Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[tabcom]

The Hebrew word for water is pronounced mayim (spelled Mem-Yud-Mem). To a Jewish way of thinking, water, with a double-mem, is feminine in nature.

Reprinted from: donmeh-west.com/hiddenwater.shtml

For example, first consider the word “water,” alone. Reading from right to left, we see that it begins with an “open” letter Mem, continues in its middle with the single letter Yud, and ends with a “closed” letter Mem. What does this come to tell us? Come and see: To begin with, the Mem, according to Kabbalah, represents the “Womb of Binah,” where God resides as Yud, the Holy Seed. (for example, see R. Michael L. Munk, The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet, p. 144, 149). Thus, we see that Heaven “contains” the Womb of God, and this womb “separates” from the Whole to fall as water upon the earth, bringing with it the Holy Seed by which Tuma, or Death, is replaced by Chayim, or Life. Moreover, notice that mayim begins with the “open,” and ends with the “closed” forms of the letter Mem. According to Kabbalah, this tells us that the water of heaven brings with it that which is revealed (open) and concealed (closed) – that what begins as revealed becomes concealed, and must be “broken open” to find God in its center:

“When the upper world was filled and became pregnant, it brought forth two children together, male and female, these being heaven and earth after the supernal pattern. The earth is fed from the waters of heaven which are poured into it. These upper waters, however, are male, whereas the lower are female, and the lower are female, and the lower are fed from the male and the lower waters call to the upper, like a female that receives the male, and pour out water to meet water of the male to produce seed.” (Zohar 1:29b-30a)

 

[Philthy]

From ou.org (an orthodox Jewish website):

 

[Philthy]

The Hebrew word for water is pronounced mayim (spelled Mem-Yud-Mem). To a Jewish way of thinking, water, with a double-mem, is feminine in nature.

Reprinted from: donmeh-west.com/hiddenwater.shtml

For example, first consider the word “water,” alone. blah blah blah… (Zohar 1:29b-30a)

This is wonderful stuff. Even the ancients saw an anology between natural birth and eternal life. They recognized water as uniquely linked with life. Again, wonderful. The problem is that despite the plethora of examples linking the concepts, NO ONE USES THE TERM BORN OF WATER THE WAY YOU CLAIM IT IS BEING USED. If anything, your presentation of so much material covering the topic without a single use of the term “born of water” argues against your position.
Lastly, the burden of citing an ECF describing John 3:5 as being baptismal is mistaken IMHO: all of the ECFs were Catholic and held to the regenerative nature of water baptism. A truly objective truth seeker would want to see an ECF referring to John 3:5 as the natural birth waters. They don’t, and the silence is deafening.

 

[guanophore]

Of course you are correct. Let me restate it this way . . . the outer man, that of the natural body, is generated by the mother’s water. The inner man, that is the spiritual man, is regenerated (born again) by way of the Holy Spirit.

There are two problems with this. One is that scripture does not speak of the natural birth by “water”. Instead, the terms “blood, flesh, and the will of man” are used. Secondly, the scripture we are discussing states “born again of water and spirit”, which means that the “water and spirit” modify “born again”, and not the phrase which preceeds this one.

I’m afraid that doesn’t shed any light as to the discussion at this time. What I’m looking for is a Church Father commentary on John 3:5, with respects to the agent that brings about the ‘born again’. Could you, or anyone else provide a citation?

I will look for one, but didn’t you want to save the Fathers for another thread? If you want to get into them now, we can. However, I can tell you in advance, all of them will say that the water is the agent through which the HS works. It is Jesus who baptizes, and the HS who regenerates, through water.

Reprinted from post 256:By baptism, I’m assuming you mean water baptism. I believe that this statement is what is in question at this point of the discussion. Could someone please provide official Church documentation regarding it?

I think this would not be an accurate assumption on your part. I understand that you separate water and spirit, whereas, the Apostolic Faiths teach that the HS regenerates the believer during the baptism with water, so the two are not separated.

 

[tabcom]

. . . and not once in the bible . . . refer to natural birth.

guanophore:

. . . that scripture does not speak of the natural birth by “water”

I find these statements extraordinary. So much so, that I’d be willing to concede this point on the grounds that a ‘biblical precedent’ is required, if you two are also willing to concede that there is no biblical precedent to do Christmas – and abstain from celebrating it.

