John 3:22-36
After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized. (This was before John was put in prison.) An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”
To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him.’ The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.”
The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
So Jesus and his Apostles were water baptizing at the same time John the Baptist was and this was BEFORE Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was given to indwell the believer. The disciples were discussing "ceremonial washings" with a Jew who, no doubt, was familiar with what they were doing with baptism - which was a common rite within Judaism. Though we know from John 4:2 that Jesus, himself, did not baptize anyone but his disciples were baptizing people in the name of Jesus. This makes the case for the rite of water baptism to be different than the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which could have only happened AFTER the resurrection and Pentecost. Also, as to Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch, they were in a desert so I wonder what would have happened had they not found an oasis with water in it to baptize the new believer? Just curious on your thoughts.
Interesting point.
Baptism for the Jews was not a one time affair. It was an outgrowth of ritual washing.
“According to non-Essene Jewish law there are three basic areas where immersion in the mikveh is required.
Immersion is required for both men and women when converting to Judaism. There were three prerequisites for a proselyte coming into Judaism: Circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5). Essene Law also included conversion immersion, but not circumcision or animal sacrifice.
Immersion is required after a woman has her monthly period (Lev. 15:28). Essene Law also included immersion for some forms of sexual pollution, but not all sexuallity was considered defiling.
Immersion is required for pots and eating utensils manufactured by a non-Jew (Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion p-263). Essene Law also included utensil immersion.
It is customary to be immersed in the mikveh before Yom Kippur as a sign of purity and repentance and before the Sabbath in order to sensitize oneself to the holiness of the day.”
http://www.essene.com/B%27nai-Amen/MysticalImmersion.htm
“From all of the foregoing, we see that the use of water to symbolize cleansing and consecration is very much a Jewish concept, and a very ancient one at that. Because of this, when the Jewish prophet John (Yochanon ben Zechariah) came upon the scene, the Jews of his day saw nothing pagan or wrong in his demands that people repent of sin and be symbolically cleansed in the Jordan River. John’s title, “Baptist” (literally baptizer), comes from the Greek verb baptidzo, which carries the same meaning as the Hebrew root taval: to wash by dipping or plunging in water. John’s message, though not a popular one, was in keeping with what all the other Jewish prophets proclaimed. He preached God’s impending judgment, warning that Israel must repent and be spiritually renewed because the coming of the Messiah was at hand. The self-righteous may have disagreed about their personal need for repentance, but they had no quarrel with John’s method of symbolic cleansing. Otherwise, surely the religious leaders would have had him stoned as a false prophet.”
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/2_10/baptism
Some apparently believed in baptism daily, and some as preparation for studying God’s word.
John’s baptism was specifically for repentance and cleansing in preparation for the coming of the Messiah.
Acts 19: “1-2 While Apollos was in Corinth Paul journeyed through the upper parts of the country and arrived at Ephesus. There he discovered some disciples, and he asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” “No”, they replied, “we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 “Well then, how were you baptised?” asked Paul. “We were baptised with John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 “John’s baptism was a baptism to show a change of heart,” Paul explained, “but he always told the people that they must believe in the one who should come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5-7 When these men heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, and then, when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them and they began to speak with tongues and the inspiration of prophets. (There were about twelve of them in all.)”
From what I’ve read, the Jews of the day (and I suspect many of the gentiles as well) understood baptism to be a sign of conversion, showing that you are ‘dead’ to your previous life and committed to a new life under God. It was a response to belief. There is no indication in scripture that it was considered an event that caused the Holy Spirit to enter your life. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit sometimes occurred spontaneously and often visibly took place with the laying on of hands - but I can’t think of a time where it happened simultaneously with water baptism.
The idea that water baptism causes regeneration is utterly heathen. It is tied to magic, not faith. It came about when heathens insisted on having ‘priests’ to stand between them and God, and to do rites for them. It is antithetical to Christianity. There is nothing in scripture that supports the idea that you can cause a baby to convert and live for God by sprinkling water on him. And there are hundreds of verses indicating the opposite - that it requires faith, and faith is what we have when we believe the promise of God.
Also, notice this phrase in Acts 19: “John’s baptism was a baptism to show a change of heart,” Paul explained...
“With the baptism of repentance (baptisma metanoiav).
Cognate accusative with ebaptisen and the genitive metanoiav describing the baptism as marked by (case of species or genus), not as conveying, repentance...”
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=019&verse=004
In a sense, it states what should be excruciatingly obvious: that people came to be baptized BECAUSE they wanted to repent, and were not baptized unwillingly SO THAT they WOULD repent.
Too much Catholic theology is rooted in the error of Simon:
“18-19 When Simon saw how the Spirit was given through the apostles’ laying their hands upon people he offered them money with the words, “Give me this power too, so that if I were to put my hands on anyone he could receive the Holy Spirit.”
20-23 But Peter said to him, “To hell with you and your money! How dare you think you could buy the gift of God!... All you can do now is to repent of this wickedness of yours and pray earnestly to God that the evil intention of your heart may be forgiven.”
Rites are not wrong, but rites that substitute for faith are. From first to last, scripture makes it clear that God wants a repentant heart, and that the rites demonstrate it - if they are to have any value at all:
12 “When you come to appear before me,
who has required of you
this trampling of my courts?
13 Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17 learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause.
18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
20 but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be eaten by the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
As expressed, the rite of water baptism can be different than the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as well as the same event, as it is the repentant faith that baptism requires and expresses that is what precisely appropriates justification.
