baptized with what - water or holy spirit?
Comments
-
Water baptism is not of itself regenerational, Yet is does seem important as part of the expected ritual package of normal Christian life experience.
Where are outward rituals prescribed for new covenant believers, seeing that the old covenant outward physical foreshadowing types are fulfilled in their new covenant inward spiritual reality anti-types?
It seems more that numerous Christians are earthly minded and eager for old covenant rituals and feasts to satisfy their desire to do work for good standing with God rather than accepting Christ's completed work and the grace extended to them??
-
- Are baptismal rituals "prescribed?"
- Why wouldn't a Christian want a good standing with God and how is that opposed to accepting Christs completed work and grace?
-
Are baptismal rituals "prescribed?"
you tell me ... is such outward ritual required, deemed necessary, by God?
Why wouldn't a Christian want a good standing with God and how is that opposed to accepting Christs completed work and grace?
Wrong question ... why would a Christian want a good standing with God by outward rituals when with Christ's accomplished work the spiritual reality to which previous outward ritual pointed has become available? how would an outward washing in water bring about or do anything to give a good standing with God?
Real question: Is the scripture passage you most likely have in mind even speaking about water baptism??
-
you tell me ... is such outward ritual required, deemed necessary, by God?
You say things in ways that contain a seed of truth, but are organized such that they are not true. We could spend all out time trying to re-lay simple foundations. Is the while matter so difficult? Why are we making it so difficult?
Yes, baptism is a thing and should be done. No explicit prescription is given. It is as necessary as any Biblical statement to do a thing. The act (ritual you call it--I don't) has no specific salvific function.
Why wouldn't a Christian want a good standing with God and how is that opposed to accepting Christs completed work and grace?
Wrong question ... why would a Christian want a good standing with God by outward rituals when with Christ's accomplished work the spiritual reality to which previous outward ritual pointed has become available?I thought it to be a good question and still do. I don't suppose a Christian wants good standing by outward rituals. On the other hand, our life does affect our standing with God. Christians, presumably, want a good standing with God. We haven't defined "good standing" which seems generic as you use it--unless you mean it in some specific way.
how would an outward washing in water bring about or do anything to give a good standing with God?
Back to that definition of "good standing," (I am increasingly cloudy about what you mean by that term), baptism does not cause good standing with God. We don't do it to gain good standing. We do it as a response to Biblical instruction, historical practice, and Biblical guidance on the matter.
Since we know baptism refers to water and early biblical baptisms occurred in water, what have you got against doing it in water?
Of course, spiritual baptism is also a thing, and we should also have that to have "good standing" with God.
[Is this one of those forums where people argue pointlessly by changing definitions of words? --just checking]
-
@byGeorge said:
"[Is this one of those forums where people argue pointlessly by changing definitions of words? --just checking]'
This is a classic example of what I tried to convey in other threads around the forums. One needs a basic or mutual understanding of the terms outlined for a fruitful discussion. The clarification of terms and the way forward are necessary for general sharing and required, particularly if one wants to have anything near a debate. However, I am not so naive to believe that everyone that comes to these forums is serious. Some lack understanding of the subject matter and others makes a lot of spiritual noise without any intelligible biblical sense. In short, they are peddling "fool-ology" (the study of foolishness). Let's not forget those with hard-core presuppositions; they are blind to their entrenchment. Lastly, they are some who don't want to make sense. They love to hear (write) to the tune of their self-importance.
I know everyone is not equally studied, educated, or theologically trained. Let me hasten to say; those as mentioned earlier are not required to participate in CD. However, with a humble spirit, one can learn much from others and be taught by God. What exists in the"real world" exists here in CD. We must lead the way, hope reason, and The Spirit of God illuminates darken minds. Notwithstanding, one can lead the horse to the water, but one can't make him drink. CM
-
I came here presuming this forum would likely be a standard, more or less evangelical, mostly orthodox, Mainstream/Baptist flavor discourse. Now, I am not so sure.
What exactly is the purpose here?
-
@byGeorge posted:
I came here presuming this forum would likely be a standard, more or less evangelical, mostly orthodox, Mainstream/Baptist flavor discourse. Now, I am not so sure.
What exactly is the purpose here?
THE OPENING PARAGRAPHS OF THE FORUMS' FIRST THREAD:
"This is your go-to place for respectful online theological discussion. Feel free to pose Bible questions, spark theological discourse, and connect with people all over the world who are passionate about the Word.