 

[mercygate]

I find these statements extraordinary. So much so, that I’d be willing to concede this point on the grounds that a ‘biblical precedent’ is required, if you two are also willing to concede that there is no biblical precedent to do Christmas – and abstain from celebrating it.

Not the same thing at all.

“Doing” Christmas is not per se a Sacrament of the Church. It is a universal feast, instituted about the time of the codification of the Chalcedonian definition, when heresies were rampant concerning the Person of Jesus Christ" Man? God? One or the other? Both? Man and God pasted together? Human flesh with a divine soul? Demi-god like Hercules?

Since the Scriptures are replete with Nativity narratives, it was deemed pastorally wise to institute a universal feast to celebrate the Incarnation.

BTW, we DO celebrate the Baptism of Jesus: Right after Epiphany (the visit of the Magi, aka, the Manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles). Jesus’ baptism is one of the great epiphanies.

 

[Philthy]

I find these statements extraordinary.

Why? - I dont understand what is extraordinary about them.

tabcom:

So much so, that I’d be willing to concede this point on the grounds that a ‘biblical precedent’ is required, if you two are also willing to concede that there is no biblical precedent to do Christmas – and abstain from celebrating it.

Im sorry, but IMHO you havent proven yourself honorable in keeping your promises. Remember the little deal we had about you revealing your qualifications for rejecting basically every english translation of Scripture? You did not honor your end of the deal. Sorry - no deal for me.

Iwhat is truly extraordinary, tab, is that you cannot find ONE use of the term “born of water” to refer to vaginal delivery.
NOT ONE secular reference.
NOT ONE biblical reference.
Just a bunch of circumstantial wishful thinking.
It is wishful translating (like this most recent issue with John 3:5) which simply calls into question your credibility IMHO.

 

[guanophore]

I find these statements extraordinary. So much so, that I’d be willing to concede this point on the grounds that a ‘biblical precedent’ is required, if you two are also willing to concede that there is no biblical precedent to do Christmas – and abstain from celebrating it.

I think this is a topic for a new thread. I think it is indeed biblical to celebrate Xmas. However, even if it were not, since we get our practices equally from scripture and Sacred Tradition, it would not be necessary to find this in Scripture.

It so happens that the Catholic teaching on Baptism is found both in the Bible, and sacred tradition. Nowhwere in either of those authoritative sources is birth spoken about as being “born of water”. It is always spoken of as “flesh”.

 

[JDAX]

Folks,

No one has written in this thread for a long while, but it has not been closed, so I figured that I would post, having just read through some of it. I want to say only the following, as a bit of caution:

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

One should be wary of taking “tabcom” as any authority on the translation of Scripture. The above quote from his writings appears to demonstrate that he simply does not know Greek. This is his suggested translation (or perhaps paraphrase) of Acts 10:47. It is simply inadequate and reflects an unfamiliarity with the language. There are three immediately glaring problems with his suggested version:

1. There is a semicolon (’;’) at the end of Acts 10:47 in the Greek. Any beginning student of Greek knows that this represents a question mark in Greek – it is the Greek way of ending a question. Tabcom’s translation (or paraphrase), though, you will notice, does not include a question – instead, he portrays what Peter says as, “Not by water, forbid.” That is a statement, not a question. This translation/paraphrase is simply impossible, as Peter is asking a question in the Greek.
2. Tabcom appears to have (and I have noted this in previous dialogue with him) no awareness that the Greek participle (transliterated as) “meti” is an interrogative participle (again, one that begins a question), and one that usually goes unexpressed in the translation and expects a negative answer. Here is a source on this (it’s citing Strong’s Greek Lexicon): scripturetext.com/acts/10-47.htm. Notice that the translation at this source has a blank ("___") where “meti” would be in the Greek translation. Again, that is correct, because “meti” is unexpressed in the translated question (see below for another clear example of this, verifying its correctness). What this means is that, in fact, the popular translation(s) of Acts 10:47 are correct. With the “meti” unexpressed and expecting a negative answer (as is typical), and with the question mark in place, it simply reads:

“Is anyone able to forbid the water that these be not baptized which have received the Holy Spirit just as we?” (The expected negative answer: NO, i.e., “No, no one is able to forbid the water!”)

