Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Marymog]

Mary,
We interpret each verse from within the context of the passage where it appears. In the statement above, we understand that the example is Christ's suffering. We suffer in the way he suffered, i.e. resolving his will to obey the father even unto death.

This statement comes from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. And although it is the first verse of chapter 11, I believe the context is the final verses of chapter 10

1Corinthians 10:31-33
31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all things for the glory of God. 32 Do not offend Jews or Greeks, or the church of God; 33 just as I also please everyone in all things, not seeking my own benefit but the benefit of the many, so that they may be saved.

To be an imitator of Paul, and therefore Jesus, we ought to do all things for the glory of God; do not offend Jews or Greeks, or the church of God; and seek the benefit of the many so that they might be saved.

Maybe Baptism is one way to obey Paul's exhortation. But he didn't mention Baptism explicitly. Paul seems focused on issues that are more important and significant such as: goodwill, self-sacrifice, and working for the glory of God.

Bear in mind that Christ didn't baptize anyone. (John 4:2) His disciples did however. So if we were to follow his example, we would not baptize anyone. But the apostles baptize at the command of Jesus, which is why he says, "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."


John draws a sharp contrast between his own baptism and that of Jesus Christ. Yes? John tells us that he baptizes with water. But in as much as Jesus Christ is mightier than John, Jesus Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.

I'm not arguing against water baptism. I am reacting to your observation, which is valid in my opinion, that we ought to follow his example. Yes, we SHOULD follow his example. But since Jesus didn't water baptize anyone, baptizing in the Holy Spirit Instead, then how can we follow his example, since none of us can baptize in the Holy Spirit.

See what I mean?

Hi, C&Z,

No, I don’t see what you mean. Your theory is that since Jesus didn’t water baptize anyone we don’t need to be baptized OR that when we are baptized it is not into the Holy Spirit?

I think you would agree that we are to do what the Apostles tell us to do. After all, Jesus said if we reject them (the apostles) we reject Him and if we reject Him then we reject the one who sent him (Luke 10:16). Didn’t the apostles tell us to be baptized?

ALSO, where does scripture say that Jesus didn’t baptize anyone? John 3:22 STRONGLY indicates he did….

 

[DJT_47]

I am not looking at this time to endlessly debate water baptism for initial salvation.
But if you are looking for my apologetics or explanations on why I believe water baptism is not for initial salvation, see again my "Doctrine of Baptisms" thread here:

The Doctrine of Baptisms

The Doctrine of Baptisms: (Hebrews 6:2) Baptisms God does upon us after we have received God’s grace through faith: (According to His Word): #1. The Holy Spirit baptizes us into Jesus Christ and the church at salvation “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...” (1 Corinthians...

www.christianityboard.com

See post #13, and post #15.

Just one quick comment. The scripture you quoted above 1 Cor 12:13

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Read this same scripture in the original Greek. It's not "by", but rather "in" (en).

 

[Jim B]

Hi, C&Z,

No, I don’t see what you mean. Your theory is that since Jesus didn’t water baptize anyone we don’t need to be baptized OR that when we are baptized it is not into the Holy Spirit?

I think you would agree that we are to do what the Apostles tell us to do. After all, Jesus said if we reject them (the apostles) we reject Him and if we reject Him then we reject the one who sent him (Luke 10:16). Didn’t the apostles tell us to be baptized?

ALSO, where does scripture say that Jesus didn’t baptize anyone? John 3:22 STRONGLY indicates he did….

John 4:1-3, 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), he left Judea and started back to Galilee.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus didn't NEED to be baptized for repentance from sin, but was "to fulfill all righteousness." So must we be water baptized. But more importantly, we MUST be born again which is Spirit baptism. Those who are not filled with the Spirit do not belong to Christ, even if they have obeyed and been water baptized. Romans 8:9

I am not in any disagreement with what you said here.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just one quick comment. The scripture you quoted above 1 Cor 12:13

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Read this same scripture in the original Greek. It's not "by", but rather "in" (en).

