Debating Baptism

[ahs]

First of all, let me apologize for posting and running…I must be gone very shortly and won’t be back until tomorrow…but I would like some thoughts.

Second, this thread isn’t intended to be a debate itself…just information ABOUT debating the topic. But, if anyone wants to ensue debate here, feel free.

I have been debating teh necessity of Baptism on a Christian chat forum (very small group of Christians of various denominations/groups/what-have-you) and it has kinda come to an end where I have charged that the view presented there (that Baptism is “merely an outward sign of an inward grace” and that “true” baptism does not mean “water ritual”) is a new invention…coming up only after teh 16th century.

Now, certainly no information has been provided to refute what I charged. But my main confusion is realted to another aspet of what is being argued…namely that because Paul (*if *Paul indeed) did not mean the “water ritual” in every instance where he speaks of Baptism, that the “water ritual” is therefore not necessary.

I’m no scholar…just a layman, so still I tend to fall back on “no Christian held this understanding until recently in Christian history”. But is there something more substantial I could offer to get thye point across?

Thanks for any and all comments, and I hope to rejoin this thread sometime tomorrow.

In Christ,
Dave

 

[klm120861]

A couple of things, first, since Jesus was baptized with water, and we are to follow his example, we should be baptized with water as well. For scripture references, here’s a list for you: Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 3:5; John 3:22 (Jesus baptizes - what did he baptize with, if not water?) Most of Acts deals with people being baptized - both with water and the Holy Spirit. The only instance where the Holy Spirt preceeds water is in the story of Cornelius (Acts 10), etc. (Have these people not read the New Testament?)

If they are from a tradition that uses the Nicene Creed, (simply asking them if they know what it is will give you the answer) then they “confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”

Also, if you go to explorefaith.blog.com I have posted a series of six blogs on the Sacrament of Baptism, based on the catechism, and explaining the difference between Catholic teaching on Baptism and Protestant teaching on Baptism.

For those who think that only Baptism in the Spirit is necessary, the blogs on confirmation deal with Baptism in the Holy Spirit (confirmation) and for explanations on sin, the ones on reconciliation deal with that.

For the group you are posting to, it sounds like you are going to need to get very basic, they more than likely don’t even know what Original Sin is. Or that there are Mortal Sins. Or Venial Sins. They are more than likely from one of the evangelical non-denoms, which generally see everything as sin, even character imperfections, and it’s all equal and it all sends you to hell. (Been there, done that.) Always speak the truth with love to them. They really don’t know. They have no concept of any of this. Think of them like Kindergarteners. They need to know their ABCs, because no one ever taught them.
God bless you in your evangelization!
Kris

 

[R_C]

Mention the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, dating c.40-60 AD.

Chapters 7 to 10 detail baptism, conferred “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in “living water” (that is, natural flowing water), if it can be had — if not, in cold or even warm water, and if the water is insufficient for immersion, it may be poured three times on the head.

Of course, since protestants negate Sacred Tradition due to their assent to the sola scriptura heresy, you won’t be able to get your point easily across But it may be interesting to point that the Didache was taken into consideration during the development of the New Testament Canon, meaning that there was a strong possibility that it would have been included in the Bible somewhere before the Revelation.

P.s: notice that these scattered heresies have issues with Baptism because they have issues with such deep theological concepts as original sin, sanctifying grace, justification, and salvation. For these, no matter how well you explain the Sacrament, it will still not be reasonable. Consider it this way: if someone is taught that a certain mathematical rule is false or erroneous, then if you try to explain a higher mathematical concept or theorem - or even some other scientific topic - which relies on that rule, then no matter how well you explain it, they won’t understand it, because they either lack the basis or they know the basis and discard it as erroneous

 

[ahs]

Thanks for the wonderful (name removed by moderator)ut. (I found a moment to poke in here between diapers and tantrums…I do NOT see how my wife does this everyday!!).

Wow, okay, so you think that original sin, justification, sanctifying grace, and the like are an ease-in, so to speak to Baptism. I would have figured it the other way around. Those are subjects I am weak in as far as explaining.

Well, I’ll be back tomorrow hopefully for more thoughts.

Thanks!!

 

[ahs]

Also, if you go to explorefaith.blog.com I have posted a series of six blogs on the Sacrament of Baptism, based on the catechism, and explaining the difference between Catholic teaching on Baptism and Protestant teaching on Baptism.

