jesus." AFTER those baptisms, Peter and John laid hands on the believers, which delivered the Holy Spirit. What kind of baptism did Peter urge upon his Acts 2 audience? "In the name of Jesus Christ," which sounds a whole lot like "in the name of the Lord Jesus." Clearly, baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus" was an event distinct from the receipt of the Holy Spirit. Baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" wouldn't have been similarly distinct?

    My point is NOT that there was no receipt of the Holy Spirit!! It is that receipt of the Holy Spirit did not replace water baptism, and that you have yet to show it did.


    Indeed ... they "were baptized ..." (received baptism), just as earlier the disciples "were baptized ..." (received baptism). I note that there is no mention that someone actively baptized (with water), nor is there any mention of baptism in water. The immediate context of the record in Acts 2 indicates rather clearly that "baptism with holy spirit" is what happened at Pentecost in fulfillment of Jesus' - as well as John's - words concerning the overall topic of baptism

    There is no indication of the mode of baptism in the Acts 2 text, and certainly no reason to believe baptism with the Spirit had replaced water baptism.


    The question is not if someone among the audience had been baptized in water ... the question is what kind of two mentioned forms of baptism is in view in the context and overall scope.

    In Acts 2, the referenced baptism is one "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2.38, NLT), which is in line with the water baptisms John the Baptist administered "to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven" (Luke 3.3, NLT). The receipt of the Holy Spirit was a distinct experience, one that did not replace water baptism.


    I concur with what was stated earlier about the "so-called" baptism of Jesus by John .... it had nothing to do with "baptism of John with water" as mentioned in the records in question here ... it was a completely different matter.

    The biblical text is that which "so calls" what John administered to Jesus a water "baptism" (Matthew 3.13-17).

    If we take into consideration what Peter later (in Acts 10:38) mentioned, it was about Jesus' ordination to his office as high priest by God, where he was anointed with holy spirit.

    Yes. In Acts 10.38, the Holy Spirit powers Jesus' ministry... analogous to the way Jesus promised his disciples that the Spirit would power their ministries (Acts 1.8).


    The old water baptism continued ... yes, because certain people desired it (cp. eunuch in Acts 8). But, as God's desired order the baptism in water as done by John was succeeded by what was done by Jesus ... as the text in their respective contexts and overall scope -- such as the change from "outward physical

    foreshadow" to "inwardly spiritual reality" in biblical development -- clearly indicates and shows.

    Jesus' disciples administered water baptism. Neither any disciple nor any biblical text expresses hesitation or doubt about the efficacy of water baptism. No text reports the replacement of water baptism. Multiple texts report the separation of baptism from the receipt of the Holy Spirit. All of which I find to be a compelling case that water baptism was not replaced, and that receipt of the Holy Spirit served a different function from water baptism.


    For one, there are not many places in NT scriptures recording the disciples doing (John's) water baptism. In addition, disciples doing something doesn't necessarily mean that such was the actual message, norm or what was required, etc.

    How many instances of post-ascension water baptisms in the NT would convince you that it was part of God's plan? Given all the references to a receipt of the Holy Spirit as a special event or experience, on what textual basis do you claim that the many NT instances of baptism without reference to their means were not water baptism?


    I can do a lot of things and claim all kinds of requirements as "God ordained" and "necessary" (such as OT feast keeping, OT laws keeping, etc.) and continue to live as OT religious Jews under the OT Law taught, etc .... but, would such be in accordance with God's directives for NT age and administration?? Did not Paul address such as false teaching for NT age of grace in Christ??

    Which NT texts refer to water baptism as false teaching?

    Where are the texts that say baptism in the Holy Spirit replaced baptism in water?


    Among the texts I cited that you did not engage was 1 Peter 3.19-21, in which Peter makes a clear connection between water and baptism, calling water "a picture of baptism, which now saves you" (1 Peter 3.21, NLT). How do Peter's words in ANY way support your view?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552
    edited September 13

    If John and Jesus were "rather explicit," then you should be able to answer the question I posed in my previous post: Where do texts actually say that baptism in the Holy Spirit replaced baptism in water?

