Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[savedsinner]

Tabcom, maybe this link will help you a little bit more on baptizo or what ever else is holding you up on your understanding.

It looks to be a protestant site, so I don’t know how accurate it might be.

Baptize - a Greek word study:

You stated that you wanted a source beyond scripture, I am not sure where you would find it, but many of the church fathers wrote in greek, so you would probably want to go there to see what greek word they used for baptism, and how they used it. I can find the writings of the fathers, but I am not sure where you can find the greek words they used, maybe someone else might know.

 

[clmowry]

What I’m looking for is empirical data from a secular source during the time of Jesus and Paul that documents the public display of water baptism.

I hope somebody has such a thing, but why would such a source even exist?

Why would a “secular” source give a hoot about documenting the public display of water baptism?

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

Well Peter sure seemed to think Baptism involved water:

ACTS Chapter 10:

34 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 37 the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; 40 but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; 41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

44 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

So after witnessing what is apparently and “extraordinary” gift of the Spirit it appears that Peter still sees it as necessary to baptize with water.

Chuck

And I want to thank you, Pax, for pushing me to study more.

Now that we are in agreement that there are multiple types of baptism, my personal study has led me to this . . . .

John’s Baptism - water.
Jesus’ Baptism - Holy Spirit and Fire.
What kind of baptism is Jesus talking about in Mark and Luke?

Mark 10:38
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

Lk 12:50
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!

Is Jesus talking about being dipped in water a second time? (Rhetorical question – no need to reply)

I believe you attempted to answer these questions by stating Christian/Tinitarian baptism. However, that baptism is theological in nature and really doesn’t resolve my questioning.

 

[postwriter]

I, very humbly, also bear witness to the baptism truth.

 

[tabcom]

I hope somebody has such a thing, but why would such a source even exist?

Why would a “secular” source give a hoot about documenting the public display of water baptism?

Chuck

I do have documentation. Secular sources of Biblical events is very important for validation of people and events. For instance, it wasn’t until around 110 A. D. that any Roman Empire documentation materialized that identified the Christians separate from the Jews. Anyway, to answer your first question . . .

from Alfred Edersheim’s ‘The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah’,

"The following notice from Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5. 2) is not only interesting in itself, but for the view which it presents of baptism. It shows what views rationalizing Jews took of the work of the Baptist, and how little such were able to enter into the real meaning of his baptism. ‘But to some of the Jews it appeared, that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and, indeed, as a righteous punishment on account of what had been done to John, who was surnamed the Baptist. for Herod ordered him to be killed, a good man, and who commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. For that the baptizing would be acceptable to Him, if they made use of it, not for the putting away (remission) of some sins, but for the purification of the body, after that the soul had been previously cleansed by righteousness. And when others had come in crowds, for they were exceedingly moved by hearing these words, Herod, fearing lest such influence of his over the people might lead to some rebellion, for they seemed ready to do any thing by his council, deemed it best, before anything new should happen through him, to put him to death, rather than that, when a change should arise in affairs, he might have to repent,’ &c. On the credibility of this testimony see the Article on Josephus, in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of Christian Biography,’ vol. iii. pp. 441-460 (see especially pp. 458, 459).
"

 

[tabcom]

Well Peter sure seemed to think Baptism involved water: ACTS Chapter 10:47
So after witnessing what is apparently and “extraordinary” gift of the Spirit it appears that Peter still sees it as necessary to baptize with water.Chuck

Regretfully, the limitations of expressing oneself through a medium such as internet forums, restricts my ability to express my disagreement with your conclusion. It would take me much longer to fully explain why I disagree. Nonetheless, I’ll try, knowing that what I’m trying to convey will not be fully understood and will be met with much opposition, if not hostility. I apologize in advance.

