Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[marks]

There is a passage where they recieved the Holy Spirit and then commanded to be baptized.

Cornelius, right?

It's interesting to me that there were so many different ways this happened there at the beginning. It's almost like God wanted to make sure we didn't latch onto some particular formula.

There are clear commands to be water baptized, and there is equally clear teaching about how water baptism doesn't save us. Some reconcile that in saying water baptism is an outward expression of an inner change. I've never seen that in Scripture though.

It's like you said,

and to have it done correctly.

The Ethiopian man that Philip evangelized on the desert highway,

Acts 8:35-38 KJV
35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36) 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?
37) 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.
38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Nowadays we tell people to say a "sinner's prayer", but it seems to me the original idea was to be baptized into the faith, and that aligned very much with their culture and history. Baptisms in the OT were about ceremonial cleanliness, and, culturally, about gentiles becoming Jews.

When I became a Christian, that's what I did, because in my circumstance that was what made sense to me. I'd been invited to be baptized, but I didn't believe. When I came to believe, I accepted the invitation, was baptized, and that was my moment of conversion. I could tell.

But with that being said, I find some very specific teaching that water baptism isn't for us as such. That after Israel gave final rejection of the Gospel, and it was sent directly to the Gentiles through Paul, he wasn't sent to baptize, but to preach the cross.

Much love!

 

[Johann]

There is a passage where they received the Holy Spirit and then commanded to be baptized. I think the point is, no where in the scriptures does it ever say baptism isn't commanded of us. At least not that I've seen. I've only seen passages that say it is necessary.

Also this passage..............

Act 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
Act 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
Act 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Act 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
Act 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Act 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Act 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
Act 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
Act 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36 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?
Act 8:37 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.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Act 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

Sorry, @marks already quoted this..........

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Is there something on your mind you want to discuss, not being facetious with you

I have never heard anyone say not to get baptized. I myself believe one does nto have to be baptized to be saved, but that everyone who does not get baptized is in sin..

so I am just wondering who says not to get baptized so i can try to understand

 

[Johann]

But with that being said, I find some very specific teaching that water baptism isn't for us as such. That after Israel gave final rejection of the Gospel, and it was sent directly to the Gentiles through Paul, he wasn't sent to baptize, but to preach the cross.

Much love!

My apologies for starting a thing that might be potentially dangerous and bringing division among the brethren @marks--that is not my intention.
J.

 

[Johann]

I'm not against water baptism, and I've never ever said that.

Much love!

I'll retract this statement, seems I'm getting into trouble, fast.

I deleted the post, again, my sincere apology brother

 

[Johann]

Ditto, and you can remove this one too if you prefer, and I'll do the same, and it's gone . . .

Love your heart marks

 

[marks]

I was messed up, emotionally and spiritually by Pentecostals and "leaven"--can you help to a site where there is unlimited cross references on any particular verse--and I don't mean Treasury of Scriptural knowledge.

1.01 AM in the morning, hence my mistakes brother.
J.

I don't know what to suggest. I mostly use E-Sword and do word searches. Then I'll use Scripture4All.org interlinear to look at the specifics on the verses I find.

Much love!

 

[Johann]

I don't know what to suggest. I mostly use E-Sword and do word searches. Then I'll use Scripture4All.org interlinear to look at the specifics on the verses I find.

Much love!

Same here

 

[amigo de christo]

Just one question..............

Mat_21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

Mar_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Mar_11:30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

Luk_7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

See above? Not only Jews were baptized while confessing their sins--an ot--sign--that these were repentant, but also the publicans' 'they were openly and publically keeping on their confessions/repentance....

Luk_20:4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?

Act_1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Act_10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

Act_13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

So, we have two camps, those that advocate "no water baptism" and those "yes, be water baptized--since this was from heaven and Yeshua gave His approval of Yochanan's "water ministry"

I would like to hear from Catholics and @marks @mailmandan @amigo de christo

Johann.

The early church did water baptism . SO we do it . The identical pattern in all things . let the KING be praised .

 

[Johann]

The early church did water baptism . SO we do it . The identical pattern in all things . let the KING be praised .

Amen--let the King be praised!

 

[Raccoon1010]

Cornelius, right?