"Christian Debate is a hub for biblical learning, growth, and community. Please keep your questions and comments respectful and polite. Treat others in this forum like you would treat your neighbor at church—don’t be afraid to voice your opinion, but do it with love and kindness."
There is nothing in those words or in the larger post in which they reside about the theological inclinations of participants, a fact which I take to declare the forums' welcome to a broad spectrum of points of view, including those one or more observers might not consider to be standard, evangelical, orthodox, mainstream, or Baptist.
Theological discourse occurs, at least in my vision of the term, when people of like- or dissimilar points of view substantively engage each other on specific issues... such as the divinity of Christ discussion that currently awaits your response to my request for additional information.
-
Since we know baptism refers to water and early biblical baptisms occurred in water, what have you got against doing it in water?
Well, I know from John's and Jesus' words that "baptism" does NOT necessarily refer to water. I also know from reading the verses informing us of their words that one of them (John) "baptized with water" in preparation to the ministry of the other (Jesus) , who then came and would "baptizes with holy spirit" the other ... I understand that as two different types of baptism, one of them having to do with water, the other having nothing to do with water but with spirit.
Do you know or think "spirit" = "water"? Or why do you seem to ignore these words of John and Jesus and state as "know baptism refers to water"? I checked verses speaking of baptism in early church times (e.g. in Acts) ... do you know that in just about all of them - starting with Acts 2 and only very few exceptions - there is no mention of water?!!
-
I mentioned above that "baptism" is used to refer to water baptism and spirt baptism. Seems to me that we are agreeing.
I thought that you might be going the direction if saying water baptism was not a thing or that it was inconsequential--that spirit baptism was all that existed (post John the Baptist). Now, I am speculating that you grant room for legitimate water baptism. But I am guessing. So, where are you going with this?
-
I mentioned above that "baptism" is used to refer to water baptism and spirt baptism. Seems to me that we are agreeing.
Well, in what I quoted from your earlier post you did NOT say anything about "baptism" in connection with "spirit", but you clearly wrote "baptism refers to WATER etc" I pointed out that this claim is not what I know from John's and Jesus' words where we rather clearly read Christ would baptize with spirit (and NOT somehow in or together with a human administering a water baptism alongside it)
I thought that you might be going the direction if saying water baptism was not a thing or that it was inconsequential--that spirit baptism was all that existed (post John the Baptist).
It's not a question "what existed", but rather a question what is now the God desired baptism ... Is water baptism a necessity of some sort for God to be considered a believer in Christ, a member of Christ's body (the church of God)?
Now, I am speculating that you grant room for legitimate water baptism. But I am guessing. So, where are you going with this?
"Legitimate" in regards to what? Various church denominations have exercised and practiced various kinds of water baptism rituals (from a few drops on a baby's head to full under water bath in a lake or river) with various kinds of symbols with significance which they attached .... which one - if any - is "legitimate"?
I am going back to NT scriptures relevant to topic of "baptism" ... endeavoring to be a workman student of the Scriptures who correctly understands the word of truth.
-
Is water baptism a necessity of some sort for God to be considered a believer in Christ, a member of Christ's body (the church of God)?
I don't see baptism described as a necessity as described above in the Bible. It simply says to be baptized. To me, water baptism seems to be more of a response than a cause. Spirit baptism seems to be a description of what is and not a cause or response. Maybe that is one a way to think about it.
which one - if any - is "legitimate"?
By "legitimate," above, I meant baptism that is real and not figurative or metaphorical. Some people spiritualize almost everything, probably even eating breakfast. I find value in the real deal.
As for method or practice, that is a broad and disputed topic. Personally, I prefer adult immersion as a best practice. I don't think that is the only legitimate practice.
-
Salvation through Water (verse 20-21a)
God in His patience did not want anyone to perish in the flood. But although people had the necessary knowledge, only a few stepped inside the ark. So it is today. Many are lost. A few are saved. But Jesus’ victory is seen when people are saved. Noah and his family may have suffered from the ridicule and scorn of their contemporaries, but God saved them. God’s children are never alone. The topic of 1 Peter 3:18-22 is to encourage suffering Christians by reminding them:
- (1) Jesus is risen
- (2) Jesus proclaims His triumph over the demons
- (3) Jesus saves.
