The REAL Baptism in Acts 2

[FHII]

Recently people have been discussing Acts 2:38 and water baptism; mostly in the "who founded your Church" thread, but elsewhere as well. There's a point that many seem to miss.

There was a mass baptism in the upper room at the Pentecost, but not with water and it didn't start in verse 38 or 41. At best, it was a continuance of what was started.

Let me summarize the events in the upper room:

1. 120 were gathered together. (v1)
2. A sound of a rushing wind filled the room. (v2)
3. The Holy Ghost fell upon them and they spoke with other tongues, which were known languages or understood by those that heard to be known languages (v.4-11)
4. Some folks mocked them. (v.12)
5. Peter delivers his sermon in rebuke of them
6. The rebuked asked what they should do and Peter tells them to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins and they in turn will receive the gift of the holy ghost. (v.37-38)
7. Those who glady received his word were baptized as well as 3000 others. (v.41)

I underlined 3 sets of words here, and they all deal with the coming or receiving the Holy Ghost. Now I want to take you back to chapter 1:

Acts 1:4-5 KJV
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. [5] For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Understand that there is a contrast shown in the bolded words: John baptized with water BUT ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

There was a baptism in verse 41, but it was not the initial baptism in that chapter. To boot, I have my doubts that it was even done with water (but it could have been).

The REAL. and initial baptism that Jesus spoke of in Acts 1:5 happened in verse 2:4

Acts 2:4 KJV
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

THAT is what Jesus was talking about: it was not water baptism, it was a spiritual baptism that produced a change in their spirit which spilled over into their physical state.

I'm going to end it now as the post is long enough, but there are many things to discuss. I only hope some see that not all baptism is done with water. Heck... It isn't even the most important baptism!

 

[Enoch111]

I only hope some see that not all baptism is done with water. Heck... It isn't even the most important baptism!

The proper way to understand the two baptisms is to see that FIRST there must be a baptism with the Holy Spirit (which is the same as receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost), and immediately after that there must be Christian baptism by immersion. Both are equally important, since water baptism is a commandment of Christ.

At the same time we should be perfectly clear that water baptism does not regenerate anyone, since regeneration is supernatural and internal, and only the Holy Spirit can regenerate a sinner.

 

[marks]

There was a mass baptism in the upper room at the Pentecost, but not with water and it didn't start in verse 38 or 41. At best, it was a continuance of what was started.

According to Ephesians 4, there is ONE baptism. We are baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ. Water baptism was a Jewish practice, not to mention some pagan religions, that was picked up by the early Christians.

Jewish baptism was about the gentiles converting to Judiasm, which was why the Pharisees were so offended being told to be baptized. The people who flocked to him to be baptized testifies to the spiritual emptiness of the religeous practice of the day.

If we are not baptized into Christ, we are none of His. To me this is the One Baptism. Baptized into Jesus, into His death, to share in His resurrection.

I find water baptism to be an example of a material observance of religion. I find spirit baptism to be the effectual means by which we are justified. One washes the body. One changes the person.

Much love!

 

[DNB]

The proper way to understand the two baptisms is to see that FIRST there must be a baptism with the Holy Spirit (which is the same as receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost), and immediately after that there must be Christian baptism by immersion. Both are equally important, since water baptism is a commandment of Christ.

At the same time we should be perfectly clear that water baptism does not regenerate anyone, since regeneration is supernatural and internal, and only the Holy Spirit can regenerate a sinner.

Then what's the water baptism for since you gave it no significance? Jesus often spoke metaphorically (eat my flesh and drink my blood, you must be born again, sever your arm if it offends you, what is it to you if I want him to stay alive until I come back, tear down the temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days,...).
I don't believe that such superficial rituals are prescribed for Christians. I might even equate water baptism with the eucharist - no edifying value whatsoever.

 

[Enoch111]

Then what's the water baptism for since you gave it no significance?

There is tremendous spiritual significance, and it will need to be addressed later. At this point, it was important to note that Spirit baptism does not cancel water baptism.

 

[marksman]

Then what's the water baptism for since you gave it no significance? Jesus often spoke metaphorically (eat my flesh and drink my blood, you must be born again, sever your arm if it offends you, what is it to you if I want him to stay alive until I come back, tear down the temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days,...).
I don't believe that such superficial rituals are prescribed for Christians. I might even equate water baptism with the eucharist - no edifying value whatsoever.

REPENT = Putting of the old. BAPTISED = putting on the new.

 

[marksman]

The proper way to understand the two baptisms is to see that FIRST there must be a baptism with the Holy Spirit (which is the same as receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost), and immediately after that there must be Christian baptism by immersion. Both are equally important, since water baptism is a commandment of Christ.

At the same time we should be perfectly clear that water baptism does not regenerate anyone, since regeneration is supernatural and internal, and only the Holy Spirit can regenerate a sinner.

On the day of pentcost, water baptism came first and was followed by Holy Spirit baptism.

 

[Enoch111]

On the day of pentcost, water baptism came first and was followed by Holy Spirit baptism.

That is AN UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION. Kindly see Acts 10.