For those who think that only Baptism in the Spirit is necessary, the blogs on confirmation deal with Baptism in the Holy Spirit (confirmation) and for explanations on sin, the ones on reconciliation deal with that.

Kris, I went to your blog, but was only able to find the blogs on Reconciliation. Do you have a direct link to Baptism/Confirmation?

The main claim being made there is that because Scripture testifies that John “baptized with water, but…” (they emphasize the word “but” changes things here) Jesus “will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire…”.

Therefore, they claim, any mention, whatever, of the word “baptism” from then out does NOT involve the “water ritual” but is a baptism of the Holy Spirit…which, they explain, excludes water. The only way to show this to be wrong, according to their thinking, is to find a verse that specifically states that Christ baptized with water. Even though the word “baptize” does not change (from Greek baptizien…meaning to “plunge” or “immerse”) thereafter…they are convinced that it is a symbolic “plunging” in the Holy Spirit…no water invovled.

I have pointed out that Scripture does not state that water and Holy Spirit baptisms are mutually exclusive…and that no Christian has ever thought so either (until after the 16th century)but this has not affected their conviction.

 

[ahs]

For the group you are posting to, it sounds like you are going to need to get very basic, they more than likely don’t even know what Original Sin is. Or that there are Mortal Sins. Or Venial Sins. They are more than likely from one of the evangelical non-denoms, [YES] … (Been there, done that.) Always speak the truth with love to them. They really don’t know. They have no concept of any of this. Think of them like Kindergarteners. They need to know their ABCs, because no one ever taught them.
God bless you in your evangelization!
Kris

…P.s: notice that these scattered heresies have issues with Baptism because they have issues with such deep theological concepts as original sin, sanctifying grace, justification, and salvation. For these, no matter how well you explain the Sacrament, it will still not be reasonable. Consider it this way: if someone is taught that a certain mathematical rule is false or erroneous, then if you try to explain a higher mathematical concept or theorem - or even some other scientific topic - which relies on that rule, then no matter how well you explain it, they won’t understand it, because they either lack the basis or they know the basis and discard it as erroneous

Ugh. I’m not sure if I have the energy for that. Maybe I’ll take a rest for awhile and start fresh with original sin…

 

[klm120861]

Kris, I went to your blog, but was only able to find the blogs on Reconciliation. Do you have a direct link to Baptism/Confirmation?

The main claim being made there is that because Scripture testifies that John “baptized with water, but…” (they emphasize the word “but” changes things here) Jesus “will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire…”.

Therefore, they claim, any mention, whatever, of the word “baptism” from then out does NOT involve the “water ritual” but is a baptism of the Holy Spirit…which, they explain, excludes water. The only way to show this to be wrong, according to their thinking, is to find a verse that specifically states that Christ baptized with water. Even though the word “baptize” does not change (from Greek baptizien…meaning to “plunge” or “immerse”) thereafter…they are convinced that it is a symbolic “plunging” in the Holy Spirit…no water invovled.

I have pointed out that Scripture does not state that water and Holy Spirit baptisms are mutually exclusive…and that no Christian has ever thought so either (until after the 16th century)but this has not affected their conviction.

To find the blogs on baptism, on the right hand side, you will see a calendar. Click on November, and scroll down past confirmation. I’m sure there’s a way to go subject by subject, but I don’t know what it is.

For a scripture on Jesus baptizing with water, see John 3:22, where it talks about Jesus baptizing. Since the Holy Spirit had not yet descended, nor would descend until after the Ascension, he must have baptized with water. Nowhere in the gospels does it say Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. In fact he specifically says if he doesn’t go, the Holy Spirit won’t come. That’s in John, the Last Supper discourses.
Kris

 

[klm120861]

Ugh. I’m not sure if I have the energy for that. Maybe I’ll take a rest for awhile and start fresh with original sin…

That would probably be a good starting point, actually. How can they accept that Baptism washes away Original Sin, if they don’t know Original Sin exists? That’s what I mean about getting very basic. And if their churches are of the “everything is sin” variety, if they can grasp the differences between mortal sin, venial sin, original sin, actual sin and character imperfections, it will be immensly freeing for them because right now everything about them is “sin”, unles it fits their church’s very narrow defination of “perfect”. (As in “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Jesus doesn’t fit their definition. Again, been there.)
Kris

 

[ahs]

To find the blogs on baptism, on the right hand side, you will see a calendar. Click on November, and scroll down past confirmation. I’m sure there’s a way to go subject by subject, but I don’t know what it is.