    Did John say "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: (Mt 3:11, Lk 3:16)"? Seems very plain and clear or explicit ... Nor did Jesus in his words to his disciples say anything about adding holy spirit to an already existing water baptism ...

    Why insist on keeping outward physical rites and ritual which was meant to only be preparatory for what Jesus was to and did accomplish which would follow with his completed work?

    Mark 1:8 "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

    John :31 "31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water."

    If this is not explicit enough, nothing else would suffice either. Baptism with water according to John's preaching to those who came to him had a time limited purpose and would be followed by that baptism which Jesus would perform after John's ministry.

    Where are the texts that say baptism in the Holy Spirit replaced baptism in water?

    In Scripture ... just as those texts which say Jesus is not God ...

    Among the texts I cited that you did not engage was 1 Peter 3.19-21, in which Peter makes a clear connection between water and baptism, calling water "a picture of baptism, which now saves you" (1 Peter 3.21, NLT). How do Peter's words in ANY way support your view?

    "The like figure where unto 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: (1Pe 3:21)

    Peter is NOT speaking about WATER baptism ... using metaphorically the type of salvation in the ark in Noah's day, and how now the antitype of baptism (not an outward one with cleaning filth as water would do, but an inward spiritual one that would bring a good conscience toward God) provides the ultimate salvation.

    Unfortunately, it seems figures of speech used in Scripture - such as type, metaphor, etc - are often misunderstood and thought of as describing a "sacrament", an outward physical action which supposedly brings about or signifies an inward spiritual reality. People read the word "baptism" and automatically think "water baptism" (as if that's the only "baptism" existing). The problem may be easily cleared up if people would think of the word "baptism" as "immersion" (and not as a title for some ritual). It is clear that one can be immersed in a lot more than water !! Folks are immersed ("baptized") in their work, some in their sport, some in reading, in particular music, etc. Thus, "baptism / immersion" does not always refer to "water immersion" ... as believers on Messiah Jesus, we are baptized / immersed in holy spirit by him.

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,394
    edited September 13

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Did John say "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: (Mt 3:11Lk 3:16)"? Seems very plain and clear or explicit ... Nor did Jesus in his words to his disciples say anything about adding holy spirit to an already existing water baptism ...

    Yes, John said what you quote him as saying, but what you quote him as saying does NOT say baptism in the Spirit replaced baptism in water (I've placed the word "replaced" in bold-face type in several posts so as to draw your attention to it, but to-date, none of your responses has addressed that specific issue). To my reading of his declaration, John is saying Jesus will do something John can't do, with a power John can't wield. That of course ALSO means that no one AFTER Jesus will be able to do what Jesus will do, or wield the power he will wield.

    But that's not a problem because, as I have shown multiple times, Holy Spirit "baptism" serves a different function than water baptism. For example, the disciples were experienced followers of and believers in Jesus, but still Jesus told them to wait for the Holy Spirit before they commenced their work on his behalf (Acts 1.8). The Spirit fueled/powered ministry.

    And then there's Peter's interaction with Cornelius and others in Acts 10. As Peter testifies about Jesus, the Holy Spirit falls upon his audience (Acts 10.44). In response to their receipt of the Spirit, Peter says, "Can anyone object to their being baptized, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” (Acts 10.47, NLT) Only then, AFTER their receipt of the Holy Spirit, are they baptized ("in the name of Jesus Christ"; Acts 10.48) In that case, baptism FOLLOWED receipt of the Spirit, which means baptism did not convey the Holy Spirit.

    The cases of people's receipt of the Spirit after baptism, in some cases, but before baptism in other cases, that I've cited from Scripture in my view demonstrate that baptism was an event distinct from receipt of the Spirit.


    Why insist on keeping outward physical rites and ritual which was meant to only be preparatory for what Jesus was to and did accomplish which would follow with his completed work?

    The issue I've raised to your attention is whether spirit baptism replaced water baptism. You have yet to show that it did.


