Evidence for God from Science

Water Baptism is the New Testament sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace. It is a symbolic cleansing, representing the washing away of impurity, just as the Old Testament sign (Circumcision) represented a cutting away of impurity. Colossians 2:11-12 makes this connection.

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation (the thief on the cross), nor can it save (Simon Magus). However, it is important, if for no other reason, it is part of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). Jesus commanded it. In the New Testament, this was the practice performed on believers and their households.

Hope this helps.

PL

Well, both of those don't mention and aren't water baptisms.

The Matthew verse says by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And we know that the Holy Spirit doesn't come through water. The Colossions passage is talking about the baptism of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit. The same one in Acts 2:38.

See the OT water baptism was an example of the new baptism... The baptism with the Holy Spirit, the only way we can be clean. For we walk in the Spirit and no longer by works. Just as Circumcision of the flesh has no affect because God is concerned about the heart, water baptism has no affect because God wants us to walk in the Spirit and not by works.

led wrote:Well, both of those don't mention and aren't water baptisms.

The Matthew verse says by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And we know that the Holy Spirit doesn't come through water. The Colossions passage is talking about the baptism of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit. The same one in Acts 2:38.

See the OT water baptism was an example of the new baptism... The baptism with the Holy Spirit, the only way we can be clean. For we walk in the Spirit and no longer by works. Just as Circumcision of the flesh has no affect because God is concerned about the heart, water baptism has no affect because God wants us to walk in the Spirit and not by works.

I agree that the water has no effect, but the command to be baptized is still important. It is Christ who baptizes with the Spirit. The Apostles were incapable of doing that. The only baptism they were capable of was water baptism.

Water Baptism was clearly practiced in the NT church. (Matthew 3:11-16, Acts 8:36-38, Acts 10:47). Jesus Himself was baptized in water in order to "fulfill all rightesousness".

See Of Baptism for more info.

Yes, The Apostles never healed anyone either, it was God who did it.
It is God who does everything and He alone gets the glory. We are just His vessels with which the Holy Spirit flows through. The baptism of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit is for the remission of sins(Acts 2:38). If we don't go, who will God use to reach the lost. He told us to go... The Great Commission.

led wrote:Yes, The Apostles never healed anyone either, it was God who did it.
It is God who does everything and He alone gets the glory. We are just His vessels with which the Holy Spirit flows through. The baptism of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit is for the remission of sins(Acts 2:38). If we don't go, who will God use to reach the lost. He told us to go... The Great Commission.

Just because the Great Commission does not mention water specifically does not mean that is not what was understood by the Apostles and the early Church. In fact, it is pretty clear in Acts that that is exactly how they understood it in terms of their commission.

I'm all for elimination elements of the "faith" that are not rooted in the Word when they in fact stand as a barrier to people coming to Christ. Baptism, in my opinion, does not meet that test. There's far more to argue for it than to argue against it and to trump it all you have a consistent history of its practise throughout the early Church right until today.

There's more to argue in terms of mode and baptismal regeneration than there is to argue its significance or ordinance, especially when you have it modeled by Christ Himself and tied to the need for all righteousness to be fulfilled.

Scripture please.

led wrote:Scripture please.

You have all the scripture on these points already.

You need a scripture for the great commission? You need a scripture for the baptism incidents in Acts.

You won't find a scripture for the history of the Church from then to now. Do you dispute the general statement that Baptism has been in practise since the Church's inception until present?

Sola Scriptura is good and true. When you reduce it to absurdity in one area you sow the wind and reap the whirlwind in other areas. Be careful when you reduce every element of discussion and support and use it as a debating technique to try and discount what you don't want to hear. When you do i t one area, then you introduce the need for consistency. Systematic Theology is about basing on Scripture and then interpolating your results into a general framework upon which you base a world view, doctrine and guides for b elief and living. Is there risk in that. Yes. Has error slipped in at time? Yes. Is Theology ultimately an imperfect tool that requires constant rechecking and alligning with Scripture. Yes.

That doesn't mean you toss it out. It means you keep sharpening it.