 

[DNB]

There is tremendous spiritual significance, and it will need to be addressed later. At this point, it was important to note that Spirit baptism does not cancel water baptism.

But, that note that you mention is lacking qualification, ....which is why I feel that there is little substantiation, if any, to support either the requirement, or the efficacy of water baptism.

 

[DNB]

REPENT = Putting of the old. BAPTISED = putting on the new.

Yes, a spiritual confession, and not a regimented and superfluous act of dousing one's physical body with water.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Recently people have been discussing Acts 2:38 and water baptism; mostly in the "who founded your Church" thread, but elsewhere as well. There's a point that many seem to miss.

There was a mass baptism in the upper room at the Pentecost, but not with water and it didn't start in verse 38 or 41. At best, it was a continuance of what was started.

Let me summarize the events in the upper room:

1. 120 were gathered together. (v1)
2. A sound of a rushing wind filled the room. (v2)
3. The Holy Ghost fell upon them and they spoke with other tongues, which were known languages or understood by those that heard to be known languages (v.4-11)
4. Some folks mocked them. (v.12)
5. Peter delivers his sermon in rebuke of them
6. The rebuked asked what they should do and Peter tells them to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins and they in turn will receive the gift of the holy ghost. (v.37-38)
7. Those who glady received his word were baptized as well as 3000 others. (v.41)

I underlined 3 sets of words here, and they all deal with the coming or receiving the Holy Ghost. Now I want to take you back to chapter 1:

Acts 1:4-5 KJV
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. [5] For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Understand that there is a contrast shown in the bolded words: John baptized with water BUT ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

There was a baptism in verse 41, but it was not the initial baptism in that chapter. To boot, I have my doubts that it was even done with water (but it could have been).

The REAL. and initial baptism that Jesus spoke of in Acts 1:5 happened in verse 2:4

Acts 2:4 KJV
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

THAT is what Jesus was talking about: it was not water baptism, it was a spiritual baptism that produced a change in their spirit which spilled over into their physical state.

I'm going to end it now as the post is long enough, but there are many things to discuss. I only hope some see that not all baptism is done with water. Heck... It isn't even the most important baptism!

Interesting question regarding the apostles themselves, since there is no direct reference to the Lord baptizing them in water. But He was clearly baptizing someone in John 3:22.

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Now, for starters this is very early in His ministry, which in itself suggests there may not have been a ton of others around yet. Secondly they were the ones He was "tarrying with." The verse literally reads, "After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judaea; and there he stayed with them, and was baptizing." The last words could very easily be taken as, "and was baptizing them" and be considered a legitimate reading, so while the scriptures don't state it outright, this text comes fairly close to saying they were water baptized by Christ at this time.

But the real problem for the "Holy Ghost Baptism Only" theory is that there are several texts that blatantly suggest they were water baptizing believers in the epistles.

The first would be 1 Corinthians 10:1-2:

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea

The sea represents water baptism here, and the cloud represents Holy Ghost baptism. He makes reference to each twice. This is only one passage pointing to water baptism in the early church, and I can provide others. But I would agree with Enoch here. Water baptism was very significant in its spiritual symbolism, and continued to be practiced by the church. There's a reason that tradition has continued until today.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The problem here is that people refuse to heed the Word of God by actually condemning the use of water n Baptism. Some here actually believe it is a “cultish” practice. They make all sorts of moronic assertions about water as being “unnecessary” or even superstitious because they have paced their own limitations on God.

Did God HAVE to make a clay figurine and turn it into a man – or could He have simply spoken him into existence like He did the rest of the universe?

Did Jesus HAVE to put His fingers into the ears of the deaf mute in order for him to hear again or touch his tongue so that he could speak?

Did Jesus HAVE to make mud from dirt and spittle to rub into the Blind Man’s eye’s in order for him to see again?

Did Jesus NEED to have 5 loaves and 2 fish to multiply to feed the 5000?

Why didn’t Jesus simply WILL those things to happen.
After all – He is GOD.

God uses tangible means because He knows that we are tangible beings. In other words – He knows our limitations – even though SOME of us don’t. James 5:14 explicitly states:
Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and ANOINT THEM WITH OIL in the name of the Lord.

WHY?? what's up with the oil??
Is it some kind of "magic" potion - or is it simply the TANGIBLE means by which healing from God is accomplished that GOD Himself ordained?

Jesus COMMANDS us to be baptized with water (John 3:5) because it is what HE ordains as necessary. It’s not OUR choice to make up new rules because WE decide that water is an “unnecessary” element of Baptism.

And for the LAST time – The Catholic Church has NEVER taught that we are “saved” or “cleansed” or “regenerated” by the WATERS of Baptism. This is nonsense that is perpetuated by the anti-Catholic bigots on this forum.

It is the HOLY SPIRIT who regenerates and water is simply the MEANS by which we receive that gift (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:21) - and this has been the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years.

 

[DNB]

There is tremendous spiritual significance, and it will need to be addressed later. At this point, it was important to note that Spirit baptism does not cancel water baptism.