1. The English translation of the original greek text is inaccurate.
2. As I stated earlier, the word baptizo means to stain or to dye.
3. There were Jews and Gentiles with Peter
4. v 44 says the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the Word.
5. v 45 says the Holy Spirit poured out
6. Jesus’ Baptism = Holy Spirit and Fire
7. Those that heard the Holy Spirit that ‘fell on them’, and ‘poured out onto them’ were ‘stained or dyed’ with the Holy Spirit.
8. Then, after these things happened, Peter says, the gentiles have received the Holy Spirit, they have been baptized. Not by water, forbid. But by the Holy Spirit.
9. ‘in the name of Jesus’ - means in the ‘onoma’ or Authority of Jesus

Parsing the greek word baptizo, as it is used in this passage:

vn - verb - infinitive mood
Aor - Aorist tense = past
Pas - passive voice

Aorist Tense
The aorist is said to be “simple occurrence” or “summary occurrence”, without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the ‘punctiliar’ tense. ‘Punctiliar’ in this sense means ‘viewed as a single, collective whole,’ a “one-point-in-time” action, although it may actually take place over a period of time.** In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.**

greek verb tense defined.

 

[guanophore]

Christ. Though there is only one baptism

This statement contradicts scripture

. The saving baptism (baptism of the Holy Spirit) and the gift of the Holy Spirit are distinctive from each other.

This is not true. It is a Protestant error that you have been taught.

 

[guanophore]

the Greek word that has been ambiguously translated into the English word baptize . . .

There is no ambiguity for Catholics. We understand that it means exactly what Jesus says it means, to be reborn by water and the spirit.

According to R.B. Girdlestone, there was no exact English equivalent for the Greek word ‘baptizo’ (and it’s variant forms) available to the translator’s of the English bible (even predating the KJV of 1611). He contends that ‘baptizo’ was a dyer’s term and signifies so as to dip and change colour or to stain. thus rendering a very generic and inaccurate word – baptize. So they left us with a very ambiguous word that we have adopted into our vernacular and almost always equate it with water.

Well, Girdlestone got some of it right. Baptism is a kind of “dipping” and it most certainly changes the participant. In scripture it is referred to a “seal” rather than a “stain” but it is a permanent change. It is not ambiguous to those of the Apostolic faiths. Jesus chose to equate this with water, starting with John, then finishing with the Great Commission.

Baptize comes from the root ‘bapto’ which means to stain as with a dye. Kittle’s states that bapto is more accurate in it’s application of going under and perishing (i.e.; not coming out of) in it’s general usage.

Indeed! We die with Him in baptism, and are thereby raised to new life.

Rom 6:3-4
4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

And as McClintock and Strong states concerning baptizo - the predominant signification of which latter is to whelm or “dye,” Lat. tingo. Not being a verb implying motion, Baptizo (Baptizw) is properly followed in Greek by the preposition en, denoting the means or method (with the “instrumental dative”), which has unfortunately, in the Auth. Engl. Vers. often been rendered by the ambiguous particle “in,” whereas it really (in this connection) signifies only with or by, or at most merely designates the locality where the act is performed.

“Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John”
John 4:1

Yes, we are baptized by, and into, Jesus.

Greek literature offers many examples of baptizo, baptizomai, etc., concerning the state of something changed by an outer source, and they use water in very few of them. One may see great many examples of the Greeks using baptizo outside of water association in James Dale’s fine book ‘Judaic Baptism’.

And this is exactly the Apostolic Teaching. We are baptized by Jesus,and are changed by the infusing power of the Holy Spirit who washes away our sins, and seals us in Christ. It is not anything done by the candidate, but it is done by God (the outside Source).

These are only three of hundreds of examples in Greek of the use of baptizo to convey a ‘state of change’ of an object. This means that to the Greek ear hearing baptizo (and it’s various derivatives), it had a greater and broader meaning than just water immersion.

Just as it does for those who have receieved the Apostolic Teachings, tabcom. It is not some empty ritual, as you may have been taught, but one in which God pours His spirit into the baptized, changing the soul forever (dying) and creating a state of change.

However western thought has adopted it to be only immersion because our language is not as capable at showing nuance as the classical Attic and Koine Greek languages of 2,000 years ago.

I am not sure what “Western thought” your are referencing here. The Apostolic Churches have always used a variety of methods for baptism, immersion being one, but pouring and sprinkling have also been used. It is always including water and the Holy Spirit, juse as Jesus taught.

There are several places where baptizo (or one of its relateed terms) cannot mean “immerse”.

This is one of the reasons that the Church allows other methods.

Therefore, there is no place in the New Testament where the word baptizo of necessity must mean “immerse.”