Your questions are good and I'm glad you are asking them. The degree to which you are pushing your points to where it looks to me like you are rejecting any inference of water baptism unless you actually see the water physically described in the passage or water used before baptism is torturing the text, in my opinion.

Your general premise in asking the question earlier was that baptism scared people away from Christ. Do you have Scripture to support your contention in that regard that is as crystal clear as you are attempting to drive the defense?

See what I mean? You have to be consistent in your standards for both sides of the question although the onus is always on the side that is asserting for establishing a doctrine as opposed to the one seeking to deconstruct it.

Sorry, no more prooftexting on this. I'm not trying to scold and I'm not upset. I'm just trying to help you see what you are doing here and to encourage you to be consistent to the same standards you are establishing. I and pthers have gven you a lot of Scripture up above. There's nothing wrong with drawing from that base, throwing in some Chruch history, which does not trump Scripture, nor is it by itself equal to Scripture, but it is relevant and it begs the question as to what is so special about your thinking now that the majority of Christians for 2,000 years have missed it.

ok! No need to get nasty. Just asking for scripture.

None of the scriptures given say water baptism. What am I supposed to believe? If it say water baptism, I'll believe it. It's that simple.

Yes, I can improve on delivering the Word, but in turn, I have been very consistant in explaining what baptism means. Baptism in the NT is of Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 is a perfect reference). which replaces the water baptism of John (Matt. 3:11) John said it himself. I have no problem working through them for you again, but it seems that it won't be productive. It also seems that the tone of this thread is starting to change.

as far as 2,000 years of believing one way goes; 1500 of that was by the Catholics, which state that you must be water baptized to be saved, and that's a grave error. So we can reduce it to less than 500 years after that and even then there are many that don't get water baptized today. But I don't want to throw history in there as the Word of God is the only source that we need.

I have known people to get turned off from Christianity because people make it complex. And the Bible says that we should live in simplicity. Don't be decieved be the craftiness of the devil from the simplicity in Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3 That's why this is an issue for me, and I feel should be for all.

Led, let me ask you a question:

Are you capable of baptizing someone in the Holy Spirit? I'll assume you say "no." Then what of the command by Jesus to "baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Let's look closely at the commission for a moment: You'll notice that there is one command, which is to make disciples. We are to do it "as we are going." Next, we are told HOW to make disciples. First, we are to baptize them. Second, we are to teach them. If both of these aren't done, you don't have a disciple. Jesus then follows this up with a promise that He will be with us until the end of the age.

It is important to note that this was not strictly limited to the twelve apostles, but the many who were standing there at that moment. Thus, the practice of water baptism is firmly established so far as pre-pentecost goes.

We can then turn to Acts 2 where we see the disciples first baptized with the Spirit. They begin preaching and many believed (Acts 2:37). Peter commanded these to be baptized--about 3,000 (v. 41). Verses 42-47 record the activities of this first church of baptized believers. They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and to prayer. And God was adding to their number daily (v. 47). It is fairly obvious that these new believers would have been baptized as well.

This practice is seen throughout the book of Acts. Philip baptized people in Samaria (8:12). Of interest, he was not one of the twelve. In Acts 8:36-40, he baptizes the Ethiopian. The clincher is in Acts 9:44-48. There, Cornelius is baptized by the Holy Spirit (because he believed), and in response to this Peter says, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." (v. 47) Thus, baptism is firmly estabished for those who have already been baptized by the Spirit. This, for the record, is the reason I believe in believers' baptism ONLY. If you have been baptized as a child, but not as a true believer, you have never been baptized.

We therefore see the rational in Paul's arguments in Col 2:12 and Rom 6:4. These passages do not refer to the baptism of the Spirit only, but to the symbolic act of water baptism. This is why I disagree with the reformed teaching on baptism. The water represents the grave, not the Holy Spirit. So, we are baptized into Christ's death, and raised out of the water a new creature.

Of course, baptism does not save, but neither does the Lord's Supper. These are things we do as a memorial to commemorate a certain event. They are symbolic testimonies both to ourselves and to others. As they were commanded by Christ and practiced by the apostles both before and after Pentacost, we should continue these practices today.