    If this is not explicit enough, nothing else would suffice either. Baptism with water according to John's preaching to those who came to him had a time limited purpose and would be followed by that baptism which Jesus would perform after John's ministry.

    I don't read the texts this way. I read the texts to say John's baptism was different from Jesus' baptism because John was not Jesus, that Jesus accomplished outcomes of which John was incapable. John's ministry was time-limited because John was time-limited, not because water baptism was time-limited.


    In Scripture ... just as those texts which say Jesus is not God ...

    This response is about as helpful as my responding to your request for proof of my contentions with, "In the dictionary." After all, the words needed to form the sentences that would prove my contentions ARE in the dictionary!

    When I make the claim that Jesus is not God, I don't say, "It's in the Bible." I cite specific texts and explain how those specific texts support my claim that Jesus is not God. I've asked you multiple times for the texts that show Spirit baptism replaced water baptism. "In Scripture" doesn't identify any texts, nor does it explain how specific texts support your claim of water baptism's replacement.


    Peter is NOT speaking about WATER baptism ... using metaphorically the type of salvation in the ark in Noah's day, and how now the antitype of baptism (not an outward one with cleaning filth as water would do, but an inward spiritual one that would bring a good conscience toward God) provides the ultimate salvation.

    The 1 Peter 3 text says nothing about baptism in the Spirit. It employs water imagery, but not Holy Spirit imagery.

    I don't claim that water baptism saves! I claim it's a symbol, a visible representation of one's salvation. It's like a certificate or diploma that reports a student's graduation from an academic program. He or she has already completed the studies; the work is done. The certificate symbolizes the completion. Similarly, water baptism symbolizes - it's doesn't create - one's connection to Christ. To my reading, that's Peter's message in 1 Peter 3: The water of baptism symbolizes - it doesn't cause - the cleansing one has experienced through his or her connection to Christ.

    And is the Peter who wrote 1 Peter 3 the same Peter who in Acts 10 approved of Cornelius and company's baptisms AFTER they had received the Holy Spirit? Do you claim Peter was right in 1 Peter 3, but wrong in Acts 10?


    Unfortunately, it seems figures of speech used in Scripture - such as type, metaphor, etc - are often misunderstood and thought of as describing a "sacrament", an outward physical action which supposedly brings about or signifies an inward spiritual reality. People read the word "baptism" and automatically think "water baptism" (as if that's the only "baptism" existing). The problem may be easily cleared up if people would think of the word "baptism" as "immersion" (and not as a title for some ritual). It is clear that one can be immersed in a lot more than water !! Folks are immersed ("baptized") in their work, some in their sport, some in reading, in particular music, etc. Thus, "baptism / immersion" does not always refer to "water immersion" ... as believers on Messiah Jesus, we are baptized / immersed in holy spirit by him.

    I don't claim baptism brings about a spiritual reality; I claim it symbolizes one. Now have all water baptized people experienced the spiritual connections their baptisms symbolize? No. But diplomas and degrees don't always mean their recipients learned everything they should have learned either. The spiritual reality is all that matters, ultimately, but baptism can serve as a powerful testament to a person's journey.

    I agree with your take on the word "immersion." However, the issue I've raised to you has not been whether people can be immersed in the Holy Spirit; it's been whether baptism with the Spirit replaced water baptism. The texts I've cited in this thread show clearly that it did not. You've yet to quote a single text to show that it did not.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552
    edited September 14

    Yes, John said what you quote him as saying, but what you quote him as saying does NOT say baptism in the Spirit replaced baptism in water (I've placed the word "replaced" in bold-face type in several posts so as to draw your attention to it, but to-date, none of your responses has addressed that specific issue).

    I have repeatedly addressed the issue ... which has nothing to do with your specific wording in the first place! It has to do with understanding the content of what John and Jesus declared.

    To my reading of his declaration, John is saying Jesus will do something John can't do, with a power John can't wield. That of course ALSO means that no one AFTER Jesus will be able to do what Jesus will do, or wield the power he will wield.

