Posted on 03/05/2015 2:28:53 AM PST by RaceBannon
Not sure it all can be neatly "formulized" in NT...
For example, Jesus told Saul to be baptized...and calling on His Name was interwoven at same time (if not after)
16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ (Acts 22)
Secondly, there seemed to be some pretty almost instant across-the-board family-wide baptisms (Acts 16:14-15, 33). These were pretty sudden turn-abouts with seemingly little to none indications that these were a slow-cooking family member-by-family member "canvass" of individual faith beliefs...IoW, it's pretty easy for Westernized Evangelicals to insert their individualistic confession of faith into Biblical scenes enacted in corporate minded Middle Eastern cultures.
Also, were not given a complete formula that applied each time to all of the baptisms as recorded in Acts 2:41; 8:37; 9:5-6, 17-18; 10:47; 11:16-17; 16:14-15; 16:33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16; Gal. 3:26-27).
I mean receiving the Holy Spirit -- vital for a real REbirth -- is mentioned in Acts 9, 10, & 11...but not in the other references above.
I have to agree that there is no formula. It seems this may be so when we all get into “discussions” we all rush to the bible and delve into the word of God. What better way for the Lord to get people into bible studies, overcoming those who think they have a corner on Christian belief.
It has often been said the Bible is the most purchased book in America, and the least read. But not here!
OK, there's nothing magical about water per se...it's a common element...
Paul clearly says here how this "cleansing" is accomplished...It's the power of God's word enacted via water.
People need to show more respect to God's Empowering Word by writing it off as merely resulting in "wetness."
That's 100% disrespectful to God's Word, to the apostle Paul's claims in this passage alone, let alone all of the other divine empowerings associated with baptism (see, for starter's CraigEsq's list in post #155).
I will also have you note that just about all of the key players in the Protestant Reformation showed 100% more repect for baptism (& not just your reductionism of Baptism of the Holy Spirit) that your flippant comment.
(This is complete eisegesis...it's an interpretation not found in Peter's text, where you simply seek another verse to import your interpretation)
Paul is referring to water baptism, and Spirit baptism, as separate events... (Zuriel, #142)
In the NT, there's SEVEN references to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit...Six of them reference a contrast between...
...a baptism of repentance practiced by John...
...with a baptism of Holy Spirit inaugurated by Jesus Christ...
(In addition to Acts 11:15-16, you can find the rest at Acts 1:5; John 1:33; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:15; Mt. 3:11).
As we can see most references to water baptism beyond the above don't mention it being a "baptism of repentance" ... and four references of water baptism mention receiving the Holy Spirit just prior to water baptism (Acts 10:47; 11:16-17; Acts 9:5-6, 17-18)...which means the water baptism is NOT referencing "Holy Spirit" baptism.
1 Cor. 12:13 is the ONLY reference to being baptized with the Holy Spirit that is NOT hedged as a distinction between baptism of the Holy Spirit & a baptism of repentance, and so for people to build an entire theology upon one single verse shows they need to run it back up the line as to where they learned their theology in this case and talk to them about theological malpractice.
I agree with J.I. Packer, who wrote in 1987 that all explanations positing a distinction between baptizing with water and the Holy Spirit "are on the wrong track."
He said that "water" and "The Spirit" are two aspects of the same ONE reality: That God's renewal of the fallen and unresponsive human heart is regenerated by the purifying and energizing components -- just as they were set forth in God's promise to renew the Israelite hearts in Ezekiel 36:25-27:
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
These are ALL things that ONLY a divine God can accomplish...
...spiritual cleansing; new heart; new spirit;...
...don't we dare reduce what God's Word promises and confirms that promise by writing it off as some mere act of man!
Are you serious?
Ya know, all of the Biblical chapters & verses came WELL after these letters were written.
We like to sometimes think that what Paul wrote in Romans 10 is somehow "light-years" distant from what he wrote in Romans 6...but such wasn't the case. Same letter...x # of sentences before what we read in Romans 10.
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him THROUGH BAPTISM into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Paul, Romans 6)
Ya wanna tell us how something God does here...
...(a) baptizing us into Christ Jesus...
...(b) being buried with Him THROUGH baptism into death...
...(c) resulting in further identification with Christ thru His resurrection & our accompanying new life...
...can be so readily ignored and marginalized?
What? Is Paul just "into" flowery meaningless language that doesn't have any real linkage to real spiritual life?
(agreed...thanks for your comment, bro)
I likely would not agree with J.I. Packer since I am not Reformed of anything...
He said that "water" and "The Spirit" are two aspects of the same ONE reality: That God's renewal of the fallen and unresponsive human heart is regenerated by the purifying and energizing components -- just as they were set forth in God's promise to renew the Israelite hearts in Ezekiel 36:25-27:
There are no purifying and energizing components in water...
I know how that can affect one’s thinking, both being sick and on meds for the symptoms.
It’s a wonderful verse that doesn’t get the attention it deserves.
No, I didn't. The Greek word translated "for" does not mean that the baptism caused the forgiveness of sins. Like you showed the Greek word is εἰς - eis which the first definition literally is into, .