It's interesting to me that there were so many different ways this happened there at the beginning. It's almost like God wanted to make sure we didn't latch onto some particular formula.

There are clear commands to be water baptized, and there is equally clear teaching about how water baptism doesn't save us. Some reconcile that in saying water baptism is an outward expression of an inner change. I've never seen that in Scripture though.

It's like you said,


The Ethiopian man that Philip evangelized on the desert highway,

Acts 8:35-38 KJV
35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36) 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?
37) 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.
38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Nowadays we tell people to say a "sinner's prayer", but it seems to me the original idea was to be baptized into the faith, and that aligned very much with their culture and history. Baptisms in the OT were about ceremonial cleanliness, and, culturally, about gentiles becoming Jews.

When I became a Christian, that's what I did, because in my circumstance that was what made sense to me. I'd been invited to be baptized, but I didn't believe. When I came to believe, I accepted the invitation, was baptized, and that was my moment of conversion. I could tell.

But with that being said, I find some very specific teaching that water baptism isn't for us as such. That after Israel gave final rejection of the Gospel, and it was sent directly to the Gentiles through Paul, he wasn't sent to baptize, but to preach the cross.

Much love!

I don't know @marks. I've never read where it says you don't have to be baptized. In fact there are several passages that say you must be baptized in order to be saved. I've heard people say that baptism is an outward ordinance and not required. I come from a LDS background where they baptize for the dead, because they feel it is required. And although I have kind of evolved from the LDS church I still have to agree with them on this.

 

[360watt]

Having a look at Holy Spirit baptism in scripture.. where are the instances where it doesn't happen only to a whole group of christians?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Nope, not a "typical Catholic apologietic". It is a very simple and direct question that REFUTES and DESTROYS your apologetics if you were to honestly answer it. That is why you didn't answer the question. My question is based on YOUR theology and your statement. So I ask you again: Where does Scripture say that the best way to foster unity is to "put the Bible into the hands of faithful believers all around the world"?

If the Catholic Church's Magisterium is wrong in its interpretation of Scripture, then who's interpretation is right? Clearly YOU must know since you KNOW that "Scripture corrects false Catholic doctrine equally well as it corrects errant Protestant Doctrine". How do YOU know when Catholic/Baptist/Methodist/Luteran (et al Protestant) doctrine is wrong and does not "align with scripture"?

Curious Mary

who's interpretation is right?
Mary,
I don't agree with your mistaken notion of an "authorized" interpretation.

I maintain that the correct interpretation is the one that corresponds to what the author intended to say. An author's intentions should always constrain the ways in which a text is properly interpreted.

 

[CadyandZoe]

IF what I say is true????? Oh goodness.....

Latin language | Definition, Origin, Examples, Rules, & Facts | Britannica

Latin language, Indo-European language in the Italic group and ancestral to the modern Romance languages. During the Middle Ages and until comparatively recent times, Latin was the language most widely used in the West for scholarly and literary purposes.

www.britannica.com

History of Latin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Latin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Spoken Latin in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance | Journal of Classics Teaching | Cambridge Core

Spoken Latin in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance - Volume 20 Issue 40

www.cambridge.org

The first complete English-language version of the Bible dates from 1382. About the time of the invention of printing in 1450 there was already 33 different translations of the Bible.

The first print run of the Bible by Gutenberg in Latin took three years to print around 200 copies. That does not mean that all of a sudden there were hundreds or thousands of presses all around the world in just a few short years. It took time to print books and time/money for printing presses to be made, bought and delivered etc. to various countries around the world. By the 1490s Venice was the book-printing capital of Europe and a printed copy of a great work by Cicero cost a month’s salary for a school teacher.

The timing of Luther’s crusade against the selling of indulgences coincided with an explosion of printing presses across Europe. With the explosion of printing presses the cost for the average man owning a bible decreased. It no longer took one months salary to buy one. Literacy also began to increase during this time. A culmination of several events increased the desire for translations of the Bible after the Reformation.

So your accusation of me of being "myopic" in regard to this topic is bizarre. YOU are clearly the myopic one since YOU have a very narrow perspective on why there was an explosion of translations.


Keeping it real with history and facts...Mary

As you say. Indulgences were sold.