My mistake, I implied on my first response to you, that you gathered that Jesus unequivocally promoted water baptism from implied or figurative passages. But, after further thought, and sorry if I'm still mistaken, there is a literal and explicit verse where Jesus does condone water baptism.

John 4:1-2
4:1. Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2. (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were).

I, personally, would regard this as a temporal act, and as one that was only meant to inaugurate the New Dispensation. As mush as how Jesus both abided by and fulfilled the Law, prior to his death, he abrogated it upon his death on the cross (Holy of Holies curtain rend).

 

[FHII]

Interesting question regarding the apostles themselves, since there is no direct reference to the Lord baptizing them in water. But He was clearly baptizing someone in John 3:22.

Actually, Jesus didn't baptize anyone: his disciples did the baptizing for him. The evidence is found in John 4:2.

John 4:1-2 KJV
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, [2] (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

With that being said, I see no scriptural evidence that Jesus baptized any of his disciples.

But the real problem for the "Holy Ghost Baptism Only" theory is that there are several texts that blatantly suggest they were water baptizing believers in the epistles.

I realize that and I am not of any "Holy Ghost Baptism Only" theorists. I have no problem with water baptism at all. I simply think its more important to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire (which was Jesus's baptism at noted in Matthew 3:11).

 

[FHII]

The problem here is that people refuse to heed the Word of God by actually condemning the use of water n Baptism. Some here actually believe it is a “cultish” practice. They make all sorts of moronic assertions about water as being “unnecessary” or even superstitious because they have paced their own limitations on God.

Duly noted Bread of Life. I've read the posts, I've seen your frustration with them and I see your point. I am NOT one of those people! I have consistently asserted that water baptism was performed in the Bible and is still permissable today.

I have even said that you MUST be baptized, but with the caveat that not all baptisms involved water. That was one of the main points of this thread.

John baptized, Jesus's disciples baptized (as disciples and later as Apostles), Stephen and Paul baptized... All with water. You can even say Jesus baptized with water through his disciples (just like Jesus didn't feed the 3000 or the 5000, as his disciples actually dispersed the food and the miracle happened as they dispersed, not before).

So no, I don't have a problem with water baptism. I have a problem with those that say its the only one.

That being said, do you have something to add to the OP?

 

[FHII]

On the day of pentcost, water baptism came first and was followed by Holy Spirit baptism.

Well no... Water baptism didn't come first. That was one of the points of my post. I took it step by step and verse by verse to make that point.

Furthermore I am not convinced anyone was baptized by water in the upper room.

 

[Hidden In Him]

John 4:1-2 KJV
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, [2] (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

That's certainly a plausible interpretation, only your verse doesn't answer the question definitively either. In that case it likely simply means He was not the One baptizing at that particular time, because John 3:22 says He was in fact baptizing earlier, and it would be a stretch to think it is talking about in the Holy Spirit in that verse.

But to each his own.... trying to remember the other verses and passages... oh, yeah...

But let me ask: Why so against the idea that water baptism is for today? I know with some the answer may have to do with how nasty others have been about pounding away at how water baptism is necessary to salvation. I don't believe that for a second, but I do believe it is a Christian rite that all believers should participate in at some point in their lives, particularly after they have decided to make a commitment to the Lord, and walk in the Spirit and no longer after the flesh.

 

[FHII]

That's certainly a plausible interpretation, only your verse doesn't answer the question definitively either.

A plausible interpretation!?!? It says what it says, and in context it was speaking of the events in 3:22.

Verse 4:1 says Jesus made and baptized more disciples then John: thats the link back to verse 3:22. Verse 4:2 clarifies what happened. Jesus got the credit but it was his disciples doing the baptizing. Furthermore, I never said it was the Holy Spirit baptizing at this event. It clearly was with water.

 

[FHII]

That's certainly a plausible interpretation, only your verse doesn't answer the question definitively either. In that case it likely simply means He was not the One baptizing at that particular time, because John 3:22 says He was in fact baptizing earlier, and it would be a stretch to think it is talking about in the Holy Spirit in that verse.

But to each his own.... trying to remember the other verses and passages... oh, yeah...

But let me ask: Why so against the idea that water baptism is for today? I know with some the answer may have to do with how nasty others have been about pounding away at how water baptism is necessary to salvation. I don't believe that for a second, but I do believe it is a Christian rite that all believers should participate in at some point in their lives, particularly after they have decided to make a commitment to the Lord, and walk in the Spirit and no longer after the flesh.

I don't have such an agenda. I have stated that several times!

 

[Hidden In Him]

A plausible interpretation!?!? It says what it says, and in context it was speaking of the events in 3:22.

Verse 4:1 says Jesus made and baptized more disciples then John: thats the link back to verse 3:22. Verse 4:2 clarifies what happened. Jesus got the credit but it was his disciples doing the baptizing. Furthermore, I never said it was the Holy Spirit baptizing at this event. It clearly was with water.

Well don't get all excited! LoL.

I could respond, but it's not that big a deal. Maybe we can cover this more next time around or something. :)

God bless, and very glad to see you back on the forum again.

Peace,
- H