For a scripture on Jesus baptizing with water, see John 3:22, where it talks about Jesus baptizing. Since the Holy Spirit had not yet descended, nor would descend until after the Ascension, he must have baptized with water. Nowhere in the gospels does it say Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. In fact he specifically says if he doesn’t go, the Holy Spirit won’t come. That’s in John, the Last Supper discourses.
Kris

Thanks, I will look again when I get a chance. By the way, I am stealing the bolded…hope you don’t mind, otherwise I already owe you an apology.

 

[ahs]

So, John 3:22 says Jesus went with His disciples to baptize…and John 16:7 tells us the Holy Spirit was not yet come…

…but John 4:1-2 notes that Jesus was baptizing more disciples that John (the Baptist)…"(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His discpiles were)" (John 4:2)

Thinking out loud here…anyone feel free to chime in:
So, is John 3:22 really an example of Jesus actually baptizing? Well, still yes I think.His disciples were baptizing with Him, no doubt about that, and it was still a water baptism.

 

[ahs]

Here was my reply…I am open to critique:

Person 1: Christ’s example? Could you provide an example of Christ baptizing with water?

Person 2: John 3:22, read with John 16:7

Person 1: ahs, if you read just a few passages later it says “Jesus, Himself Baptized NOT.” Did you miss that part? Sure the disciples baptized, we all know that, but that has never been in contention. The Scripture is clear, Jesus while He is the baptizer, never water baptized anybody.

John 4 "
Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. (though Jesus Himself baptized NOT)"

Think about it:

Jesus is the baptizer
Jesus NEVER water baptized anybody.
Baptism therefore CANNOT refer to only water

The Bible does NOT always use baptism to mean water as you claim.

Jesus saves,but He does not need water to do it.

**Person 2: You are missing the bigger picture. John 3:22, and read it with John 16:7.

“After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptized.” (John 3:22)

John 4:2 does say that it was His disciples doing the actual baptizing…yet we know it was credited to Jesus because of both verses John 3:22 and John 4:1-2. “Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John” —although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized—” (John 4:1-2) In other words, the direct contrast is made between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus.

So what we know from these verses is 1) real baptism is taking place 2) and it is the baptism of Jesus…not that of John.

Now, read that in light of the other verse I referenced: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

See, a Jesus baptism is really taking place, and we know it must be a water baptism because “batism” means “immersion” or “plunging” and we also know the Holy Spirit had not yet come.

What you are proposing is that Jesus was just going through some motions with people for no real reason. I do not believe that Jesus ever just did things without a reason. Everything He did was to set the example for us…to teach us…to save us.

Byt the way, I never said “baptism” can ONLY refer to water. I was rather explicit and detailed several posts ago…I suggest you go back and re-read. “Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit…” (John 3:5) You see, it is AND/BOTH, not “only”/either/or. **

 

[zz912]

The Book of Acts has some great material which helps in your argument:

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” 38 Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” 40 He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

Notice a couple things here. When they realized what they had done, and that they had sinned, and needed to turn to God, they ask Peter what they must DO. And Peter doesn’t respond with “accept Jesus as your Lord and personal Savior”. What does he say? Repent AND be baptized. And what would this repentance AND baptism do? It would give them forgiveness of sins. And notice, those who accepted the message had to be baptized.

*Acts 8:9 A man named Simon used to practice magic in the city and astounded the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great. 10 All of them, from the least to the greatest, paid attention to him, saying, “This man is the ‘Power of God’ that is called ‘Great.’” 11 They paid attention to him because he had astounded them by his magic for a long time, 12 but once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, **men and women alike were baptized. **13 Even Simon himself believed and, after being baptized, became devoted to Philip; and when he saw the signs and mighty deeds that were occurring, he was astounded.

14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, 16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.*

Notice here, that all of them believed, and were baptized. But notice, the Holy Spirit hadn’t come upon them yet. They were still lacking Confirmation (and Philip was a deacon, not a priest or bishop, so he could not confer the sacrament of Confirmation, that is why John and Peter went to them). But again, they BELIEVED, but still had not had the fullness of the Holy Spirit, that only came through the sacraments.

Now they will counter with Acts 10

Acts 10:42 He commissioned uso to preach to the people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word. 45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, 46 for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded, 47 “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?” 48 He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. 49 Then they invited him to stay for a few days.