1. Inexplicably, tabcom’s translation has Peter saying in Acts 10:47 that they have been baptized “by the Holy Spirit.” This construction also is simply not in the text; there is no “by” connected with “Holy Spirit.” Rather, “Holy Spirit” (to pneuma to hagion) is the direct object of the verb “received” (elabon, from lambanw, “I take/receive”). In other words, the text does say that they received the Holy Spirit, but the verb “baptized” is not connected to the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, in Acts 10:48, Peter goes on to command them to be baptized, so, since they’ve already received the Holy Spirit by Acts 10:47 (as even tabcom admits), it can’t be that he’s commanding Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 10:48, as tabcom suggestions.

The “meti” + question mark construction, mentioned in point #2 above, is a common construction in Scripture, so just to be clear that I’m not biased in my interpretation of the Greek of Acts 10:47, let’s look at Luke 6:39. As with Acts 10:47, there is a question mark (";") and the use of the participle “meti.” The participle goes unexpressed (here’s a source: scripturetext.com/luke/6-39.htm) and expects a negative answer. The question is translated: “Is the blind able to lead the blind?” Again, the expected answer is: NO, i.e., “No, the blind is not able to lead the blind.” If we were to translate this as tabcom’s translation method with Acts 10:47 suggests, it would come out as Jesus saying something like, “Not the blind is not able to lead the blind,” which would (given the double negative) amount to his declaring that the blind can in fact lead the blind, totally contradicting the point he is making.

We can also look at how Greek-speaking Christians understood the text of Acts 10:47, just to check. Here is St. John Chrysostom: “Peter seizes his advantage, and see the plea he makes of it. ‘Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?’ (v. 47.) Mark the issue to which he brings it; how he has been travailing to bring this forth. So (entirely) was he of this mind! 'Can any one, he asks, “forbid water?” It is the language, we may almost say, of one triumphantly pressing his advantage against such as would forbid, such as should say that this ought not to be.” According to Chrysostom, a native Greek speaker (and orator), Peter is “against such as would forbid;” in other words, he is not forbidding it himself (as tabcom’s translation suggests), rather he is against those who would forbid it.

Apparently tabcom has been banned, but I felt that pointing this out was necessary so that people not be led astray about the translation. I don’t know if others have already mentioned this in this thread; sorry, if so.

Also, a good thing to keep in mind is that the translators of the Greek New Testament are experts in Greek, and they all agree with the standard translation of Acts 10:47.

 

[Salamander]

Well said! Sometimes the teacher is greater in wisdom than the student.

 

[meandean]

Folks,

No one has written in this thread for a long while, but it has not been closed, so I figured that I would post, having just read through some of it. I want to say only the following, as a bit of caution:

One should be wary of taking “tabcom” as any authority on the translation of Scripture. The above quote from his writings appears to demonstrate that he simply does not know Greek. This is his suggested translation (or perhaps paraphrase) of Acts 10:47. It is simply inadequate and reflects an unfamiliarity with the language. There are three immediately glaring problems with his suggested version:

1. There is a semicolon (’;’) at the end of Acts 10:47 in the Greek. Any beginning student of Greek knows that this represents a question mark in Greek – it is the Greek way of ending a question. Tabcom’s translation (or paraphrase), though, you will notice, does not include a question – instead, he portrays what Peter says as, “Not by water, forbid.” That is a statement, not a question. This translation/paraphrase is simply impossible, as Peter is asking a question in the Greek.
2. Tabcom appears to have (and I have noted this in previous dialogue with him) no awareness that the Greek participle (transliterated as) “meti” is an interrogative participle (again, one that begins a question), and one that usually goes unexpressed in the translation and expects a negative answer. Here is a source on this (it’s citing Strong’s Greek Lexicon): scripturetext.com/acts/10-47.htm. Notice that the translation at this source has a blank ("___") where “meti” would be in the Greek translation. Again, that is correct, because “meti” is unexpressed in the translated question (see below for another clear example of this, verifying its correctness). What this means is that, in fact, the popular translation(s) of Acts 10:47 are correct. With the “meti” unexpressed and expecting a negative answer (as is typical), and with the question mark in place, it simply reads:

“Is anyone able to forbid the water that these be not baptized which have received the Holy Spirit just as we?” (The expected negative answer: NO, i.e., “No, no one is able to forbid the water!”)