The waters of the flood, which killed the ungodly, carried the ark and preserved the life of the eight humans. Noah and his family survived, because eis hēn . . . diesōthēsan di’ hudatos, (in which . . . were saved through water). According to Blass/Debrunner oftentimes en (in) should be read where eis (into) is found. ---- Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 110, state: “No NT writer except Matt. is entirely free from the replacement of en by eis in a local sence.” In 1 Pet 5:12, a second case is found within the same document.
Therefore we can translate: “in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water” taking the di’ hydatos (through water) instrumental rather than local. They were saved through the water. Peter’s audience had heard about spirits in verse 19, namely the demons who already in the past were disobedient. In verse 20 these are contrasted with “souls,” humans. Both groups are affected by Christ’s victory.
Water is destructive but also life-supporting. While it drowned Noah’s contemporaries, it saved him and his family. It killed what was sinful and purified the world. So also baptism. Jesus saves us through the water of baptism. What is sinful is destroyed. A new being arises. If a person who had been baptized has to suffer and even might be killed, his or her baptism actually means victory over death and destruction. Peter says “baptism saves you.” Baptism is vital. We cannot think highly enough of baptism. But it is not baptism in itself, which is to be praised, it is God’s action in baptism. Therefore, Peter quickly adds “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Baptism is not a sacrament which works automatically, independent of the receiver. It brings salvation because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, baptism is not just an external ceremony. Through baptism the human being has been raised to newness of life. Peter talks about a good conscience. The believer has found peace with God. The sin problem has been solved. He or she has committed himself or herself to the Lord. Back then God saved Noah through the waters of the flood; today He saves us in baptism.
-
The waters of the flood, which killed the ungodly, carried the ark and preserved the life of the eight humans. Noah and his family survived,
Yes, the water of the floog brought and wrought death and destruction, the water did NOT produce anything nor had anything to do with saving Noah and his family!! The wood of the ark saved and carried Noah and his family and preserved them alive.
In other words, Noah and his family were saved "through" the catastrophe of the water, NOT in any aspect "by, by means of" water help, instead it was DESPITE the deadly flood of water, they were saved FROM being killed by the water.
Please, folks, don't misinterpret what the text states and make something supposedly positive out of it when the text is about the exact opposite!
-
I don't think people presume Acts 1:5 has anything specific to do with Christian baptism, have you known anyone who did?
-
I don't think people presume Acts 1:5 has anything specific to do with Christian baptism, have you known anyone who did?
I know that many church groups assign Jesus' words to refer only to the apostles and their Pentecost experience... however, Jesus speaks about what John taught and did and when you compare John's actual words from the gospels, you will see that John was speaking to the crowd of people when he said "I baptize you with water ... after me comes one who will baptize you with spirit ..." John was not addressing only apostles, was he? I would therefore not do so with Jesus' words either because he is referring back to John.
My next question is, where is there a "Christian baptism" instituted by God in Scripture ? The baptism with water of John was upon God's instruction as was Jesus' baptism with holy spirit. But where is there such an instruction for someone to administer a "Christian baptism"? If anything, I would say that Christ baptizing with holy spirit those who believe on him is the baptism by which a person becomes a Christian and member of Christ's body (1Cor 12:13).
-
I think we are using baptism in two different ways--both valid. So, you are right. Water baptism is also a thing and valid--spirit baptism another and also valid. We see NT examples of both. One has little to do with the other than symbolically or some definition similarity.
If you want to try to read all the water baptism passages (after John's baptisms) as either John's baptism or spirit baptism, or some other kind of immersion, I think you are missing a valuable truth and blessing that nearly all Christians from the time of Jesus' ministry have practiced and known.
-
I think we are using baptism in two different ways--both valid. So, you are right. Water baptism is also a thing and valid--spirit baptism another and also valid.
As for me, one baptism (the one by John with water) was God ordained prior to the other (the one by Jesus with holy spirit). God did not plan two baptisms to be administered side by side, as John already explained that his baptism was temporary and "after me" would come that true baptism to which his baptism pointed. At any time there was and is only ONE true baptism in effect (cp. also Eph 4:4)
Nowhere in Scripture do I read of God ordaining another third baptism (again in water) ... whom did God ordain or command to baptize again with water after Christ has accomplished his redemptive work and has since Pentecost baptized each believer with holy spirit, thus adding that believer to his church?
-
If you want to try to read all the water baptism passages (after John's baptisms) as either John's baptism or spirit baptism, or some other kind of immersion, I think you are missing a valuable truth and blessing that nearly all Christians from the time of Jesus' ministry have practiced and known.
