Loss of Rewards

[Julius_Caesar]

George Leo Haydock
AD 1849
Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, so called to distinguish it from the baptism of John; and that of Christ was given in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to the command of Christ himself. (Witham)

Yeah. The disciples of John had to be baptized in the name of Jesus and be chrismated.

 

[mcq72]

A question that gets answered in Acts 19.

Why would you get baptized in trinitarian formula, in representation of death to life Calvary to Resurection when it had not ocurred yet. I can understand said baptisms representing death to self and new life unto God (born of God).

I have also read that the reason why we accept all trinitarian baptisms, irregardless of which church/ community administered the sacrament was because it was for remission of sins but not Spirit imparting (as like Pentecost).( that only the true church can impart the Holy Ghost)

Anyways, strange that some believe you can be washed of your sins yet not be regenerated in spirit. Why say then that we were spiritually dead, in trespasses and sins.? If they be forgiven thru faith how could we remain dead?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Why would you get baptized in trinitarian formula, in representation of death to life Calvary to Resurection when it had not ocurred yet

Why can’t Jesus be speaking of exactly that?

He spoke of reference to His death, and that clearly didn’t happen yet.

Why say then that we were spiritually dead, in trespasses and sins.?

Being dead means that one is cut off from God. And Romans 6 explicitly says we are baptized into Christ’s death when we are immersed.

That is not said for John’s baptism.

Paul 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.”
Acts 19:4 NET

John’s baptism was only preparation for Jesus’.

He says differently about Jesus’ baptism.
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Galatians 3:27 NET

 

[mcq72]

Yeah. The disciples of John had to be baptized in the name of Jesus and be chrismated.

Ok. Thank you.

What was adavantage then of John’s baptism? I mean some were not baptized by John but later heard Jesus and were baptized…they were baptized (though unprepared by John) with those getting rebaptized (though prepared by John)?

No record of John’ disciples getting rebaptized when they began to follow Jesus in gospels.

Also Peter refers to baptism in Acts 2 in similar fashion as John’s baptism is, for remssion of sins.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Also Peter refers to baptism in Acts 2 in similar fashion as John’s baptism is, for remssion of sins

Becuase Jesus’ baptism ACTUALLY REMITS SINS.

 

[mcq72]

Becuase Jesus’ baptism ACTUALLY REMITS SINS.(not John’s)

"And he (John) came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"

“John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.”

"and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins."

“I (John) baptize you with water for repentance…He (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

“John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

Ok, so John operated on false pretenses, or a second class forgiveness?

Peter uses exactly the same words as all the above at Pentecost:

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38

Yes he cites gifts of HG, but he nor John does not cite any better repentance or forgiveness or regeneration as signified by the water.

Faith in Jesus Christ is faith in Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and tomorrow. John preached repentance before and in Christ to come and Peter in Christ who left (ascended). You make it sound like John preached forgiveness via the old animal sacrifice, the foreshadow of Christ, but he did not.

We should not make OT even John’s disciples to be not restored to fellowship, not reconciled to God as we. Yes there are differences but not in in essence of being made right with God. I mean we ourselves are not fully restored to glory as we will in the future. Yet we still are clothed by faith in what happened in the past with Jesus, just as OT and John were clothed by faith in what would happen in future with Christ.

Again I do not deny a restored soul in any testament to be regenerated, of being made a clean heart. It is more than just a covering, but a changed heart , in hopes of full maturation of His glory in us in the future.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Ok, so John operated on false pretenses, or a second class forgiveness?

John never pretended his baptism was efficacious to effect regeneration.

Yes he cites gifts of HG, but he nor John does not cite any better repentance or forgiveness or regeneration as signified by the water

“You will receive the Holy Spirit.”

Yeah he doesn’t cite any better repentance. Otherwise Paul wouldn’t have seen fit to rebaptize John’s disciples at Ephesus.

You make it sound like John preached forgiveness via the old animal sacrifice

You make it sound like John’s baptism was the same as Jesus’ baptism. It was not.

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Galatians 3:27 NET

 

[mcq72]

John never pretended his baptism was efficacious to effect regeneration.