You are right, it is clear in some passages that immersion at baptism did take place. however, there are places inthe Jordan where John and Jesus were baptizing with water that were only a few inches deep, so it seems more likely that pouring was used.

Either way, born again by water, and the Spirit!

 

[guanophore]

I want to state that on a similar thread regarding infant baptism, I came to the following conclusion:

RCC believes:

1. Proselyte Baptism is an ordinance.(Col. 2-11)
2. Infants are baptized to atone for their sin nature. (Rom 5:12)

I know that you came to this conclusion, tabcom, but it is because you started from an erroneous foundation and failed to examine all the evidence. Neither of the above statements represent Catholic teaching, but represent only your skewed perceptions.

I believe:

1. Ordinances, such as proselyte baptism, are done away with. (Col. 2:14)
2. Infants must come to an age of reason, that is, understand the difference between good and evil before they can atone for their sin nature.

You are in error, tabcom. Jesus took the ritual of Baptism and infused it with His Holy Spirit. People cannot, by anything we do, or not do, atone for the sin nature. Jesus did this by his sacrificial death on the cross. Only His blood can atone for sins. You are quite wrong.

IMHO, I believe water baptism is a tradition that has no value next to the power of the resurrection of Christ – which dwells in the believer right here, right now.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and beliefs, tabcom, but try not to confuse these errors with what Cathocism teaches!

The Heresy at Colosse.

Any teaching which detracts from the centrality of Christ under the pretense of leading men to maturity and perfection is a perversion that threatens the very essence of the faith.

Col 2:8
See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

Paul does not condemn the Gnostic and Jewish tradition’s, he contrasts them with what supercedes them, Christ.

Col 2:11
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.

‘not administered by hand’ is a quasi-mystical term to contrast the institututions and rituals of the old covenant. The true circumcision is Christ’s death and resurrection. (Phil 3:3 – For we are the circumcision, we who worship through the Spirit of God, who boast in Christ Jesus and do not put our confidence in flesh)

I think you missed the mark again here, tabcom. Jesus died and rose for all. However, not all participate in this “true circumcision”. His death and resurrection has to be individually applied to each person. This is done with Baptizm.

" For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit. " 1 Cor 12:13-14

It is Baptism that brings us into the Body, and allows us to drink of the One Spirit. Baptism is the circumcision made without hands.

In the OT, ‘stripping off the carnal body’ symbolized defeat. In other words, the rituals have been defeated by the fulfillment of Christ.

In baptism we die to the flesh. When original sin is removed, we are no longer slaves to the flesh. We are infused by the Grace of God, which enables us to walk by the Spirit.

Col 2:12
You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

[guanophore]

In light of the context of the chapter, could it be that the type of baptism that Paul is referring to is the baptism of death (MK 10:38, Lk 12:50)?

We die spiritually in baptism to sin, and become partakers of the resurrection power of Jesus.
tabcom;2897649:

Mark 10:38
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

Lk 12:50
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!

Jesus is speaking here of the baptism of His suffering which He is shortly to accomplish in Jerusalem.

Circumcision here is the death of Christ, by which he severed from the old age, cleansing of sin, and reconciliation to God (Deut 30:6 Jer 4:4). It is to this that Christian baptism is to be related.

You are adding words into the passage, tabcom. Neither of those verses are speaking about circumcision. Jesus was already circumcised as an infant. He did not get “circumcised” again on the cross! He was baptized in blood/suffering. However, I agree with you that Christian baptism is related to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Baptism is the means by which we participate in His sacrifice.

Col 2:14
obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross;

the original greek word from which ‘legal claims’ is translated is dogma. Paul, a Jew, tells the Gentiles in the Church, you who were once excluded are now included through Christ.

Jesus eliminated the “bond” (warrant). Everyone is under the death penalty because of sin. However, if we are joined with Christ in His death through baptism, the bod is paid. We are no longer under a death sentence.

He continues . . .

Col 2:20
If you died with Christ to the elemental powers of the world, why do you submit to regulations as if you were still living in the world?
Col 2:21
“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”
Col 2:22
These are all things destined to perish with use; they accord with human precepts and teachings.
Col 2:23
While they have a semblance of wisdom in rigor of devotion and self-abasement (and) severity to the body, they are of no value against gratification of the flesh.

He is talking about the levitical ordinances for Jews of the dietary regulations, and purity rules.