Sorry I believe God preserved His Word in English and not a dead language that most people do not know how to speak. God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

 

[DJT_47]

John 4:1-3, 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), he left Judea and started back to Galilee.

Just FYI, it was still the baptism of John that was practiced while Jesus was alive, and not the baptism into Christ because Jesus had not yet died, so no one could be baptized into Christ or into his death as Romans 6 explains. So like the Ephesians in Acts 19, anyone baptized unto John's baptism had to be re-baptized into Christ.

 

[DJT_47]

Sorry I believe God preserved His Word in English and not a dead language that most people do not know how to speak. God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

That makes no sense because all the NT is Greek and translated therefrom. Check our other translations such as the ESV for example which got it right. The ESV is in English by the way if you're hung up on that for who knows why.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That makes no sense because all the NT is Greek and translated therefrom. Check our other translations such as the ESV for example which got it right. The ESV is in English by the way if you're hung up on that for who knows why.

The Jews could have said the same thing when the Scriptures continued in Greek with the New Testament. In other words, God moved with the times.

The New Testament portion of the ESV was translated from the NU (Nestle & Aland). This is only a problem if you don’t mind a Catholic influenced Bible.

The Nestle and Aland text says right in the 27th edition that it was supervised by the Vatican.

So I am not sure how this helps a person defending the Modern Translations (Which was based on the Nestle and Aland supervised by Rome).

The Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome.

You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in the NIV that favor the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

In Genesis 3:16, the ESV (Which is one of the most popular Modern Translations) Doctrinally Changes the Nature of the Truth in the KJV by Saying that Eve's (the wife's) Desire is Contrary To Her Husband's.

Of course there is more craziness in Modern bibles. Granted, I do believe Modern Translations can be helpful in updating the archaic wording at times in the KJB but because Modern Translations teach wrong doctrines, they cannot be my final word of authority.

 

[DJT_47]

The Jews could have said the same thing when the Scriptures continued in Greek with the New Testament. In other words, God moved with the times.

The New Testament portion of the ESV was translated from the NU (Nestle & Aland). This is only a problem if you don’t mind a Catholic influenced Bible.

The Nestle and Aland text says right in the 27th edition that it was supervised by the Vatican.

So I am not sure how this helps a person defending the Modern Translations (Which was based on the Nestle and Aland supervised by Rome).

The Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome.

You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in the NIV that favor the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

In Genesis 3:16, the ESV (Which is one of the most popular Modern Translations) Doctrinally Changes the Nature of the Truth in the KJV by Saying that Eve's (the wife's) Desire is Contrary To Her Husband's.

Of course there is more craziness in Modern bibles. Granted, I do believe Modern Translations can be helpful in updating the archaic wording at times in the KJB but because Modern Translations teach wrong doctrines, they cannot be my final word of authority.

You've said a lot to say not much at all that addresses the plain and simple difference in the Greek interlinear and the kjv which I use and like but am also aware of it's minor flaws, i.e., using the word Easter instead of passover, pascha in Greek, in Acts 12:4. You can't use the kjv to justify the mistranslation of 'by' for 'in', but that passage on and of itself is also not justification for the unscriptural position that baptism is not essential to salvation; way too many passages that clearly say otherwise. Believe what you like. Goodbye

 

[CadyandZoe]

Where does scripture say that Nicodemus was baptized in the Spirit?

Mary, I'm not sure how to answer your question because I am always unsure what people mean by "baptized in the Spirit." I apologize.

Jesus maintains that Nicodemus was "born again", "born of the Spirit", "born from above" depending on how one translates the passage. If that is what you mean by "baptized in the Spirit" then we are on the same page. The scripture is absent with regard to the moment when Nicodemus was born again.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hi, C&Z,

No, I don’t see what you mean. Your theory is that since Jesus didn’t water baptize anyone we don’t need to be baptized OR that when we are baptized it is not into the Holy Spirit?

Neither one. My only point, weak as it was, was to simply point out that we aren't following Jesus example when we do. We should certainly follow Jesus example, when possible. And we should certainly get water baptized.