God bless

Here is every Scripture I could find with Water baptism

Mat 3:6 and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Act 8:36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Act 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.



All I can find that are relevant to Water and Baptism... however the word appears 56 times in the New Testament.

led wrote:ok! No need to get nasty. Just asking for scripture.

None of the scriptures given say water baptism. What am I supposed to believe? If it say water baptism, I'll believe it. It's that simple.

Yes, I can improve on delivering the Word, but in turn, I have been very consistant in explaining what baptism means. Baptism in the NT is of Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 is a perfect reference). which replaces the water baptism of John (Matt. 3:11) John said it himself. I have no problem working through them for you again, but it seems that it won't be productive. It also seems that the tone of this thread is starting to change.

as far as 2,000 years of believing one way goes; 1500 of that was by the Catholics, which state that you must be water baptized to be saved, and that's a grave error. So we can reduce it to less than 500 years after that and even then there are many that don't get water baptized today. But I don't want to throw history in there as the Word of God is the only source that we need.

I have known people to get turned off from Christianity because people make it complex. And the Bible says that we should live in simplicity. Don't be decieved be the craftiness of the devil from the simplicity in Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3 That's why this is an issue for me, and I feel should be for all.

No nasty intended. That's why I used the

1. What is your explanation as to why Jesus was baptized and can you defend it with scripture to the degree of specificity you are asking others to do here? What righteousness did Jesus fulfill and why should we not follow his example?

2. Writing off 1500 years of Church History because you don't like the Catholic Church is not really an option. There is also the Eastern Orthodox Church, Montanists and many other varieties of Christians in that time beside just the Catholic Church. Don't mistake the institution of Catholicism, which I have issues with as well, although probably not to the degree you are expressing, with the organism of the Church which is all believers througout history.

The pre-eminence of Scripture is agreed, but that does not preclude history as a corallary argument.

My comment is intended to illustrate that when you apply a certain standard of hermeneutics to dispensing with what is historically and scripturally recognized as an ordinance of the Church, be prepared to apply the standard in every area and you may find you are not as pleased with the overall results.

That's all I'm saying and I'm not trying to be nasty about it, just direct and blunt, which is in keeping with the same directness and bluntness you are using and there is nothing wrong with that. Sorry if it came off as too strong. I assure you I was smiling as I typed it.

Best to you,

Bart

Thx for the scriptures.

Jac3510 wrote:Led, let me ask you a question:

Are you capable of baptizing someone in the Holy Spirit?

......We can then turn to Acts 2 where we see the disciples first baptized with the Spirit.

So you're saying that the disciples can baptize with the Spirit but we can't.
What is your thoughts on Acts 2:38 Is it water baptism or not?
(I assume you agree that the remission of sins happen when you are saved, which Acts 2:38 is talking about - A call for salvation.)

If you say it's not then the next question is why can't we baptize others in the Spirit? Is it not simply bringing them to Christ?

Jac3510 wrote:We therefore see the rational in Paul's arguments in Col 2:12 and Rom 6:4. These passages do not refer to the baptism of the Spirit only, but to the symbolic act of water baptism. This is why I disagree with the reformed teaching on baptism. The water represents the grave, not the Holy Spirit. So, we are baptized into Christ's death, and raised out of the water a new creature.

Colossians 2:11, 12 “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”

your saying then we must first die through water then raise with Christ through faith? That would be the timely order of it. For if your raised then there's no need to be buried.

That's why they are together as one baptism. And notice the need "buried with Him in baptism" for salvation.

Jac3510 wrote:We can then turn to Acts 2 where we see the disciples first baptized with the Spirit. They begin preaching and many believed (Acts 2:37). Peter commanded these to be baptized--about 3,000 (v. 41). Verses 42-47 record the activities of this first church of baptized believers. They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and to prayer. And God was adding to their number daily (v. 47). It is fairly obvious that these new believers would have been baptized as well.