To clarify. I am referring specifically to water baptism. In addition, by ordinance, I mean a tradition that has evolved into a ritual.

Please define the words “tradition” and “ritual” in this context.

You are correct, there is no passage in scripture that refers to water baptism as a tradition that has evolved into a ritual.

At least we agree on something!

 

[guanophore]

What confuses me about your logic is that you are willing to throw out the ritual of circumcision, but you hang on to your ritual of water baptism.

Well, Catholics didn’t “throw out” anything. Jesus came, and fulfilled the old covenant. He replaced the rite of initiation with Baptism. As we can see in the book of Acts, believers are no longer required to be circumcised and keep the Jewish law. Instead, we are initiated into the New Covenant by Baptism.

At this point, I feel it is worth repeating . . .

In light of the context of the chapter (and we now agree that the context of ritual circumcision has been done away with in favor of a spiritual one), could it be that the type of baptism that Paul is referring to is the baptism of death (MK 10:38, Lk 12:50)?

We do die in baptism. We die to original sin, and any personal sins that have been committed. our enslavement to sin dies.

Here lies the crux of descent. I believe that coming alive in the Spirit can only be obtained by crucifying\circumcising\blood baptism of self.

Really? How did you go about obtaining the crucifying\circumcising\blood baptism of yourself?

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t ask for different translators of scripture.

What I asked was, with respects to your statement “We know this from . . . the empirical data concerning water baptism.”, could you provide a source, other than scripture, that shows the use of baptizo to mean to immerse?

For instance, I’ve shown that baptizo has been used to mean to stain or to dye, i. e., empirical data. (see post #19).

Greek literature offers many examples of baptizo, baptizomai, etc., concerning the state of something changed by an outer source.

Perhaps you need refreshment on your previous research? In this post, you clearly seem to understand that baptsim refers to immersion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2444106&postcount=1

I don’t know if you have ever made pickles, but I can assure you that total immersion is necessary.

“And stretching out his right hand, so as to escape notice by none, he mersed (baptizo) the entire sword into his throat” Josephus, Jewish War ii, 18

“I know some, who, when they become slightly intoxicated, before they become thoroughly drunk (baptizomai)” Philo, ii, 478 On Contemp. Life

“And mersed (baptizo) by drunkenness into insensibility and sleep” Jewish Antiquities., x, 9

It seems to me that these examples clearly indicate the notion of immersion. If the “entire sword” goes into the throat, doesn’t that means in all disappears into it?

If you have never been drunk, I can tell you without doubt that a drunk person is thoroughly under the influence of the alcohol.

These are only three of hundreds of examples in Greek of the use of baptizo to convey a ‘state of change’ of an object. This means that to the Greek ear hearing baptizo (and it’s various derivatives), it had a greater and broader meaning than just water immersion.

There is no arguement that Baptism produces a state of change. This occurs through immersion (or other forms) of water baptism as directed by Jesus. The meaning is very much greater than most Protestants recognize.

 

[guanophore]

As I stated earlier, the word baptizo means to stain or to dye.

Yes, specifically by dipping or immersing in fluid!

Jesus’ Baptism = Holy Spirit and Fire

Why did Jesus teach His Apostles to baptize with water, long before He poured out His Spirit at Pentecost?

Those that heard the Holy Spirit that ‘fell on them’, and ‘poured but onto them’ were ‘stained or dyed’ with the Holy Spirit.
8. Then, after these things happened, Peter says, the gentiles have received the Holy Spirit, they have been baptized. Not by water, forbid. But by the Holy Spirit.

Why did Peter state that water should not be withheld?

 

[tabcom]

guanophore, I do appreciate the time you have taken to counter my many post. I don’t see any redeeming value for me to repeat what has already been stated. There is one point you make an allusion to regarding baptizo that I feel needs clarification. I shall submit it shortly.

 

[tabcom]

(Baptism) most certainly changes the participant. In scripture it is referred to a “seal” rather than a “stain” but it is a permanent change.

Aren’t “seal” and “stain” synonyms?

By the way, the Hebrew Bible equilavent is pitch.