I think you would agree that we are to do what the Apostles tell us to do. After all, Jesus said if we reject them (the apostles) we reject Him and if we reject Him then we reject the one who sent him (Luke 10:16). Didn’t the apostles tell us to be baptized?

No, I don't think so. I don't think the apostles needed to tell people in the first century to get baptized. Baptism was already a cultural practice at the time. Consider, for instance, the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, who asked Philip to baptize him. Where did the eunuch get the idea that one ought to be baptized? He learned it from his culture.

ALSO, where does scripture say that Jesus didn’t baptize anyone? John 3:22 STRONGLY indicates he did….

I see your point. What would you say about John 4:2? I agree with you that John 3:22 strongly indicates that Jesus baptized disciples himself. And perhaps it's simply a matter of semantics. You do have a point I think.

 

[Marymog]

No, I don't think so. I don't think the apostles needed to tell people in the first century to get baptized. Baptism was already a cultural practice at the time. Consider, for instance, the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, who asked Philip to baptize him. Where did the eunuch get the idea that one ought to be baptized? He learned it from his culture.

The apostles were instructed by Jesus to baptize all (Matthew 28:19) and you don’t think the apostles needed to tell people to get baptized? If it was “already a cultural practice” then why did Jesus give that instruction and why did the Apostles continue that same message? There is zero evidence in Scripture to support your theory.

Also, the Eunuch was told about Jesus and what he preached/taught. Jesus preached/taught water baptism. There is NOTHING in Scripture that indicates the Eunuch got baptized due to it being a cultural practice. Scripture literally says he was told about Jesus, he believed, he was baptized.

 

[Marymog]

Mary, I'm not sure how to answer your question because I am always unsure what people mean by "baptized in the Spirit." I apologize.

Jesus maintains that Nicodemus was "born again", "born of the Spirit", "born from above" depending on how one translates the passage. If that is what you mean by "baptized in the Spirit" then we are on the same page. The scripture is absent with regard to the moment when Nicodemus was born again.

Nope, Jesus NEVER told Nicodemus that he was already born again or born of the spirit or born from above. That conversation never happened.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The apostles were instructed by Jesus to baptize all (Matthew 28:19) and you don’t think the apostles needed to tell people to get baptized? If it was “already a cultural practice” then why did Jesus give that instruction and why did the Apostles continue that same message?

Baptism was already a cultural practice. But the innovation of Jesus was "baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." For instance, John the Baptist was making disciples for himself, i.e. in his own name and under his own authority. Those whom John baptized were John's disciples.

Jesus changed that concept. The Apostles were going to baptize and teach others to baptize. But rather than making disciples for themselves; the apostles were to make disciples for Jesus. The disciples were those of Jesus; and his students were to learn from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

See what I mean? Although Baptism was a cultural practice at the time, Jesus changed the meaning of the event, making Baptism into a Christian rite.

There is zero evidence in Scripture to support your theory.

Also, the Eunuch was told about Jesus and what he preached/taught. Jesus preached/taught water baptism. There is NOTHING in Scripture that indicates the Eunuch got baptized due to it being a cultural practice. Scripture literally says he was told about Jesus, he believed, he was baptized.

Well, perhaps you are right; maybe Philip explained the ritual to the Eunuch. I couldn't prove it from the text though.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Nope, Jesus NEVER told Nicodemus that he was already born again or born of the spirit or born from above. That conversation never happened.

The fact that Nicodemus was born again is implied in the dialogue.

Nicodemus: “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
Jesus: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone (Nicodemus for instance) is born again he cannot see (recognize) the kingdom of God.

Implication: The confession of Nicodemus demonstrates that he recognizes the kingdom of God in the signs that Jesus does, therefore, Nicodemus is born again.

 

[DJT_47]

Mary, I'm not sure how to answer your question because I am always unsure what people mean by "baptized in the Spirit." I apologize.