 

[DJT_47]

It's the preaching of the cross, not baptism.

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 KJV
17) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

To give a direct answer to the thread title, No, spiritual baptism does not replace water baptism. They are two different things, each with it's own purpose, and those purposes are not identical.

Much love!

To understand what Paul said and meant in 1 Cor 1:17-18 as you posted, you must read further to 1 Cor 3:1-9, and in verse 6 it says Paul planted and Apollos watered. Paul was the orator.

 

[Johann]

To understand what Paul said and meant in 1 Cor 1:17-18 as you posted, you must read further to 1 Cor 3:1-9, and in verse 6 it says Paul planted and Apollos watered. Paul was the orator.

I planted (egō ephuteusa). First aorist active indicative of old verb phuteuō. This Paul did as Luke tells us in Acts 18:1-18.
Apollos watered (Apollōs epotisen). Apollos irrigated the church there as is seen in Acts 18:24-19:1. Another aorist tense as in 1Co_3:2.

But God gave the increase (alla ho theos ēuxanen). Imperfect tense here (active indicative) for the continuous blessing of God both on the work of Paul and Apollos, Corinthians-labourers with God in God’s field (1Co_3:9). Reports of revivals sometimes give the glory to the evangelist or to both evangelist and pastor. Paul gives it all to God. He and Apollos cooperated as successive pastors.
Robertson

Somehow I don't think Apollos kept on baptizing with water--


That is why he took the gospel from Jerusalem to Eliricum which is modern-day Bosnia, 1400 miles. He said, “I fully preached the gospel of Christ.” That was his calling. Even though the calling of Apollos was not the same they needed one another. Apollos was the second pastor of the church of Corinth. He is the one who followed the apostle Paul. He watered what Paul had planted.

The word for “watered” there has the meaning metaphorically of instruction in the Word of God. So Paul took the Word of God and saw people saved as a result of it and he gave them the milk. But here comes Apollos. The crops were up, you see. It wasn’t a new field. It wasn’t a place where Christ hadn’t been named. Paul had already been there. He built upon the foundation that Paul had already laid. But the two were working hand in hand. Both were surrendered vessels through which Christ could work and both understood how much they needed one another. One plants and another waters, Paul says. Now, they needed both.


ποτίζω
potizō
15x: to cause to drink, give drink to, Mat_10:42; met. 1Co_3:2; Rev_14:8; to water, irrigate, met. 1Co_3:6-8.

watered. Greek. potizo, as in 1Co_3:2. See Act_18:27 Act_19:1.

 

[Raccoon1010]

To understand what Paul said and meant in 1 Cor 1:17-18 as you posted, you must read further to 1 Cor 3:1-9, and in verse 6 it says Paul planted and Apollos watered. Paul was the orator.

Wow, you caught that. It would have slipped by me. But yeah that makes sense.

 

[JunChosen]

Wow, you caught that. It would have slipped by me. But yeah that makes sense.

It's because you have NOT read post #487!

Why do people rely on others what the Holy Spirit is teaching?

At least be like the Bereans who searched the Bible to see if what Paul was teaching is so.

To God Be The Glory

 

[marks]

To understand what Paul said and meant in 1 Cor 1:17-18 as you posted, you must read further to 1 Cor 3:1-9, and in verse 6 it says Paul planted and Apollos watered. Paul was the orator.

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 KJV
17) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The way Paul puts it here, he is contrasting baptizing and preaching, and that since preaching is the power of God to save, that's what God sent him to do.

1 Corinthians 3:5-9 KJV
5) Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6) I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7) So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8) Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9) For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

The context here is that they are holding up one over the others, and he uses the farming analogy to show that's not the way to look at it. He's about to shift to a construction analogy,

1 Corinthians 3:10-13 KJV
10) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13) Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

But his use of these analogies concerning whether we should divide the church over which person we follow, this does not negate Paul's earlier statements about the power of God in preaching, and not in baptism.

Much love!

 

[JunChosen]

Having a look at Holy Spirit baptism in scripture.. where are the instances where it doesn't happen only to a whole group of christians?

Actually, Christians are born at different times in history and therefore are saved individually and not as a group.

To God Be The Glory