Ge 6:14 -
"Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch.

pitch in the Original Hebrew - kopher

“And mersed (baptizo) by drunkenness into insensibility and sleep” Jewish Antiquities., x, 9

You certainly aren’t suggesting that a drunkard becomes that way by immersing in a tub of alcohol are you? (rhetorically asked)

I think you got it right the first time; “(Baptism) most certainly changes the participant. . . . it is a permanent change.”

With respects to . .

guanophore:
Perhaps you need refreshment on your previous research? In this post, you clearly seem to understand that baptsim refers to immersion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2444106&postcount=1

I don’t know if you have ever made pickles, but I can assure you that total immersion is necessary.

There is no arguement that Baptism produces a state of change. This occurs through immersion (or other forms) of water baptism as directed by Jesus. What that link was attempting to point out is that baptizo is the physical change that takes place. NOT the physical movement of an object into a fluid. In reading your posts, it appears to me, that you have interchanging the two on more that one occassion. Whereas, I have always maintained that baptizo is is a permanent change only.

See post #66 for the greek parsing of baptizo in Acts 10:47.

You insist immerse to mean; that is, to dip into or engross fully in water – used as an adjective.

Whereas the usage of baptized in Acts 10:47 is an infinitive. I suggest all that are interested to take a closer look as to what an infinitive is and how it differs from an adjective.

 

[guanophore]

Aren’t “seal” and “stain” synonyms?

To the extent that they are forces applied from outside which permanently mark something, I think th]y could be used synonomously. However, “stain” is used to refer to sin, and “seal” is used to refer to the results of action of the HS.

By the way, the Hebrew Bible equilavent is pitch.

Ge 6:14 -
"Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch.

pitch in the Original Hebrew - kopher

This is a seal on the wood to keep the water out. To the extent that the action of the HS in baptism functions to keep the sin out, there is a correlation.

You certainly aren’t suggesting that a drunkard becomes that way by immersing in a tub of alcohol are you? (rhetorically asked)

When one becomes immersed by ingestion, the substance permeates every cell, changing the way the body functions.

I think you got it right the first time; “(Baptism) most certainly changes the participant. . . . it is a permanent change.”

With respects to . .What that link was attempting to point out is that baptizo is the physical change that takes place. NOT the physical movement of an object into a fluid. In reading your posts, it appears to me, that you have interchanging the two on more that one occassion. Whereas, I have always maintained that baptizo is is a permanent change only.

In your previous thread you pointed out that this word was used for the process of making pickles. the pickes are first dipped into brine,then immersed in pickling fluid. The immersion changes the nature of the dipped substance. This is what happens in Christian baptism.

See post #66 for the greek parsing of baptizo in Acts 10:47.

You insist immerse to mean; that is, to dip into or engross fully in water – used as an adjective.

I insist on no such thing. On the contrary, it is you who are trying to limit the application of the word.

Whereas the usage of baptized in Acts 10:47 is an infinitive. I suggest all that are interested to take a closer look as to what an infinitive is and how it differs from an adjective.

You did not answer my question. Why did Peter say that water should not be withheld? Also, what was happening with Phillip and the Eunuch? How did it happen that they “came up out of the water”?

 

[tabcom]

Why did Peter say that water should not be withheld?

Peter says, the gentiles have received the Holy Spirit, they have been baptized. Not by water, forbid. But by the Holy Spirit.

I’ve discussed Acts 10:47 back in Post #66.

you who are trying to limit the application of the word (baptism).

With respects to how it is used, in the original greek text of the Bible, yes.

A couple questions I’ve been asking myself the past couple days goes like this . . …

What value is water baptism if the Holy Spirit is not present?

If one is baptized by the Holy Spirit and Fire, isn’t water baptism superfluous?

 

[Pax]

tabcom,

You properly recognize various facets of the term baptism in the NT. The part I don’t get is why you are so determined to undermine water baptism no matter what the evidence. Scripture talks about baptism of afflictions, water baptism, baptism in the Spirit, baptism by fire, baptism into death, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and being buried in baptism.

Your extreme efforts to divorce all of these from one another is a bit bizarre. This becomes most apparent in your efforts to separate water baptism from the Holy Spirit. Even Jesus received the Holy Spirit when he was water baptized by John, and scripture tells us that he did this “to fulfill all righteousness.” Righteousness and justification are synonymous. This is what Tinitarian water baptism is all about.