Jesus maintains that Nicodemus was "born again", "born of the Spirit", "born from above" depending on how one translates the passage. If that is what you mean by "baptized in the Spirit" then we are on the same page. The scripture is absent with regard to the moment when Nicodemus was born again.

You're both a bit lacking in understanding. Nobody was born again while Jesus was alive. Not possible. No one could be baptized into Christ nor his death to be raised like him as Romans 6 explains, until he was dead. The Ephesians had to be re-baptized since they were baptized unto John's baptism, so likewise Nicodemus would have had to. Also, read Hebrews 9:15-17. For a testament to be in effect it requires the death of the testator, Jesus.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Just FYI, it was still the baptism of John that was practiced while Jesus was alive, and not the baptism into Christ because Jesus had not yet died, so no one could be baptized into Christ or into his death as Romans 6 explains. So like the Ephesians in Acts 19, anyone baptized unto John's baptism had to be re-baptized into Christ.

Yes, Jesus sent out his disciples two by two and they baptized the baptism of repentance, same as John the Baptist, but also Peter on the Day of Pentecost. I wish there was a record of whose name Jesus' disciples baptized with. But I do not believe those whom Jesus disciples baptized needed to be rebaptized, as they were automatically filled with the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, but, yes, the disciples of John the Baptist would have had to been as in Acts of the Apostles 19, because they had not heard of the Holy Spirit which they needed, as do we all since, with evidence of His power.

 

[DJT_47]

Yes, Jesus sent out his disciples two by two and they baptized the baptism of repentance, same as John the Baptist, but also Peter on the Day of Pentecost. I wish there was a record of whose name Jesus' disciples baptized with. But I do not believe those whom Jesus disciples baptized needed to be rebaptized, as they were automatically filled with the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, but, yes, the disciples of John the Baptist would have had to been as in Acts of the Apostles 19, because they had not heard of the Holy Spirit which they needed, as do we all since, with evidence of His power.

They baptized in no ones name as did John; it was the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin.

And anyone baptized prior to Jesus's death had to be re-baptized as the Ephesians. The scriptures tell you why. It's not just for the remission of sin, but also to receive the Holy Ghost and be added to the church by the Lord which is his body (Acts 2:38-47). You must be baptized into his death which simulates his burial and resurrection which ain't possible if he were still alive. So, it was imperative to be re-baptized if only baptized unto to John's baptism. And too, read Hebrews 9:15-17. The new covenant had nor yet taken effect until Jesus death because as stated therein, a testament is not in force until the death of the testator, Jesus.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

They baptized in no ones name as did John; it was the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin.

And anyone baptized prior to Jesus's death had to be re-baptized as the Ephesians. The scriptures tell you why. It's not just for the remission of sin, but also to receive the Holy Ghost and be added to the church by the Lord which is his body (Acts 2:38-47). You must be baptized into his death which simulates his burial and resurrection which ain't possible if he were still alive. So, it was imperative to be re-baptized if only baptized unto to John's baptism. And too, read Hebrews 9:15-17. The new covenant had nor yet taken effect until Jesus death because as stated therein, a testament is not in force until the death of the testator, Jesus.

Yes, the New Covenant had to do with the ministry of the Spirit, which wasn't given until the day of Pentecost. Still those baptized became disciples of either John the Baptist or later Jesus, though by His disciples. THAT would be whose name they were baptized into.

 

[DJT_47]

Yes, the New Covenant had to do with the ministry of the Spirit, which wasn't given until the day of Pentecost. Still those baptized became disciples of either John the Baptist or later Jesus, though by His disciples. THAT would be whose name they were baptized into.

Yes, I'm sure that IN TIME, they, all his disciples, were eventually baptized in his name but not until his death. Makes no sense and contrary to scripture to say or suggest otherwise.

Edit:

One other very important thing you're overlooking is, at that very early point in the scriptures, Jesus disciples didn't even realize who he truly was. It was much later that Jesus asked his disciples who men thought he was and Peter then responded he was the Christ, the Son of God. That's in John 6, Matt 16, Luke 9, and Mark 8! You're making claims relative to John 4. Suggest you rethink things.