Which are "all the water baptism passages" which you have in mind? Why would I want to read a "water baptism" passage as "spirit baptism" or "some other kind of immersion"? I read "water" as water, "spirit" as spirit and "some other" as some other .... plain and simple. Do you get seemingly many "water baptism passages" because you read the words "baptism, baptized" automatically as "WATER baptism" instead of what text has and context provides?
It seems to me that such what you mention is done by those who think they have thus a valuable truth and blessing practiced (albeit in various shades of elder ordained group tradition) by many Christians ...?
Btw, I know personally Christians who had to be "blessed" that way several times in their lives because the next church group would regard their previous church's blessed ritual as invalid due to some detail in the ritual practiced ... the whole matter turning out a nightmare rather than a blessing ...
-
Brethren,
In "keeping the main thing, the main thing", let's not forget that water is an essential element of life. The Bible of connects much importance to water. There are at least 692 references to water in the Bible.
In the Old Testament Times:
- Water was used for cleansing. For examples:
- Water was used for personal hygiene, such as washing clothes (Exod 19:10; Lev 11:25, 40; 13:6, 34, 54, 58).
- Those who ministered at the altar were required to wash their hands (Exod 30:20-21).
- The priests were ceremonially cleansed with water (Exod 29:4). e.g. any Israelite who became ceremonially unclean also had to be cleansed with water (Lev 22:6).
- On the Day of Atonement feast, there were ceremonial washing for high priest, the one who bears the scape goat (Lev 16:4, 24, 26).
- Washing is also symbolically used to express the divine act of forgiving and purifying us from our sins.
- For example: David, after committing adultery with Uriah’s wife (Bathsheba), prayed that God should wash him with hyssop and make him free from his sin (Ps 51:2, 7).
Water is symbolic of the blessings of God upon His people and of spiritual reviving (Isa 35:6-7; 41:17-18).
In the New Testament:
- Water also carries symbolic meanings.
- Water is used in the baptism of John the Baptist to represent repentance (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5; 11:16).
- It is not 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).
- Jesus also speaks of giving those who believe in Him the water of life that becomes an ever running spring of everlasting life in them (John 4:14). See also, Rev 21:6:
“And He said to me, It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts”.
In the Bible, water is used for purification, cleansing, repentance, and blessing of a new life. In development of the above usage Jesus made clear believers are baptized with/in the Spirit (Matt 3:11; Acts 1:5). CM
- Water was used for cleansing. For examples:
-
Which are "all the water baptism passages" which you have in mind?
Google it, if you honestly don't know, so I don't waste time and space here. Baptism refers specifically to washing by water and to washing away filth. We have clear examples of how water baptism was conducted in the Bible and in descriptions and art by the early church. The word baptism can also refer figuratively to spiritual immersion, using the image of water baptism. All that is readily available common Biblical knowledge. I presume there is no part there with which you disagree. More interesting might be to discuss any passages using baptism which may not refer to water baptism.
It seems to me that such what you mention is done by those who think they have thus a valuable truth and blessing practiced (albeit in various shades of elder ordained group tradition) by many Christians ...?
My post was not intended to be pejorative of Presbyterians--many of whom are my dear friends.
Btw, I know personally Christians who had to be "blessed" that way several times in their lives because the next church group would regard their previous church's blessed ritual as invalid due to some detail in the ritual practiced ... the whole matter turning out a nightmare rather than a blessing ...
Indeed, I also know such people. While I do not think re-baptism necessary in most cases, I do not personally know anyone who has ever objected to being re-baptized and do know those who desired rebaptism or found it a blessing. I have not known any re-baptism that turned out to be a nightmare--please tell us one of your best nightmare stories.
-
Google it, if you honestly don't know, so I don't waste time and space here.
I appreciate you admitting that you are not really interested in studying biblical text and evaluating traditions and dogmas in light of the texts.
-
Oops! Correction: I mistakenly typed ...
- It is NOT 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).
It should read:
It 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).
Thanks for your understanding. CM
-
How did you connect those?
-
How did you connect those?
By reading and believing what you wrote ... it's all very simple.
-
@Wolfgang wrote:
Btw, I know personally Christians who had to be "blessed" that way several times in their lives because the next church group would regard their previous church's blessed ritual as invalid due to some detail in the ritual practiced ... the whole matter turning out a nightmare rather than a blessing ...