Scripture tells us that “there is one body and one Spirit…one faith, one Lord, and one baptism”[Eph 4:4-5]. Could it be that the one baptism includes all of the things contained in the descriptive terms of New Covenant baptism? It seems quite likely. Moreover, it makes a great deal more sense then divorcing these things in the fashion that you assert.

Let’s think about this and use scripture to appreciate the picture New Covenant picture of baptism.

1. Water baptism washes away sin and brings with it the gift of the Holy Spirit. [We have demonstrated this from scripture.]
2. God’s love is described in scripture as a “consuming fire.” When we receive water baptism we are justified and brought into the New Covenant family. We are adopted sons and daughters and live in the love of God. We are literally filled with God’s love which scripture describes as a consuming fire.
3. God pours his Spirit into us at water baptism and at other times as well. An example would be Stephen at the time of his martyrdom. Scripture tells us that Stephen, “full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’” It is obvious that people receive the Holy Spirit more than once and that it is erroneous to claim that references to baptism in the Holy Spirit mean that someone does not receive the Holy Spirit with water baptism. Another example of this is as follows: The Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles at Pentecost as tongues of fire. The apostle John tells us in the Book of Revelation that on the Lord’s Day he was “in the Spirit” and that is when he received his divine revelation. It seems that John received the Holy Spirit on more than one occassion. These are not the only examples in scripture.
4. Scripture tells us that Christians will suffer afflictions. These afflictions come at various times during our lives. We have already received the gift of the Holy Spirit in water baptism, but we will also suffer what can be described as baptism of afflictions. Jesus was himself baptized by John and yet speaks of the baptism of afflictions that he would suffer. They are related events and one follows the other. The later event(s), baptism of afflictions, does not supercede or cancel out what is accomplished in water baptism.
5. Baptism into death is well symbolized and effected in water baptism. Living in the flesh is put to death and we are made alive in the Spirit. We are dead to sin and alive in Christ.
6. Trinitarian baptism is commanded by Jesus. There is only one baptism that is performed by the congregation which follows the pattern in that apostolic command. Jesus told the apostles to make disciples of all nations baptizing them “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This is exactly what is done in water baptism. There is no other mention in scripture or occurence in Christian practice where anyone is baptized in the “name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” It is the one baptism…it is water baptism. All other references to baptism are related to water baptism because they are subsequent to it in the order of faith and membership in the family of God.

I hope this helps.

 

[guanophore]

Peter says, the gentiles have received the Holy Spirit, they have been baptized. Not by water, forbid. But by the Holy Spirit.

I’ve discussed Acts 10:47 back in Post #66.

This is a fascinating rendering of the scripture. I am curious, what would it mean if you were to concede that Peter was talking about baptizing with water here?

“Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days."Acts 10:47-48

If a plain reading of the text is made, it would seem that Peter commanded water baptism for people who had alread received the Spirit and Fire. He declares that water for baptizing should not be withheld from them (just because they are Gentiles).

If that were the case, what would that mean to your concepts about water baptism?

What kind of baptism was Jesus doing with His Apostles, prior to the coming of the HS?

A couple questions I’ve been asking myself the past couple days goes like this . . …

What value is water baptism if the Holy Spirit is not present?

I think none. Clean body, maybe?

If one is baptized by the Holy Spirit and Fire, isn’t water baptism superfluous?

Jesus designed the three to go together. I can’t say that I understand why. Perhaps He knows that we are sensual beings, and respond to the incarnational principle.

Did you answer my question about why Phillip and the Eunuch were coming up out of the water?

 

[tabcom]

tabcom,

You properly recognize various facets of the term baptism in the NT. . . . . Scripture talks about baptism of afflictions, water baptism, baptism in the Spirit, baptism by fire, baptism into death, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and being buried in baptism.

I do appreciate you stating what we agree upon. I wanted to take a moment to note this point.

Now, to address the rest of your post, in order . . .

Even Jesus received the Holy Spirit when he was water baptized by John,

This is a false statement.

Mt 1:18 -
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Joh 8:58 -
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

Pax: before I can proceed to the rest of your post, could you please reply to this very point, that is, Jesus did not receive the Holy Spirit when He was water baptized by John, He always had it? If we cannot agree on this very point, there is no value in proceeding.