1. Inexplicably, tabcom’s translation has Peter saying in Acts 10:47 that they have been baptized “by the Holy Spirit.” This construction also is simply not in the text; there is no “by” connected with “Holy Spirit.” Rather, “Holy Spirit” (to pneuma to hagion) is the direct object of the verb “received” (elabon, from lambanw, “I take/receive”). In other words, the text does say that they received the Holy Spirit, but the verb “baptized” is not connected to the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, in Acts 10:48, Peter goes on to command them to be baptized, so, since they’ve already received the Holy Spirit by Acts 10:47 (as even tabcom admits), it can’t be that he’s commanding Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 10:48, as tabcom suggestions.

The “meti” + question mark construction, mentioned in point #2 above, is a common construction in Scripture, so just to be clear that I’m not biased in my interpretation of the Greek of Acts 10:47, let’s look at Luke 6:39. As with Acts 10:47, there is a question mark (";") and the use of the participle “meti.” The participle goes unexpressed (here’s a source: scripturetext.com/luke/6-39.htm) and expects a negative answer. The question is translated: “Is the blind able to lead the blind?” Again, the expected answer is: NO, i.e., “No, the blind is not able to lead the blind.” If we were to translate this as tabcom’s translation method with Acts 10:47 suggests, it would come out as Jesus saying something like, “Not the blind is not able to lead the blind,” which would (given the double negative) amount to his declaring that the blind can in fact lead the blind, totally contradicting the point he is making.

We can also look at how Greek-speaking Christians understood the text of Acts 10:47, just to check. Here is St. John Chrysostom: “Peter seizes his advantage, and see the plea he makes of it. ‘Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?’ (v. 47.) Mark the issue to which he brings it; how he has been travailing to bring this forth. So (entirely) was he of this mind! 'Can any one, he asks, “forbid water?” It is the language, we may almost say, of one triumphantly pressing his advantage against such as would forbid, such as should say that this ought not to be.” According to Chrysostom, a native Greek speaker (and orator), Peter is “against such as would forbid;” in other words, he is not forbidding it himself (as tabcom’s translation suggests), rather he is against those who would forbid it.

Apparently tabcom has been banned, but I felt that pointing this out was necessary so that people not be led astray about the translation. I don’t know if others have already mentioned this in this thread; sorry, if so.

Also, a good thing to keep in mind is that the translators of the Greek New Testament are experts in Greek, and they all agree with the standard translation of Acts 10:47.

so what is the purpose of water baptism?

 

[elisha777]

so what is the purpose of water baptism?

One purpose is to make know other persons that with us is happen something, that we don´t belong to this world kingdom but now we belong to God.

This confirm our commit for God what we made when we make decision to follow God.

 

[elisha777]

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.

But still in this scripture mentioned those two experiences is needed today christian life. We get baptised with water and also with Holy Spirit and begin to talk in other tongues.

 

[meandean]

But still in this scripture mentioned those two experiences is needed today christian life. We get baptised with water and also with Holy Spirit and begin to talk in other tongues.

no, you are turning it into 2 different experiences, and actually trying to fullfill what jesus already did, ephesisans 4 tells us there is only 1 baptism. so once again, why is it necessary for water baptism?

 

[JDAX]

no, you are turning it into 2 different experiences, and actually trying to fullfill what jesus already did, ephesisans 4 tells us there is only 1 baptism. so once again, why is it necessary for water baptism?

Could you explain why you (apparently) think the baptism in Ephesians 4 is not water baptism? I’m not necessarily saying that I think it is, but I’m curious what your thoughts on it are.

 

[meandean]

Could you explain why you (apparently) think the baptism in Ephesians 4 is not water baptism? I’m not necessarily saying that I think it is, but I’m curious what your thoughts on it are.

i believe it is the baptism of the holy spirit . jesus fullfilled all the law, including water baptism , so the only true way to have our sins removed is through him by the way of the cross. he even said it is not the outside of the cup that needs cleansing, but the inside. john the baptist as well said i baptize with water but he that comes after me that was before me will baptize with holy spirit and fire.and johns baptism was for remission of sins. so we know that jesus took that with him to the cross.i also believe in order to make a precious metal it must be placed in the fire, a refiners fire, to where the dross or impurities must be taken out in order for it to be made pure. thats what the spirit of god does within those who place all their trust in him. water baptism could never touch the depths of our filthy hearts.