Greek - eis - 1519 eis (a preposition) – properly, into (unto) – literally, "motion into which" implying penetration ("unto," "union") to a particular purpose or result.
It's use here:
Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east into (eis) Jerusalem,
Did the wise men coming into Jerusalem cause Jerusalem to happen or was it because Jerusalem was already there?
And here:
Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into (eis) the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him:
Did them coming into the house cause the house was it because the house was already there?
And here:
Matthew 4:18 ...They were casting a net into (eis) the lake, for they were fishermen.
Did them casting the net into the lake cause the lake or was it because the lake was already there?
Do they send people to prison because they already committed murder or so they can commit murder?
People are baptised because the forgiveness already happened.
Now, go find a place in scripture where the Preposition eis is used to indicate the verb it is used which indicates causation.
And I'm not claiming anybody finds that there are, other than the obvious, yes, water physically cleanses a person...
May I remind you that "there's no purifying and energizing components in mud/spittle, either" -- yet the Living Word spoken through seemed to do wonders for a man to see.
So now what? Treatises, threads & posts from people militating versus the mud Jesus used to heal a man?
The mud is no different -- a similar common element -- than what we find in Ephesians 5:25-26:
...Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word...
If you have a problem with Jesus choosing to use either mud or water, take it up with Him.
The pride of man is strong that wants to claim some sort of effort on his part to merit salvation and the forgiveness of sins. It's humiliating to them to admit that they have nothing good to contribute.
...Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word... (Eph. 5:25-26)
I prefer the non-Reformed version...
ph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
We are cleansed by the word, not the spigot...It's not the washing with water, it's the washing of water, BY THE WORD...It is being compared to the washing of water...It's the type of washing...The washing of water...
Similar to this following verse:
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
We do not grab a washcloth, run it under some regeneration and wipe down with it...And we do not run it under water and wipe down with it...
It's a spiritual operation in both cases...A spiritual cleansing, without water...
And how do I know that??? By comparing scripture with scripture...
Is it the outer man/flesh that is cleansed??? No,it is the 'new' man inside of us that is clean...There's plenty of scripture to back that up...
>>"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."<<
So tell me, was it the shedding of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins or was it baptism? And when Christ said, before He was crucified, "they sins are forgiven" was that not valid?
The man who was healed of his blindness was cleansed by Jesus' word, not the mud/spittle. BY THE LIVING WORD.
(Yet I still don't see treatises, threads, & posts by people yelling at Jesus for choosing to use a common element like mud/spittle to accomplish that, do I?)
Amen...Jesus did it ALL...
That's pretty much what I said...The water does nothing...It is the Holy Spirit that regenerates...
Bottom line!
(Yet you seem to object to God choosing to use water to do this?)
**I agree with J.I. Packer......He said that “water” and “The Spirit” are two aspects of the same ONE reality**
Jesus Christ said that “Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit....” John 3:5. (John 1:13 says nothing about water, when detailing natural birth).
He further said: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou HEAREST the SOUND thereof, but canst NOT tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is EVERY ONE that is BORN of the SPIRIT”. John 3:8 (my caps)(another verse that you anti baptism types don’t like).
We ALL DO AGREE on this: That Jesus Christ, and NO ONE ELSE, baptizes with the Holy Ghost.
But, in his commissions he COMMANDS that THEY (his apostles) BAPTIZE (Matt. 28:19), that THEY REMIT SINS (John 20:23).
He COMMANDS that one that “believeth AND is baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16:16). Many of you say that the Lord is talking about Spirit baptism in that verse. Why would he have to tell them a requirement that isn’t in their job description?
He COMMANDS THEM “that REPENTANCE and REMISSION of SINS should be preached in HIS NAME among ALL nations, BEGINNING at JERUSALEM”. Luke 24:47
There is only ONE PLACE to go, to see what happens “beginning at Jerusalem”; Acts chapter 2.
The Holy Ghost is poured out, and the onlookers are preached Jesus Christ; his life, death, burial, and resurrection. THEN, when the onlookers ask “Men and brethern, what shall we do?”......
“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”.
Now, go back and look at those commissions, and tell me that those words were just Peter’s idea.
Do you believe the Lord’s commissions? I’m not sure that you do, to say the least.
You folks run to the epistles; letters written to people already born again, as their intros make clear. You quote select verses from Romans 10, conveniently disregarding the fact that Paul finishes that passage saying that the people have to hear the gospel from preachers sent from God. To see what the original preachers ‘sent from God’ preached to the lost, you HAVE to go to Acts.
(I have only begun, but have an appointment to go load a oversize planter on the semi. I WILL be back. That’s a promise.)
I’ve pointed out the Lord’s commissions, and the messenger, Peter, telling the lost about the Lord, and how to be born again. Do you think that the Lord was a poor instructor of Peter? Anyway, about three thousand were added that “gladly received his word were baptized”. (2:43)(added without eating the wafer?)
Of course the argument is whether ‘baptism’ in that verse is water or Spirit. I will be diplomatic and say both. To say it is absolutely not water baptism is simply an exercise in biased opinion.