This practice is seen throughout the book of Acts. Philip baptized people in Samaria (8:12). Of interest, he was not one of the twelve. In Acts 8:36-40, he baptizes the Ethiopian. The clincher is in Acts 9:44-48. There, Cornelius is baptized by the Holy Spirit (because he believed), and in response to this Peter says, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." (v. 47) Thus, baptism is firmly estabished for those who have already been baptized by the Spirit. This, for the record, is the reason I believe in believers' baptism ONLY. If you have been baptized as a child, but not as a true believer, you have never been baptized.

Acts 13:46 “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it … we turn to the gentiles”
— For a time salvation was sent to the Jews only

Acts 8:14-17 “Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was giving.
- They received the word of God from Philip but not the Holy Spirit - Acts 8:18
— At this time the Holy Spirit moved through the apostles only - Acts 5:13
— The Holy Spirit was not sent out to the Gentiles yet - Acts 13:46
Only after this point was the Spirit poured out.

You missed my point. No person can baptize another with the Holy Spirit. The apostles couldn't, and neither can we. The Holy Spirit Himself is the one who baptizes us in that sense. Therefore, when Jesus commanded us to baptize, He wansn't commanding us to baptize in the Spirit. He was commanding us to baptize with water, which represents the work of the Spirit.

As for Acts 2:38, no, that passage is not a call for salvation. Verse 37 says that when the people heard Peter's sermon, they were "to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, 'Brothers, what shall we do?'" They had believed the message, and were at this point justified (saved). Now, because they had believed, Peter called them to do two things: repent and be baptized. Repentance is necessary for the temporal forgiveness of sins. This is true in every Christian's life. When we sin, we break fellowship with God, though we are still His children. These Jews were the same ones who had killed Jesus. They had to repent especially of that. Baptism is a public identification with Christ. Therefore, to be baptized would be to identify with Him, thus "confessing Him before men," not for salvation, but so that fellowship could be maintained between these new converts and their Savior.

The same is true today. Jesus is ashamed of the Christian who is ashamed of Him. Baptism is something we have to do, not to be saved, but in confessing our faith before men.

led wrote:If you say it's not then the next question is why can't we baptize others in the Spirit? Is it not simply bringing them to Christ?

Again, I say that we cannot baptize in the Spirit. It is not the same as simply leading them to Christ. The baptism of the Spirit in Cornelius' house is a good example. No apostle ever baptized anyone by the Spirit. They preached, the people believed and were baptized by the Spirit, and then the they recognized this fact with water baptism. That was the procedure then, and it is the procedure now.

led wrote:your saying then we must first die through water then raise with Christ through faith? That would be the timely order of it. For if your raised then there's no need to be buried.

Note the above. The water baptism is symbolic of what has already happened. If you believe that this, and Rom. 6:4, have absolutely no reference to water baptism, you have a pretty huge exegetical burden to bear. Paul was writing to baptized believers. When he spoke of baptism, that was the event that would be brought into their mind. And rightly so. Again, the water baptism demonstrates outwardly what the Spirit had done inwardly. It is a symbolic representation of a spiritual reality.

led wrote:— For a time salvation was sent to the Jews only

No, this is incorrect. The message was first proclaimed to the Jew in order of importance, but salvation was not only for the Jew at any point. There is an eschatological issue at stake here. The Jews, had they repented and accepted Christ, would have received the Messianic Kingdom immediately. In their rejection, however, the message was then taken to the Gentiles. Don't confuse eschatological promises with soteriological promises

led wrote:- They received the word of God from Philip but not the Holy Spirit - Acts 8:18
— At this time the Holy Spirit moved through the apostles only - Acts 5:13
— The Holy Spirit was not sent out to the Gentiles yet - Acts 13:46
Only after this point was the Spirit poured out.

Are you saying that these people were not saved until they received the Holy Spirit? What we are dealing with here is the apostolic authority of the Church. It was the role of the Apostle's to lay the foundation of the Church. There may be believers--indeed, saved believers--where they had not yet been, but so far as ecclesiastical/apostolic authority goes, this came through them. This reality was demonstrated by the "receiving of the Holy Spirit." It was God's seal of approval.

Now, in all this, bear in mind, again, Cornelius' account, previously mentioned. Here are people who were saved and received the Spirit, and THEN Peter baptized them. If I understand your premise correctly, you argue that if we have received the Spirit, we have no need for water baptism. However, the fact that Peter sees a need to water baptize someone who had been Spirit baptized should put that issue to rest.