But again, notice something here. First, God is not precluded from operating outside His own sacraments. Two, God was doing this out of the ordinary fashion because it was a declaration that the Faith is to given to the Gentiles as well. Finally, notice that they speak of baptism as something being withheld from them. It is NOT a symbol that shows their faith. Who is upset if a symbolic act is withheld?

Acts 19:1 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” 3He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” 4 Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 Altogether there were about twelve men

Notice here, first, they were “disciples” already, but without full knowledge of the Holy Spirit. Second, the Holy Spirit didn’t come upon them until they were baptized AND confirmed (Paul laid his hands on them). So the sacraments confer the actions they claim.

Acts 22:12 “A certain Ananias, a devout observer of the law, and highly spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me and stood there and said, ‘Saul, my brother, regain your sight.’ And at that very moment I regained my sight and saw him. 14 Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors designated you to know his will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear the sound of his voice; 15 for you will be his witness before all to what you have seen and heard. 16 Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’

And finally, notice here, his sins are washed away through baptism.

 

[ahs]

zz912, thanks so much! I also noticed while studying on those verses you provided Acts 8:27-30; 35-39…

“So he got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to this chariot and join it.” 30 So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. …
… 35 Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. 36 As they were going along the road,* they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized**?”[a] 38 He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away****; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.”

So again, the Spirit is there with Philip, instructing him, but no indication that the Eunoch received the Spirit until he is baptized and has com eout of the water. That’s probably a weaker argument on “timing” per se, but another positive example of water Baptism. Notice the Spirit did not go to the Eunoch, who obviously was seeking Truth and wanting to know God…

"30 *So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him. 32 Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this:

“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,
and like a lamb silent before its shearer,
so he does not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.”

34 The eunuch asked Philip, “About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus*. " (Acts 8:30-35)*

 

[Gorgias]

Person 1: ahs, if you read just a few passages later it says “Jesus, Himself Baptized NOT.” Did you miss that part? Sure the disciples baptized, we all know that, but that has never been in contention. The Scripture is clear, Jesus while He is the baptizer, never water baptized anybody.

John 4 “Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. (though Jesus Himself baptized NOT)”

Think about it:

Jesus is the baptizer
Jesus NEVER water baptized anybody.
Baptism therefore CANNOT refer to only water

I think I would mention the story of the centurion. You know, “For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” In other words, what the master says, the servant does; not of his own will, but of the master’s. in that way, the action is credited to the master, not the servant. So, even if it were the apostles doing the baptism, it is still Jesus’ baptism that they are performing – and that’s why they’re making disciples of Jesus and not of the apostles.

Person 2:
So what we know from these verses is 1) real baptism is taking place 2) and it is the baptism of Jesus…not that of John.

Now, read that in light of the other verse I referenced: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

See, a Jesus baptism is really taking place, and we know it must be a water baptism because “batism” means “immersion” or “plunging” and we also know the Holy Spirit had not yet come.

Hmm… this doesn’t sound exactly right. Are we saying that the baptisms that were done prior to Pentecost were baptisms “in water and in the Spirit”? I would think that baptism “in water and the Spirit” is what we mean when we talk about the “baptism of Jesus”. On the other hand, a “baptism of repentance” is what we mean when we talk about the “baptism of John”.

So, although Jesus / his apostles baptized prior to Pentecost, I don’t know that I’d strictly call these baptisms “of Jesus”. I don’t have any references to go on, but I don’t think that the Church would consider these to be sacramental baptism, either…

 

[ahs]

I think I would mention the story of the centurion. You know, “For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” In other words, what the master says, the servant does; not of his own will, but of the master’s. in that way, the action is credited to the master, not the servant. So, even if it were the apostles doing the baptism, it is still Jesus’ baptism that they are performing – and that’s why they’re making disciples of Jesus and not of the apostles.

Very good point.

Hmm… this doesn’t sound exactly right. Are we saying that the baptisms that were done prior to Pentecost were baptisms “in water and in the Spirit”? I would think that baptism “in water and the Spirit” is what we mean when we talk about the “baptism of Jesus”. On the other hand, a “baptism of repentance” is what we mean when we talk about the “baptism of John”.

So, although Jesus / his apostles baptized prior to Pentecost, I don’t know that I’d strictly call these baptisms “of Jesus”. I don’t have any references to go on, but I don’t think that the Church would consider these to be sacramental baptism, either…

I see what you are saying. This actually makes those other verses from Acts make more sense to me now, in this light. Water Baptisms were taking place, but as we see in the case of Philip, the Spirit did not come until Peter adn John laid hands on them…or in the case where the Spirit was sent, yet Peter still maintained they needed water Baptism in Acts 10:48.