As seen in the table in this post, in Scripture we see the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit occurring at the time of believers baptism, (Acts 2:38) and before baptism, (Acts 10:43-47; 11:1-18; 15:7-9) and even after baptism. (Acts 8:12, 14-17, 19:4-6).
And also that "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Romans 10:10) While Eph. 1:13 states "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed [or also believing], ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, " (Ephesians 1:13)
The essence of this is that it is faith that saves, but the kind of faith that is salvific is one that confesses the Lord Jesus, opportunity being presumed, and that baptism is the commanded ordinance that normatively is the initial outward confession of faith in and identification with the Lord Jesus, in "body language" if you will.
Note however, that baptism is not simply confessing Christ, but it as said, is also a basic symbolic identification with Him in death and resurrection, (Rm. 6) though the significance may be little realized at the time. But what is implicit in faith conversion is a basic turning from darkness to light, otherwise a souls would not have come to the Lord Jesus. (Jn. 2:19-21)
Yet, while it is clear that the “coming upon” and the baptism of the Holy Spirit under the New Testament cannot be an event that leaves the subjects without the Holy Spirit in them, the record of souls receiving the Holy Spirit after having believed and being baptized (Acts 8:12, 14-17, 19:4-6) perhaps suggests that in certain cases receiving the “gift of” or being “baptized with” the Holy Spirit can be a separate post-regeneration and justification event. As it seems the latter two cannot be separated, and believing is essentially established as the instrumental means of justification (though this can take place when it is expressed), to hold that such believing and baptized souls were not yet forgiven and justified would seem untenable, while it is also affirmed that souls who would repent, believe and be baptized would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that this also occurred before baptism, their hearts being purified by faith. (Acts 15:8,9)
It is also true that “he that seeketh findeth, and that God gives the gift of the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him, (Lk. 11:13) and in addition to the aforementioned post-baptism believers “receiving” the Holy Spirit, evangelical history testifies to converted born again souls receiving a “second blessing,” or “baptism with the Holy Spirit,” such as Dwight L. Moody's profound and fruitful experience. But which, as with the miracles of Moses, the devil (and the flesh) seeks to corrupt or imitate.
In addition, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, (Lk. 1:15) while the Holy Spirit came upon the Lord Jesus just after baptism (at about age 30), in the context being baptized with the Holy Ghost. (Mt. 3:11,16; Lk. 3:21-23)
Thus while it is clear that those such as trust the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His blood as damned and destitute but repentant sinners, will be saved if they believe with the kind of faith that effects obedience towards its Object, given opportunity and ability, yet the baptism with the Holy Spirit (as well as the terms) defies a tight little formula, in case anyone wants to too precisely confine how God can act. Instead it requires more of the heart than the head, as "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit," (Psalms 34:18) and gives the Holy Spirit, to them that seek Him, with refills. Thus we are to remain utterly dependent upon His mercy, grace and power, but how soon and often do i strive in my own strength, and fail of His grace.
As for what would happen if Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch found no water (besides "desert" not necessarily meaning like the Sahara, but a deserted part of the country, though it would not exclude travelers), this is why we have more than one conversion account, as we see that God is not restricted to earthly elements, but God gave the same gift of the Holy Spirit that He gave unto the apostles to souls before baptism “who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Acts 11:17) And what Peter rhetorically asks, what was I, that I could withstand God?,” also applies to us.
And as said, even Rome allows that such could be saved without water (baptism of desire, or by blood ,both of which has a history of support: http://www.the-pope.com/bapodesr.html), and which, as said, entails souls being baptized into the body of Christ by faith before water baptism. (1Cor. 12:13)
However, we have been dealing with a soul who demands that “one” be restricted to an absolute sense, and thus cannot allow the Scriptural revelation that souls were forgiven and born again before baptism, which conversion is invoked by Catholic scholarship in support of baptism of desire, which he is required to affirm (and which itself means souls were baptized into the body of Christ before baptism: 1Cor. 12:13), and that there is more than one baptism (cf. Heb. 6:2), which they understand as being analogous to water baptism.
In addition to other Catholic quotes in the aforementioned post affirming the regeneration of Cornelius and company, no less than a RC authority than Thomas Aquinas dealt with such a superficial understanding that “one” can only mean one in any way (emp. mine),
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. — Summa Theologica, Question 66 Art. 11;
In contradicting the Rigorist sect that holds that water baptism is absolutely necessary for regeneration and the forgiveness of sins, John A. S. A. Hardon, S.J., deceased Jesuit priest, writer, and theologian, whose definitions often appear on FR, states, quoting Bellarmine, one of the few “Doctors” of the Church,
“Cornelius had unquestionably received the forgiveness of his sins before Baptism, at least after he heard the faith from Blessed Peter and had a desire for Baptism. For, as it is said in Acts 10, he also had the Holy Spirit dwelling within him. But Augustine in the passages quoted is speaking of the time when Cornelius had not yet heard of Christ and did not even have a desire for Baptism. For, speaking of the later time, Augustine himself says (quest. 35 in Numbers): ‘Cornelius, hearing and believing what Peter preached, was so cleansed that even before visible Baptism he, together with those who were with him, received the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” — http://www.alcazar.net/bellarmine&salvation.html
Though i do not concur with all he says (and he and Rome think h20 baptism does more than the BOS, though that is salvific), yet as said, if one allows for baptism by desire, then he must allow for sola fide (as appropriating justification, though not by a faith that would not effect works of faith), even if only as an exception, as well as for more than one baptism, as regenerated souls are baptized into the one body by faith in the one Lord, which the one formal ordinance of (water) baptism identifies one with.
Sorry if this is too long, but theology takes and time, and objectivity and analysis, and which can be subject to refinement — as is its writer.