    Indeed ... while John was able to achieve baptism in water, nobody but Jesus is able to baptize in holy spirit (no matter what all the water baptizers claimed and whatever rituals they tried)

    I don't read the texts this way.

    There's the problem .... why do you do that?

    I read the texts to say John's baptism was different from Jesus' baptism because John was not Jesus, that Jesus accomplished outcomes of which John was incapable. John's ministry was time-limited because John was time-limited, not because water baptism was time-limited.

    Why then did Jesus not continue water baptism BUT baptized with holy spirit?

    The 1 Peter 3 text says nothing about baptism in the Spirit. It employs water imagery, but not Holy Spirit imagery.

    "imagery" is NOT the reality.

    I don't claim that water baptism saves! I claim it's a symbol, a visible representation of one's salvation.

    And where does Scripture teach or speak of using symbols to represent a reality ??

    And is the Peter who wrote 1 Peter 3 the same Peter who in Acts 10 approved of Cornelius and company's baptisms AFTER they had received the Holy Spirit? Do you claim Peter was right in 1 Peter 3, but wrong in Acts 10?

    I include Acts 11record of what Peter explained further about what actually happened at Cornelius' house (note the "THEN I remembered ..." part of his statement). Did you notice that Acts 10 (nor Acts 3) speak of "water", nor do they mention that Peter or some other disciple were actively "baptizing" someone.

    When I make the claim that Jesus is not God, I don't say, "It's in the Bible." I cite specific texts and explain how those specific texts support my claim that Jesus is not God.

    Others ask you to show them a verse that says Jesus is not God .... just as you do here with your request about "texts about replace ..." of water by spirit baptism. I have shown you specific texts, pointed to context and overall scope of Scripture ....

    I've asked you multiple times for the texts that show Spirit baptism replaced water baptism. "In Scripture" doesn't identify any texts, nor does it explain how specific texts support your claim of water baptism's replacement.

    Of course, you can continue baptizing people in water as a symbol or whatever for centuries ... in that sense, water baptism was not replaced. However, such symbolism use was not the purpose of John's water baptism in the first place (cp John 1:31).

    However, the issue I've raised to you has not been whether people can be immersed in the Holy Spirit; it's been whether baptism with the Spirit replaced water baptism. The texts I've cited in this thread show clearly that it did not. You've yet to quote a single text to show that it did not.

    I simply pointed out that John and Jesus mention a change of baptism ... one was with water and in its time served a particular purpose in regards to people turning to and believing in the Messiah Jesus. The mentioned water baptism became obsolete once the other baptism with holy spirit became reality. Unfortunately, many seem not to recognize that truth and reality, and instead even elaborated their theology on baptism with all kinds of outward things as necessary for them to baptize someone into their church (which their "baptism" in reality is, an initiation rite into their group) ... most even seem to ignore biblical truth about "baptism with holy spirit" as result of (rightfully so) being turned off by charlatans and weird practices of people claiming to be "charismatic / pentecostal".

    1Cor 12:13 (NASB) For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

    Is this statement plain and clear? Where is the water symbol in the text??

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • Seems to me that a person could be baptized with water, or in the spirit, or both. That is what we read in the Bible and see happening today. No need to stress about it.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,394

    @Wolfgang posted:

    I have repeatedly addressed the issue ... which has nothing to do with your specific wording in the first place! It has to do with understanding the content of what John and Jesus declared.

    My "specific wording" is relevant because it forms the question I've asked you multiple times in this thread. You have every right not to care for my "specific wording," but the question I asked you depends on it, so the wording stays.

    My contention, based on Scripture, is that John's baptism served a different function than the baptism Jesus promised. John's baptism is about a repentant turn to God, a turn the disciples urged to their audiences AFTER Jesus' ascension (e.g. Acts 2.38, a verse in which Peter tells his Jerusalem audience that as a result of their baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they will receive the Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit is a form of power for believers' lives and ministries.