I’ll need to study some more on this topic…

 

[klm120861]

Thanks, I will look again when I get a chance. By the way, I am stealing the bolded…hope you don’t mind, otherwise I already owe you an apology.

Feel free.

 

[fred_conty]

First of all, let me apologize for posting and running…I must be gone very shortly and won’t be back until tomorrow…but I would like some thoughts.

Second, this thread isn’t intended to be a debate itself…just information ABOUT debating the topic. But, if anyone wants to ensue debate here, feel free.

I have been debating teh necessity of Baptism on a Christian chat forum (very small group of Christians of various denominations/groups/what-have-you) and it has kinda come to an end where I have charged that the view presented there (that Baptism is “merely an outward sign of an inward grace” and that “true” baptism does not mean “water ritual”) is a new invention…coming up only after teh 16th century.

Now, certainly no information has been provided to refute what I charged. But my main confusion is realted to another aspet of what is being argued…namely that because Paul (*if *Paul indeed) did not mean the “water ritual” in every instance where he speaks of Baptism, that the “water ritual” is therefore not necessary.

I’m no scholar…just a layman, so still I tend to fall back on “no Christian held this understanding until recently in Christian history”. But is there something more substantial I could offer to get thye point across?

Thanks for any and all comments, and I hope to rejoin this thread sometime tomorrow.

In Christ,
Dave

Sometimes that say that water is not important because Paul dosen’t mention it when he is talking about baptism. Here is such a passage on CAF.

I Corinthians 12;13, “In the one Spirit we were baptised…one Spirit was given to us all to drink.”

This passage is right smack dab in the middle of speaking of the gifts of the Holy Spirit given to various members of the Body of the Church.

Look at the paragraphs immediately LEADING UP to this passage, and it is readily apparent that Paul is talking about the variety and unity of gifts given to members by the Holy Spirit.

Look at the paragraphs IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING this passage, and again it is readily apparent that Paul is talking about the analogy of the body and the importance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the church’s members.

Therefore the subject of baptism is not the focal point, and therefore water is ommitted.

In I Corinthians 12;13 “In the one Spirit we were baptised…one Spirit was given to us all to drink.”

He is talking here about the ONE Spirit running thu all the members of the church because we are ONE body, with many gifts benefitting one another. There is no intention on Paul’s part to give a lecture on baptism, but rather to emphasize that one Spirit is threading the many members, receiving gifts of the Spirit to help each other, and to function together as one church. The context presents us with the principle point that Paul is making, is not baptism, but the one Spirit running thru out the Church.

And so water is not addressed here.

Notice too, that one Spirit is placed first in the sentence, and baptism is last, The weight is on one Spirit, not baptism. And therefore water is not mentioned.

The importance of the one Spirit runs thru out all of these passages. The word baptism does not appear again. Which means that baptism is not the subject of Paul’s interest in
these passages. And so water is not important.

 

[Zekariya]

St Paul wrote his Epistles to the Church. The Church is made up of the baptized. St Paul has writen these Epistles with the expectation that his readers have already been baptized.

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you [baptized Christians of the Church of Ephesus] are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory.”

Romans 10:9-10 “For if thou [baptized Christian of the Church in Rome] confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For, with the heart, we believe unto justice: but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.”

St Paul wrote Romans to the Church in Rome and Ephesians to the Church in Ephesus. The Church was (and still is) made up of baptized Christians. He wrote those letters to help the baptized Christians know what is needed of them to be counted among the redeemed.

St Paul was not contradicting Christ in Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned.”

He was not contradicting St Peter in Acts 2:38 “But Peter said to them [the non-Christians who were outside of the Church]: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:41 “They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.”

He was not contradicting himself when recounting his own testimony of salvation. St Paul said that St Ananias told him: Acts 22:16 “And now why tarriest thou? Rise up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.”

Here is more from St Paul:
Romans 6:3-4 “Know you not [Church in Rome] that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.”

Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ.”

1 Corinthians 12:13 “For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.”

 

[ahs]

Wow…I had not looked at it like that! Thanks!

 

[Zekariya]

Wow…I had not looked at it like that! Thanks!

Glory to God for all things! I’m glad that you found it useful.