Pure supposition. Of course many believe neither were Jesus’s contemporary baptisms.

Otherwise Paul wouldn’t have seen fit to rebaptize John’s disciples at Ephesus.

Again, he baptized them in the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands.

You make it sound like John’s baptism was the same as Jesus’ baptism. It was not.

In so much as repentance, remission of sins via faith in Christ, yes.

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

John’s preaching was not devoid of such a hope, nor faith lacking its futue appropriation.

 

[mcq72]

You make it sound like John’s baptism was the same as Jesus’ baptism. It was not.

Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Matthew 21:32

From John’s ministry harlots enter the kingdom via faith and repentance. Twas regenerational.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Pure supposition. Of course many believe neither were Jesus’s contemporary baptisms.

And they’d be wrong to suppose this was so of Trinitarian baptism.

Again, he baptized them in the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands.

After baptizing them in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

John’s preaching was not devoid of such a hope

But it was not the real thing.

Twas regenerational.

Nope. Again Paul didn’t seem to think so.

Paul 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.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
Acts 19:4‭-‬5 NET

 

[mcq72]

And they’d be wrong to suppose this was so of Trinitarian baptism.

Pretty sure you have alluded that Jesus’s baptism was not regenerational before Pentecost, as you say of the contemporary John’s baptisms.

After baptizing them in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Possibly so, but why the layin on of hands, to dry the others? Did the apostles lay hands on the 3000 to be baptized in the Holy Ghost after the waters on Pentecost day?

But it was not the real thing ( Johns baptism)

Did Jesus then need to get rebaptized then also, John not having the real thing?

Here is what Jesus said of John’s baptism:

"Jesus said, “Let it be so, for it is fitting in this way for us to fulfill all righteousness” …(Matt. 3:15)

Jesus, not needing baptism himself yet for righteousness sake, as our model, was baptized, and so we too.

Nope. Again Paul didn’t seem to think so.

Paul 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.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

Ok. Fair enough with “seem to think so”. But did Aquila and Prescilla seem to think Apollos needed rebaptizing (no mention of it) in previous chapter, having only John’s baptism?

"And Apollos began to speak boldly in the synagogue (of the things of the Lord) whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly…Acts 18:26 KJV

 

[lanman87]

Anothen is used for both birth of water AND Spirit. The meaning is baptism.

I hate to jump in but I have a question about this. The Catholic teaching is that Spiritual baptism happens at/because of water baptism correct?

It looks to me like we have four different examples of how people were “Baptized” with the Holy Spirit.

At Pentecost it was entirely an Act of God that filled the Disciples with the Holy Spirit.
Under Peters preaching in Acts 2 it appears Repentance and Water Baptism was the mode of “receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit”
For the Household of Cornelius, in Acts 10, it appears that it happened at conversion/belief as Peter preached to them.
For the 12 who were baptized by John in Acts 19 it was the laying on of hands after being baptized again “in the name of Jesus” by water.

Then in Ephesians 1 Paul tells the Ephesians they received the Holy Spirit when they believed, not when they had hands laid on them or when they were baptized. It seems that by that time the gift of the Spirit was normally received by Belief/Conversion as opposed to the earlier practice of water baptism or laying on of hands.

If the Catholic teaching that baptism is the cause (the working the work) of being born of the Spirit is correct then why did Paul lay hands on the 12 in Acts 19? Shouldn’t repentance and water baptism have already caused them to receive the gift of the Spirit?

How does that related to the household of Cornelius who were baptized by the Holy Spirit before water baptism? Were they “born again” before they were baptized with water? It certainly appears that way.

And what of Paul telling the Ephesians they they were sealed with the Holy Spirit when they believed? Eph 1:13.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

For the 12 who were baptized by John in Acts 19 it was the laying on of hands after being baptized again “in the name of Jesus” by water.

And this is where we see that chrismation was an event packaged into baptism, and not separated from it. Those in Samaria had the same way. Remember that Philip needed Peter and John for that.

Then in Ephesians 1 Paul tells the Ephesians they received the Holy Spirit when they believed, not when they had hands laid on them or when they were baptized.