    Indeed ... while John was able to achieve baptism in water, nobody but Jesus is able to baptize in holy spirit (no matter what all the water baptizers claimed and whatever rituals they tried)

    I agree, but to be clear, John's baptism did not claim to baptize in/with the Holy Spirit.


    There's the problem .... why do you do that?

    Why do I understand those specific Bible texts the way I do? Probably for the same reasons you understand Bible texts the way you do: because as I consider their content and context both local and in Scripture writ large, that's the meaning that occurs to me. Why do you disagree with me? (a question as awkward as is yours to me, I think) Probably because as you read the texts' content and context, you come to conclusions different from mine.


    Why then did Jesus not continue water baptism BUT baptized with holy spirit?

    John 4.1-2 reports that Jesus DID baptize, but that his disciples performed the baptisms. How do you understand the baptisms John says Jesus conducted but his disciples performed? What physically happened during those baptisms?

    I know of no text in which Jesus suspends the practice of water baptism, PLUS, as I have shown multiple times in this thread, his disciples practiced water baptism after his ascension.


    "imagery" is NOT the reality.

    "Imagery" in this case refers to the vocabulary Peter employs to refer to baptism, so yes, it IS the descriptive "reality" Peter ascribes to baptism.


    And where does Scripture teach or speak of using symbols to represent a reality ??

    • 1 Peter 3.21 (NLT) says water is a "picture of baptism."
    • In an objectionable verse (1 Corinthians 11.10), Paul calls for women to wear a covering on their heads as a symbol of authority.
    • Jesus' parables are filled with symbols and imagery that represent reality.
    • In Genesis 9.13, God tells Noah that rainbows will symbolize God's covenant with the earth.

    There are many other examples.


    I include Acts 11record of what Peter explained further about what actually happened at Cornelius' house (note the "THEN I remembered ..." part of his statement). Did you notice that Acts 10 (nor Acts 3) speak of "water", nor do they mention that Peter or some other disciple were actively "baptizing" someone.

    In Acts 11.16, Peter reports his interpretation of the effects of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and company, effects he ascribes to Jesus' promise of a baptism with the Spirit. But according to Acts 10.47-48, AFTER Peter saw and understood the effects of the Spirit on Cornelius, he asked, "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" So according to the text, FIRST came their receipt of the Spirit and its effects (Acts 10.45-46), THEN came baptism in water "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10.47-48). Peter's Acts 11 description of those events doesn't change the specifics or the sequence of those events.


    Others ask you to show them a verse that says Jesus is not God .... just as you do here with your request about "texts about replace ..." of water by spirit baptism. I have shown you specific texts, pointed to context and overall scope of Scripture ....

    But I've provided you with verses that explicitly report the disciples' practice of water baptism after Jesus' ascension, and the fact that baptism in the Spirit served a different function than did water baptism. You've not provided me with verses that explicitly (or implicitly, for that matter) report the end of the practice, or that it served the same purpose as water baptism.


    Of course, you can continue baptizing people in water as a symbol or whatever for centuries ... in that sense, water baptism was not replaced. However, such symbolism use was not the purpose of John's water baptism in the first place (cp John 1:31).

    To me, your acknowledgement that water baptism was not replaced represents welcome common ground.

    In my view, the Cornelius story in Acts 10 makes clear that water baptism doesn't save or bring about repentance; it symbolizes salvation and repentance.


    I simply pointed out that John and Jesus mention a change of baptism ... one was with water and in its time served a particular purpose in regards to people turning to and believing in the Messiah Jesus. The mentioned water baptism became obsolete once the other baptism with holy spirit became reality. Unfortunately, many seem not to recognize that truth and reality, and instead even elaborated their theology on baptism with all kinds of outward things as necessary for them to baptize someone into their church (which their "baptism" in reality is, an initiation rite into their group) ... most even seem to ignore biblical truth about "baptism with holy spirit" as result of (rightfully so) being turned off by charlatans and weird practices of people claiming to be "charismatic / pentecostal".

    1Cor 12:13 (NASB) For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

    Is this statement plain and clear? Where is the water symbol in the text??