@byGeorge wrote:
Indeed, I also know such people. While I do not think re-baptism necessary in most cases, I do not personally know anyone who has ever objected to being re-baptized and do know those who desired rebaptism or found it a blessing. I have not known any re-baptism that turned out to be a nightmare--please tell us one of your best nightmare stories.
The point is: In these claimed to be "Christian baptism" rituals it becomes obvious that they are NOT "Christian" but rather "Church group initiation baptism" rituals ...
Also, if people are told that such and such is "God's will" or "Christ's will" -- when in truth it is nothing more than what that church group and their pastor say is God's will -- very few might have the courage to stand up to the pastor and object his claim.
I know people who "submitted" against their will to the church group pressure and fear of not being accepted and even excluded from certain events and functions ... being publicly put under water was by no means a blessing, especially so when wondering why God supposedly was not satisfied with the "baptism" before or why God should be satisfied this time when done by a different pastor in a different pond
-
On what scripture authority do a pastor or elder base their assumption of authority to ask, demand or command a person to agree for them to water baptize the person? These church organization authorities obviously will only refer to water baptism since they know that only Christ can pour out and baptize someone with holy spirit. Are they acting only as church organization executing a church organization ritual which really has nothing to do with a biblical Christian and spiritual matter?
-
I know people who "submitted" against their will to the church group pressure and fear of not being accepted and even excluded from certain events and functions
I agree that abuse in churches can become a nightmare. I have seen such abuse used other ways, just not with baptism, and find it hard to image an actual situation being so bad as to qualify as nightmare. You say you, so probably you have.
On what scripture authority do a pastor or elder base their assumption of authority to ask, demand or command a person
I want to point out your use of terms over which I stumble: demand, and command. I find this difficult to imagine as I have never encountered a pastor doing such, or a believer (new or old) cooperating. Probably, it has happened, as you say.
I think we could find more Scripture forbidding pastoral threats and abuse than we can find to support a pastor commanding or demanding baptism of a reluctant baptismal participant. I can't think of any Scriptures that could be used that way.
Are they acting only as church organization executing a church organization ritual which really has nothing to do with a biblical Christian and spiritual matter?
Some are. Others are performing biblical water baptism as taught and performed in the Bible.
The point is: In these claimed to be "Christian baptism" rituals it becomes obvious that they are NOT "Christian" but rather "Church group initiation baptism" rituals ...
I left this for last because I wasn't sure what you were saying. For practicality, water baptisms today are sometimes performed on groups of several people. Nearly always, at least two people are involved. Baptism is an initiation ritual, if you want to call it that. Do you mind explaining how "Church group initiation baptism" rituals are not "Christian baptism?" Perhaps you are still conflating spirit baptism and water baptism--which have little in common other than figuratively.
If you are denying the validity of all Christian water baptism, then you have a long, wet swim upstream to explain away a lot of Scripture, but I don't think you would say that. If so, then probably we shouldn't even start that as I have little interest in engaging foolish arguments.
Here is why:
2 Timothy 2:14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
2 Timothy 2:23-24 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
-
Do you mind explaining how "Church group initiation baptism" rituals are not "Christian baptism?"
The ritual's purpose is initiation into the particular church group (establishing in their practice membership or full membership in their group) rather than having to do with the spiritual reality of a person being added into the church, the body of Christ ...
2 Timothy 2:14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
2 Timothy 2:23-24 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
I have heard this almost always from those who were steeped in church traditions and did not want to involve themselves in non-church-group study of Scripture because they saw on the horizon that some of their beloved traditions and beliefs were questioned ...
-
The ritual's purpose is initiation into the particular church group (establishing in their practice membership or full membership in their group) rather than having to do with the spiritual reality of a person being added into the church, the body of Christ ...
That makes sense. I certainly agree with your concern about such religious rituals being invalid as biblical water baptism.
I have heard this almost always from those who were steeped in church traditions and did not want to involve themselves in non-church-group study of Scripture because they saw on the horizon that some of their beloved traditions and beliefs were questioned ...
I am sure you have, as we all have. Do you also reject those scriptures as truth?
-
I am sure you have, as we all have. Do you also reject those scriptures as truth?
I do not reject any scripture.
I do question what people at times claim about scriptures and object to interpretations which are misrepresenting the biblical truth of such scriptures in favor of mainstream denominational church traditions.
See, your question above whether I reject verses of scripture is a prime example for such church traditionalist practice
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