 

[elisha777]

no, you are turning it into 2 different experiences, and actually trying to fullfill what jesus already did, ephesisans 4 tells us there is only 1 baptism. so once again, why is it necessary for water baptism?

Because Jesus Himself got baptised by John of Baptist in river of Jordan and as we can read that Holy Spirit game upon Him as dove-Matt.3.
And when Jesus said to His disciples that receive Holy Spirit in John 20 and after we see that He ask them to wait promise of Father-Acts 1 and then when they are in upper room they got baptised with Holy Spirit in Acts 2. And also there is other examples of people who got baptised with water and with Holy Spirit. Bible says also that John of Baptist made baptism of repentance but after him will other man-Jesus- who baptise people with Holy spirit and fire.

Again necessary of water baptism is explained with Col.1:13-15 where apostle Paul says that we came from kingdom of darkness to kingdom of light when we made decision to follow God. And as JEsus got baptised according to his decision what He was made for Him then we also must be get baptised with water. Because we need to confirm our decision before other people and before devil and God. This is how tradition of Church understand about it.

 

[JDAX]

i believe it is the baptism of the holy spirit.

I had a feeling that’s what you’d say, but I asked why you think that. So, let’s consider the reasons you give.

jesus fullfilled all the law, including water baptism

I agree that Christ fulfilled all the law. But can you show me a spot where the water baptism performed by the apostles after Christ’s crucifixion is called “law,” and, further, part of the law that Christ fulfilled?

Notice this: Paul tells us that the Law was done away with at the cross (it was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14); likewise Jesus says “it is finished” (John 19:30) on the cross), so whatever Law was done away with was the Law that existed prior to or at the Crucifixion, so that Christ could nail it to the cross. But then Christ commands baptism after his Crucifixion (Matthew 28:18, Mark 16:16), so this new baptism commanded cannot be one of the ordinances that was nailed to the cross (since it didn’t exist at the time of the Crucifixion and therefore wasn’t something that was standing “against us” (Col. 2:14), waiting to be fulfilled); indeed, Christ Himself declares after his resurrection that what was fulfilled in Him was “everything . . . that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). So he explicitly tells us what he fulfilled, and New Testament baptism performed and commanded after the Crucifixion is not part of “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”

In addition to this, the apostles seem to disagree with you that water baptism is done away with. For Peter, in Acts 10:47-48 commands Cornelius and those with him to be baptized, explicitly suggesting that no one can forbid water, and this is after they’ve received the baptism in the Spirit (indeed, Peter takes their Spirit baptism as the very evidence that they cannot be forbidden water baptism! (Acts 10:47, Acts 11:16-17)). Likewise, Paul, who apparently believes in the Lord (Acts 22:8-10), is still commanded (Acts 22:16) by Ananias (who is appointed by the Lord to help Paul receive the Holy Spirit (see Acts 9:17)) to “get up and be baptized” (this is a command, for the Greek verb is in the imperative mood). Does Paul say, “But Ananias, that is done away with, for Christ nailed all such things to the cross!” No, he does not. And in fact, Ananias tells him to “wash away his sins” (Acts 22:16) in baptism (!), calling on the name of the Lord. The ideas of “washing” (or “bathing,” another translation of the word) and of Paul needing to “get up” (Acts 22:16) or “rise” physically (Acts 9:18) strongly indicate that this is water baptism, for “baptism in the Spirit” is not something that one needs to physically “get up and do.” Furthermore, he does it after the scales have already fallen from his eyes (Acts 9:18). So again, we see water baptism being commanded even in explicit connection with the receiving of the Holy Spirit. The same is also true in Acts 2:37-38. Peter’s audience apparently believes his message about Christ, for they are “cut to the heart” by his words (Acts 2:37), yet when they ask Peter, “What shall we do?” he does not say, “Nothing, because Christ has done away with water baptism and other such things,” or, “Only believe, for Christ has done away with water baptism and other such things,” but instead he commands (again, there’s that word), “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38) – this is what he tells them they should do in response to his message about Christ! – for the remission of sins. This is not baptism with the Spirit, for Peter immediately tells them that upon or after being baptized “you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38); in other words, the gift of the Spirit is something distinct from the baptism he mentions, and that his audience will receive once they are baptized – they must repent and be baptized, and then they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (I may as well also mention that Peter says to do this “for the remission of sins,” the same words that Christ uses in Matthew 26:28 when he says that he is shedding his blood “for the remission of sins” and that John uses of his baptism when he preaches a baptism of repentance “for the remission of sins” (Luke 3:3); in other words, the wording here connects water baptism, the blood of Christ, and Peter’s command to be baptized, and connects them all together with the remission of sins.)