You’re assuming that baptism is separate from faith.

How does that related to the household of Cornelius who were baptized by the Holy Spirit before water baptism? Were they “born again” before they were baptized with water?

If that were so why did Peter baptize them?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

But did Aquila and Prescilla seem to think Apollos needed rebaptizing (no mention of it) in previous chapter, having only John’s baptism?

And who’s to say they didn’t baptize Apollos considering they made him a disciple of Christ?

Jesus, not needing baptism himself yet for righteousness sake, as our model, was baptized, and so we too.

We aren’t Jesus though. Jesus is God. And in Jesus’ case the Spirit came on Him after He was baptized.

Did the apostles lay hands on the 3000 to be baptized in the Holy Ghost after the waters on Pentecost day?

Yes. Why wouldn’t they?

Pretty sure you have alluded that Jesus’s baptism was not regenerational before Pentecost,

Pretty sure John the Apostle refers to it as ceremonial washing.

 

[lanman87]

You’re assuming that baptism is separate from faith.

Baptism is separate from faith. Faith is belief/trust. It is internal to the heart/soul. It is possible to have faith without having been baptized but any baptism without faith is just getting wet. It is having the body washed to remove filth without having a good conscious toward God. And as Peter tells us, it is not the washing of water that saves us, it is an appeal for a good conscious toward God.

And this is where we see that chrismation was an event packaged into baptism, and not separated from it. Those in Samaria had the same way. Remember that Philip needed Peter and John for that.

That still doesn’t fit with the belief that the waters of baptism actually give the Spirit. In this case, the waters of baptism and initial giving of the Spirit were separate events. That seems at odds of Catholic doctrine where they are the same event.

If that were so why did Peter baptize them?

To follow the command of Christ to baptize and to show they, as Gentiles, were just as much part of the church as the Jewish believers. At any rate, if the Holy Spirit is the seal of a believer, then the Household of Cornelius had that seal before they were immersed in water.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

That still doesn’t fit with the belief that the waters of baptism actually give the Spirit

It does when you consider chrismation as a stage within baptism and that Philip was only a deacon.

Peter tells us, it is not the washing of water that saves us

He still starts off with, “baptism saves you now.” Why would he say that if baptism in Christ’s name was ineffective.

It is possible to have faith without having been baptized

Like it’s possible to exit a falling plane with a parachute.

To follow the command of Christ to baptize and to show they, as Gentiles, were just as much part of the church as the Jewish believers

The Spirit coming on them showed that. They still needed to put on Christ in baptism. Else, you are saying Balaam was saved simply by his oracle.

 

[lanman87]

Why would he say that if baptism in Christ’s name was ineffective.

Because he was using a metaphor of Noah. The waters of the flood were a symbol of the waters of baptism, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the as a response toward God.

You can be baptized (for cultural reason, to please a family member or other reasons) and still not have a response toward God.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:21 HCSB

And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you —not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3:21 NET

Notice it is not the washing with water that saves us, it is the pledge of a good conscience toward God.

The washing of water without a pledge of Good conscience toward God is just getting wet. And yes, some people get baptized for other reasons. Maybe just because it is part of their culture, or to please a family member, or a finance’…without any real heart felt faith or desire to be faithful.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You can be baptized (for cultural reason, to please a family member or other reasons) and still not have a response toward God

All the more reason why you shouldn’t separate faith from baptism. The Church did not. Peter did not, as the passage clearly states.

 

[lanman87]

The Spirit coming on them showed that. They still needed to put on Christ in baptism. Else, you are saying Balaam was saved simply by his oracle.

Balaam wasn’t adopted as a child of God, Balaam wasn’t made a new creation, Balaam wasn’t part of the New Covenant. God used Balaam for a specific purpose at a specific time for a specific reason. To compare Balaam to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit given to the elect of God who come to God in Faith is to compare apples to oranges.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

God used Balaam for a specific purpose at a specific time for a specific reason

Just like God used Cornelius and his family for that specific reading. Peter still made them enter the waters of baptism. They needed to have their sins washed away and confess Jesus.