    You and I agree about the power and necessity of the Holy Spirit in the process of spiritual regeneration, and that water baptism does not save or transform anyone. Where we might disagree is that I don't object to water's use as a symbol of new life a la Colossians 2.12, which speaks of our being buried with Christ in baptism, then raised with Christ through faith. The physical act of one's body lowering into the baptismal water as one's "old" self, and rising out of the water as one's "new" self is for me a powerful image of transformation that has already occurred. I respect the fact that it's not a powerful image for you.

  • byGeorgebyGeorge Posts: 60
    edited September 14

    "Old self" - "new self?"

    Maybe I am nit-picking but this smacks of new-age-ish touchy, feely, pop-modern "self" more than dying to self and living in Christ.

    Where do you get that "new self" stuff? Not Col 2:12.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,394

    @byGeorge posted:

    "Old self" - "new self?"

    Maybe I am nit-picking but this smacks of new-age-ish touchy, feely, pop-modern "self" more than dying to self and living in Christ.

    Where do you get that "new self" stuff? Not Col 2:12.

    As I intend to use the phrase, "new self" is synonymous with the new life reported in, among many others, the following verses:

    • Romans 5.18 - Christ's action brings a right relationship with God and "new life for everyone."
    • Romans 6.13 - We were dead, but now we have new life.
    • 2 Corinthians 5.17 - For anyone who belongs to Christ, "[t]he old life is gone; a new life has begun."
    • Galatians 6.15 - What matters isn't whether we're circumcised, but whether we exhibit a new creation.
    • Colossians 2.12 - We are buried with Christ in baptism, and then raised with him to new life.
    • Titus 3.5 - God "washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit."
    • 1 Peter 1.23 - We have been born again to a new life that will last forever.

    In 2 Corinthians 5.14-15, Paul seems to make the connection I propose (emphasis added): "14 Either way, Christ’s love controls us. Since we believe that Christ died for all, we also believe that we have all died to our old life. 15 He died for everyone so that those who receive his new life will no longer live for themselves. Instead, they will live for Christ, who died and was raised for them." 

    "New self" = "New life."

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    You and I agree about the power and necessity of the Holy Spirit in the process of spiritual regeneration, and that water baptism does not save or transform anyone.

    John's water baptism was required as it was God ordained and requirement in the process of repentance. With Christ's completed work, the reality has made the need for John's water baptism obsolete, as now those who repent are baptized by the Lord with holy spirit. With such baptism they become members of his body, the church of God.

    Where we might disagree is that I don't object to water's use as a symbol of new life a la Colossians 2.12, which speaks of our being buried with Christ in baptism, then raised with Christ through faith. The physical act of one's body lowering into the baptismal water as one's "old" self, and rising out of the water as one's "new" self is for me a powerful image of transformation that has already occurred. I respect the fact that it's not a powerful image for you.

    This water baptism ritual is not required nor God ordained nor required for anything in God's sight. What you describe as "symbol of new life á la Col 2:12" is maybe good sounding idea in some ears ... but is not what Col 2 is about.

    But then, as I have noted before, the knowledge about the use of figures of speech in the Bible is important to have and apply for understanding the text correctly, Col 2:12 is not describing some symbol but emphasizes via metaphor the spiritual reality that takes place when the person believes and is baptized by the Lord!


  • I stumble at the conflation of new-self and new-life. A warning bell says that the equation has more to do with new live really meaning new-self rather than the other way around. The statement is not an accurate equation. Better is to stick with the Bible as it is written and as you have posted correctly above. Thanks for that clarification.

    • Water baptism is not of itself regenerational, Yet is does seem important as part of the expected ritual package of normal Christian life experience.
    • Col 2:12 is probably not about the requisite of physical water baptism, though it rings with clear overtones of baptism in general (physical in the recent memory of Paul's letter recipients) and is a symbol functioning as a metaphor for spiritual reality as indicated above.
    • Good discussion all around.


Sign In or Register to comment.