There are numerous other accounts of water baptism performed after Christ’s Crucifixion. After preaching “the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12), Philip immediately water baptizes men and women. This is water baptism, not baptism with the Spirit, for it is recorded that “the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them” (Acts 8:16). Later, also, when Philip encounters the Ethiopian eunuch and tells him “the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35), the eunuch’s immediate response to the good news about Jesus is, “‘Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?’ . . . Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.” (Acts 8:36,38). Again, water baptism is apparently learned by the eunuch from Philip’s “good news about Jesus” and done in response to that news. In other words, my friend, we seem to be seeing in both of these occurrences that the “good news” (Acts 8:12, 8:35) does not eliminate water baptism, but instead leads to it (Acts 8:12, 8:36-38)!

Additionally, who is the one who baptizes with the Spirit? It is Jesus Christ Himself (Mark 1:8, Matthew 3:11). It is never said that an apostle himself baptizes with the Spirit; Jesus Christ does this. So, when Paul says that he himself (Paul, not Jesus) “baptized the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16), we have to conclude that he is saying he water baptized (for Jesus himself is the one who Spirit baptizes). This is also consistent with Paul’s record in Acts 16, where he baptizes Lydia at the river (Acts 16:13-15) and baptizes the jailer only after they go to a place where they can wash (namely, water) (Acts 16:33), once again after hearing the good news about Jesus (Acts 16:32) – again, hearing the good news and then being water baptized are all connected. Beyond this, water baptism is the only baptism that we have a record of the apostles themselves actually performing where they are explicitly called the ones doing the baptizing (John 4:1-2).

The point of the above is essentially this: the apostles continuously water baptize, over and over again, even commanding it, and in explicit connection with the good news of Jesus Christ, and they even take baptism with the Holy Spirit to be evidence for commanding water baptism rather than as evidence that water baptism is done away with. Indeed, the New Testament version of water baptism is commissioned by Christ after he nailed the other ordinances to the cross (Matthew 28:19-20), so it was not one of the things nailed; indeed, Christ Himself tells us that what he fulfilled was “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” In addition to water baptism, there are even other commands explicitly given after the Crucifixion; see Acts 15:20. There is thus no evidence that Spirit-baptism or the cross of Christ exclude water baptism; indeed, both seem to lead to it. Here, I must plead with you to heed the words of the Bible rather than to force your theology onto the texts; let the texts inform your theology. There is no hint anywhere that water baptism is “cancelled,” except for perhaps Ephesians 4:5, but then that depends on your interpreting Ephesians 4:5 as meaning “Spirit baptism as opposed to water baptism,” which is not what the text says. You have to read this text in light of the other Scriptural evidence that continually, and strongly, suggests, and even commands, water baptism.

[Continued in the next post; sorry about the length.]

 

[JDAX]

so the only true way to have our sins removed is through him by the way of the cross.