**1 Cor. 12:13 is the ONLY reference to being baptized with the Holy Spirit that is NOT hedged as a distinction between baptism of the Holy Spirit & a baptism of repentance, and so for people to build an entire theology upon one single verse**.......
Which is exactly what whoever wrote that opinion is doing. Those folks in Corinth had already been born again, or at least knew how (1 Cor. 1:2). So there was no need for Paul to talk water baptism in his teaching of the gifts of the Spirit. Remember that Paul had already discussed water baptism in the first chapter. He personally baptized at least four in Corinth (probably more, depending on how many made up “the household of Stephanus”). He even mentioned it in 1Cor. 15:29, and pointed out a type and shadow of water and Spirit baptism in 10:1,2.
Now I will list the separate DETAILED accounts of water baptism, starting with: Acts 8
8:12,13 (Samaritans) “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip...”.
Notice they ‘believed, and were baptized’. (sounds like fulfillment of the the Lord’s command in Mark 16:16; “He that believeth, and is baptized..”). They had NOT received the Spirit yet. Peter and John were then called to come to Samaria:
8:16; “(For as yet he was fallen upon NONE of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)”
The Ethiopian eunuch: 8:35-38; “Then Philip....preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See here is WATER; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down INTO the WATER, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” (first detailed witness mentioning water used in baptism, and an example of fulfillment of Mark 16:16).
10:44-48 (Gentiles) “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished....BECAUSE on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME of the Lord...”. (second detailed witness of water in baptism).
In Acts 11 we find Peter back in Jerusalem, after the conversion event at Cornelius’ house in Caesarea, testifying of their receiving the Holy Ghost. With God giving them the Spirit, his hand was forced to obey God’s ordained plan, and baptize them in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Notice his testamony at that point:
11:17; “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; WHAT WAS I, THAT I COULD WITHSTAND GOD?”.
If that is to be a realization that water baptism is not a command from the Lord, then there was nothing TO withstand.
God expected Peter to do HIS part, and baptise them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins. Also, he could have refused to baptize them. But knew he couldn’t withstand God’s command, for notice his words; “Can any man forbid water..”.
The conversion of the keeper of the prison, in Philippi, is a story that is rarely told completely. Quote 16:31, and get out of Dodge.
The story continues with Paul speaking “unto him the word of the Lord, and to ALL that were IN HIS HOUSE. And he TOOK THEM that same hour of the night, and WASHED their stripes; and was BAPTIZED, he and all his straightway. And WHEN he had BROUGHT them INTO HIS HOUSE, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, BELIEVING in God with all his house.” Acts 16:32-34
1. We see that the keeper of the prison has brought Paul and Silas into his house, because they speak “the word of the Lord” to the man and all those “IN HIS HOUSE” (unless you think that they somehow got a message to hustle on down to the prison for church service).
2. “He TOOK THEM” (took them from his house to where, pray tell?). Well, he washed their stripes somewhere besides the house. Some place where there would be plenty of water for the messy job of washing their stripes.
3. While still AWAY from home, possibly at the same location, they were BAPTIZED, he and all his straightway.
(you can insist that that is talking about Spirit baptism only, but you can’t prove it. I believe it is water baptism, or both water and Spirit baptism).
4. He brought them back INTO his house,......he and all his “rejoiced, BELIEVING in God with all his house”.
Re-baptism in Ephesus: Paul finds certain disciples that believe SOMETHING about the Lord, for Paul asks, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed”. To which they replied that they hadn’t even heard about the Holy Ghost. They had only been baptized “unto John’s baptism”. Paul told them that it was a baptism unto repentance.
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” 19:5,6
Now, the list of the brief mentioning of baptisms. You may argue that those are ‘Spirit’ baptisms only. Can you prove that? I say they are water baptisms, or both (and Paul is involved in all but the first of them):
Acts 2:41 about 3,000 were added.
9:18 Saul/Paul’s conversion.
16:15 Lydia and her household.
16:33 keeper of the prison and his household.
18:8 Crispus (one of several Paul admitted to baptizing in Corinth. 1Cor 1:14,16)
22:16 Saul/Paul again.
1Peter 3:20,21 is quite plain, if you are willing to allow it to harmonize with everything presented so far. 20 “...eight souls were saved by water.” 21 “The LIKE figure whereunto even BAPTISM doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
For a little comparison, read what Peter wrote, leaving out the words in parentheses, while comparing it with 1Cor. 15:29 (leaving the words in parentheses in is fine, if you prefer, for it doesn’t change the meaning).
“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” 1Cor 15:29.
That’s Paul (the one who wasn’t suppose to baptize), saying that if Christ (and the asleep in Christ) rise not, then it is all vain. If there is no resurrection, then water baptism into Christ is a waste of time. Of course, we know that is not the case, since Christ is risen, and the Spirit poured out.
Water baptism is not a bath, but is done in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. That is how it saves. That is how one has the answer of a good conscience toward God. Being “buried with him” is where you get his blood on you, but his NAME must not be left out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.