Hope that helps,

God bless

Jac3510 wrote: As for Acts 2:38, no, that passage is not a call for salvation. Verse 37 says that when the people heard Peter's sermon, they were "to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, 'Brothers, what shall we do?'" They had believed the message, and were at this point justified (saved).

Huh?
Just because one believes doesn't mean their saved. The demons believe.
For whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Ro 10:13

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

God has made it clear that he wants us to call out to Him. The reason is that He's a personal God and he wants a relationship with us. One other reason why I feel this topic is important.

They didn't confess him as Lord. They only believed what was said. You can't say that they were saved, but they wanted to be, that's why they asked.

And it was through this baptism that their sins were washed away. Water baptism can't do that.

I would love to go further but if we can't get passed this passage then it seems that we will get nowhere on the other ones as well.

Led,

Let's look at Rom. 10:9-14 first:

• That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

Alright, let's look at a few things. First, this passage is found in the context of the 9-11 unit that deals with Israel. Paul is dealing with questions relating to national Israel's ellection and why it was they were not being saved. Take a minute and notice the transition in chapters 9 and 10 and here from "they" and now "you." Paul is now stating a universal truth that they would have to (and ultimately will) come to realize if they are to receive their promised blessings.

With that, Paul says that "salvation" comes when two things happen: (1) a confession of the mouth of identification with Jesus, and (2) belief in His redemptive work. Notice the parallelism is these verses:

Confess w/ mouth the Lord Jesus - Believe w/ heart in Resurrection
Confess w/ moutn unto Salvation - Believe w/ heart unto justification

Thus, belief is tied to justification. Go back through the book of Romans, and you'll find that the word "justify" in the book is a technical sense word a declaration of righteouness by God. That is, it is initial salvation. It is the moment in which we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ. This is by faith alone in Christ alone. See Rom 4.

What is salvation? Here's the kicker. In this passage, just like the rest of Romans, "salvation" is NOT "not going to Hell." The word soteria doesn't mean that anywhere in the Bible. It just means "deliverance from danger." Sometimes the danger is Hell. But there are other dangers as well, including judgment, wrath, one's enemies, the body, etc., all of which occur in this book.

Bearing context in mind, the Jews were about to undergo judgment (which they finally did in AD 70). Paul proves this the famous verse 13, "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." What is the context of THAT passage? Paul is quoting an OT verse in which Israel was about to be destroyed by Assyria. If, though, the people would call out to God, then they would be delivered. The same is true here. If the Jews would call out to Jesus, they would be delievered from judgment. This is further demonstrated by the progession of truths in verse 14. Let's take it backwards:

1. First someone must preach so that they can hear,
2. First they must hear so that they can believe,
3. First they must believe so that they can call out.

Notice that they have already believed in 2. This is the same word Paul uses in Rom. 4 for the condition of justification. It is the same word he uses in Gal. 3. It is the same word John uses throughout his gospel. It is the same word Paul uses in Rom 10:10. At the moment of belief, one is justified, or imputed with righteousness. However, that does not mean he is saved from EVERYTHING. He still has to identify with Christ through repentence and confession to avoid judgment and discipline. Had the Jews done this . . . had they believed in Christ's redemptive work unto justification, they could have confessed His Lordship unto salvation. Salvation from what, though? From the coming judgment they were about to experience!

Now, that should make Acts 2 fairly clear. The moment these people believed they were saved. Consider the old sinners prayer. "Lord, I know what you did for me on the cross. Please forgive me of my sins and come into my heart." If a person prays that genuinely, you should agree that they are saved. But, question: did they pray because they believed, or did they believe because they prayed? And where does the Bible say that salvation is acquired through prayer? On the contrary, it says that salvation is acquired by belief. Thus, was the person saved when they believed or when they prayed? Clearly, they were saved the moment they believed. They prayer was superfluous.

The same is true with the Jews here. They were not repenting to go to heaven or to be justified. They were repenting and confessing to be saved from judgment. Baptism is a part of all that.

God bless