Agreed. But we receive the grace of the cross through faith (Ephesians 2:8). The question is: where does faith normally (or normatively) receive the grace of the cross? Well, again, look at the texts above: in Acts 2:38, the Jews respond with faith, and are told to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (again, same wording as Matthew 26:28, and Luke 3:3), and that they will then receive the Holy Spirit – here, therefore, belief, water baptism, the blood of Christ (via Matt. 26:28), and reception of the Holy Spirit are all connected together; additionally, Jesus Himself likewise explicitly connects belief with baptism, and then the two of them with salvation, in Matthew 16:16; He also mentions baptism as a means of making disciples, along with teaching, in Matthew 28:18; in Acts 22:16, the believer Paul is commanded to get up and be baptized and there to wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord – he calls on the name of the Lord in his baptism and there washes (again, belief meets grace in baptism); in Acts 10:47-48, the very fact that Cornelius believes and receives the Spirit makes Peter command his water baptism – the belief, the baptism, and the Spirit again go together; in Acts 8:35-39, the eunuch is water baptized after hearing and believing the good news about Jesus, and then the Spirit appears (Philip is swept away and the eunuch rejoices; Acts 8:39) – once again, the good news, belief, baptism, and the Spirit are all connected; in 1 Peter 3:20-21, water, baptism, an appeal, a cleansed conscience, and the resurrection of Christ are all interconnected – here, again, the faithful appeal to God receives grace in baptism through Christ’s resurrection; in Hebrews 10:19-22, the blood of Jesus Christ (our only dear Savior) sprinkles our hearts clean, but this is connected with “our bodies [being] washed with pure water” (10:22) – the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus to cleanse our consciences is connected with the washing of our bodies in water; in Ephesians 5:25-26, Christ gives Himself up so that the Church is cleansed “by the washing of water with the word” – again, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, water, the word of God, and salvation (cleansing) are all connected; in John 3:5, one must be born “of water and the Spirit” – again, water and Spirit go together; in Titus 3:5, salvation is connected with a “washing” or “bath” called the bath of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, again suggesting a connection between water and the Spirit; all of this was prophesied of old in Ezekiel 36, where the Lord Himself says, "I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries [this reminds us of Christ’s command to go and "make disciples of all nations, baptizing . . . “, in Matt. 28:18] and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses . . . And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you . . . I will put my Spirit within you” (Ezekiel 36:24-27) – once again, sprinkling with water is connected both with cleansing for salvation and with the receiving of the Holy Spirit. In other words, normally (or at least normatively), the grace of the cross, the reception of the Spirit, water baptism, faith/belief, repentance, etc., all go together as one; faith/belief receives the Spirit/grace in baptism, not because we have worked for it or earned it but because God has commanded it and offered his grace to our faith there. This is not always the case – sometimes grace is received by faith before or without water baptism, so it is not absolutely necessary for salvation – and even the Church agrees. But there is still a model presented to us in Scripture. It is the grace of the cross alone that saves us, through faith; we receive that grace through faith where God Himself decides to give it, which is sometimes, perhaps normally, in water baptism. For more support of this view, I would recommend work by the Baptist theologian George Beasley-Murray, in his book, Baptism in the New Testament.

he even said it is not the outside of the cup that needs cleansing, but the inside.

Agreed, but see all of the water above. The internal cleansing is very often associated with the external cleansing, such that the two go together (see Hebrews 10, Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.). Indeed it is the internal cleansing that really is essential – “what counts is a new creation” (Galatians 6:15) – but often the internal cleansing, or new creation, is connected with the external cleansing in baptism (in addition to all of the above material, note the connection with Noah and his being saved “through [or by] water” in 1 Peter 3 – just as water destroyed the old creation in Noah’s time, so that he and his family were saved through the water and brought to a new creation, the water of baptism is a figure of this (see Romans 6 also in this light; baptism buries our old man (the old creation) and allows us to “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4)); the parallel with Noah is perfect; Noah was in the ark and saved through water and thereby brought to a new creation, while we are in Christ (the True Ark of our salvation) and brought in Him through water to a new creation, our newness of life). Scripture does not oppose the internal and external cleansings, and neither need we.

Let me emphasize again that I am not saying that water baptism is absolutely necessary (even the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that), but I am saying that often, and perhaps normally (at least normatively) in the Church’s experience, faith alone receives grace alone in baptism (you might look at the Lutheran-Catholic “Joint Declaration” on Justification for some material related to this). The grace is there by God’s grace alone and received by faith; it is not earned by works. This is the picture that Scripture presents if we take the language at face-value and do not try to force our interpretations upon it.

john the baptist as well said i baptize with water but he that comes after me that was before me will baptize with holy spirit and fire.

Yes, but to understand what that means we must look at the way it is interpreted by the apostles and others in the New Testament; we must not apply our own private interpretation to such verses. And again, as Scriptures and the experiences of the apostles show (in Acts 10 and elsewhere), baptism with the Spirit does not exclude water baptism, and often the two are connected in New Testament examples of baptism. In John’s baptism, yes, it is water; in New Testament baptism, it is water and Spirit (which is really the essential part, to be emphasized) resulting in a new creation on account of Christ alone, through his death and resurrection. The baptism of the Spirit is often received in connection with baptism, either after/with it (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:36-39) or immediately before it as a reason to command water baptism (Acts 10:47-48). This is what the Scriptures teach.

and johns baptism was for remission of sins. so we know that jesus took that with him to the cross.

I’ve dealt with most of this above. But all that’s really necessary to say here is that even if John’s baptism was taken to the cross, Jesus commanded another baptism after the cross, and the way the apostles carry out his command after the cross is to continue water baptism (Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 16, Acts 22, 1 Corinthians, 1 Peter 3, Hebrews 10, etc.). Again, we’ve got to let the rest of the New Testament tell us what these things mean; we can’t just seize on certain verses and interpret them ourselves against the rest of the New Testament. May the grace of God let the fullness of the New Testament speak.

i also believe in order to make a precious metal it must be placed in the fire, a refiners fire, to where the dross or impurities must be taken out in order for it to be made pure. thats what the spirit of god does within those who place all their trust in him.

Yes, we agree here too. But again, the cleansing of the Spirit of God is often connected, in the aforementioned ways, with water baptism. It is true that the issue of fundamental importance – let me emphasize again that I agree with you here – is the Spirit’s internal cleansing, not the water itself; we do not put our trust in the water. We put our trust in the Spirit of God alone, but it just so happens that the Spirit of God often operates together with the external cleansing of water, and is received there by faith, as the Scriptures indicate. The water in and of itself, let it be noted, is nothing. We cannot cleanse ourselves by the work of washing with water. Rather, our faith meets the grace of God there according to His gracious plan and promise (Acts 2:38-39, etc.).

water baptism could never touch the depths of our filthy hearts.

All of the above deals with this contention. Though, again, I agree that the internal cleansing of our filthy hearts is the essential thing – what counts is a new creation – and that sometimes this happens without water baptism. The Church agrees.

[Continued in one more post. Again, my apologies.]

 

[JDAX]

My view on Ephesians 4:5 right now is that the “one baptism” is the one “baptism into Christ” in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:18, Galatians 3:26-27, Romans 6:3ff), which is why Christ (the “one Lord”) is mentioned immediately prior to it, as is faith (“one faith”). In other words, this is perfectly consistent with all that I’ve said above. The Lord, faith, and baptism go together. There is one, and only one, baptism into Christ. It is a baptism that normally has two aspects, an external (our bodies washed with water) and an internal (our consciences cleansed by the blood of Christ through the Spirit of God), but it is one baptism into Christ, and that is what matters. The essence of it, as you have indicated, is internal cleansing by the Spirit. But, as I have pointed out, this is not opposed to its external aspect, water, being applied. The two are united as the one baptism into Christ. This is, I believe, what the Church has always taught (see John Chrysostom on Acts 10:48 and Ephesians 4:5, for example), and is what the Scriptures and the practice of the apostles (where water baptism continues and where Spirit baptism and water baptism are performed together) teach.

It’s also worth mentioning here that those who were closest in time to the apostles – taught by them or those who knew them directly or indirectly – agree with my view, but disagree with yours. This is some interesting evidence. Justin Martyr, writing in AD 151, only roughly 50 years after the death of the last apostle – he was about as far away from them as we are from, say, JFK – writes: “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (“First Apology,” 61). Justin says that belief meets grace in baptism and interprets the texts that I interpret in the same way that I interpret them. Irenaeus, who apparently knew Polycarp, who himself was apparently a student of the apostle John, writes: “As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34). The Shepherd of Hermas, written in AD 80-160 (potentially during the lifetime of some of the apostles!), says, “‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is.’” The Didache (written somewhere from AD 50-120 (again either during or close to the life of the apostles), says: “Concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm.”

I write all of this for your consideration, trusting in the grace of God alone to lead us into truth. To Him be all the glory, who saved us by His grace alone, not by works but through faith in His promises, which faith receives His grace where, when, and how He wills.

(I need to add: I’ve intentionally written very long posts here. I hope that they are helpful. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to continue to contribute to online discussions in this lengthy manner. While I appreciate the dialogue, it is very unlikely that I will allow myself to keep up with it to this extent – especially given that I have already done so times before – though, of course, I may be able to offer some brief replies to questions/comments. God bless.)