Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[CadyandZoe]

Good morning CadyandZoe,

I have never contested that passage from Luke that said all the people were baptized. In post 1,066 I said, "The followers of John the Baptist were getting baptized." The people that were baptized by John were not baptized into Christ because the Apostles hadn't started baptizing anyone yet. It was later, after his conversation with Nicodemus, that we see them going out and baptizing in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Acts 19:1-5 makes it clear that those that were baptized under John had to be rebaptized.

Of course not. I hope you didn't think that I challenged you on that point. I didn't mean to do that. I agree, the followers of John were baptized by John. And of course, Jesus followers were baptized into Jesus.

I NEVER said that I 'doubted John's testimony'!!!! Me telling you that you are wrong about there being only one signal to John during Jesus baptism is not me doubting John's testimony. It is me telling you that you have accidently or intentionally left off the 2nd "signal" from God.

I apologize. I never actually believed that you doubted John's testimony. In fact, I was counting on the fact that you DID believe John's testimony. My statement was meant to stand in contrast to something you said. It's a common way to carry a discussion forward.

Suppose a friend of mine is trying to convince me of something. He might say to me, "Cady, I know you believe 'x', but what you just said would logically lead to a repudiation of 'x'. Maybe you should reexamine your position."

Okay? I meant no disrespect. I thought your point was to say that water baptism is both a prerequisite and a coincidental event associated with the out pouring of the Holy Spirit as witnessed at the baptism of Jesus.

In order to explain my answer, I need to define a term: "sanctification." I understand this in reference to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in Epistles like Ephesians and Romans among others.

In his epistle to the Ephesians Paul speaks about being "sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of the promise." (Ephesians 1) And in his epistle to the Romans Paul also mentions the idea that the "love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5) Speaking of those who are no longer condemned, Paul identifies the crucial characteristic for whom there is no longer any condemnation. He tells us, ". . . you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

Let's call this state, "sanctification": a spiritual blessing of God, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

And so the question is whether water baptism is necessary for sanctification. Is God waiting for me to step into the water to sanctify me or will the father sanctify apart from water baptism?

I don't think we can employ the Baptism of Jesus as evidence that sanctification must always be coincident with water baptism. Something entirely different is taking place at the Baptism of Jesus.

How is it you don't understand my question?

Here is what you said: "...the Father caused the spirit to fall on Jesus as a signal to John that Jesus is the one of whom he spoke."

Here was my response (question): "If the spirit falling upon Jesus in the visible form of a dove was a signal to John......There would be no need for God to say that if the descent of the dove upon Jesus was THE very clear signal.

That means there were TWO signals to John AND to all those standing around the Jordan river. The first signal was the dove (Holy Spirit) descending upon Jesus and the second signal was God's voice.

This is why I said that I didn't understand your question. I wanted to understand you and I was having difficulty. Your explanation was very helpful and now I understand what you meant. Thank you.

Wouldn't you say that the signal of the dove was clearly understood by John? Wouldn't you say that the Father's voice was intended to help the crowds to understand? I get the idea of two witnesses. I'm just wondering if the first witness was meant for John, while the second witness was meant for the crowds?

With that said it appears we both agree that Jesus did NOT need the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, to descend upon Him. However, I would contend that the people standing around the Jordan river that day needed a visible sign in the form of a dove (1st signal) and a voice from heaven (2nd signal). You are contending that John needed the signal. I contend that that you are wrong and that CLEARLY John the Baptist did NOT need those signals for he already knew who Jesus was:

John the Baptist came, preaching...saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Looking at those passages makes it clear that your "signal to John" interpretation of Scripture does not match up with what is written on two basis: There were 2 signals (not one) AND John didn't need the signals because he already knew who Jesus was!!!

Bible study Mary

You raise a good point. But what do you make of John's testimony here:

John 1:32-34

And John testified, saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”​

My intent is not to disagree with your earlier point. I agree with your earlier point in some aspect. But I need to explore this a bit further.
So what do you make of the fact that John says he didn't "recognize him?"

I don't have a clear answer myself. So we are just talking right? :)

 

[Illuminator]

John draws a sharp contrast between his own baptism and that of Jesus Christ. Yes?

Yes.
John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

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.

Precisely. It happened 40 days after the Ascension when the Holy Spirit descended on the whole Church, (Pentecost) represented by the 120 in Acts 1, (who were already baptized with water) aka The Descension. Water baptism makes possible the infilling of the Holy Spirit, but in the normative sense, not an absolute sense. There is also the baptism of desire (thief on the cross, or those wanting baptism with water but not given the opportunity before death) and the baptism of blood (martyrdom, those killed for the faith before the opportunity for water baptism). It's all the same ONE baptism. God isn't a rigid legalist.

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.

I think Marymog was referring to Paul saying we should imitate him who imitates Jesus. Paul is using himself telling us to imitate him.(Paul)

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?

There is nothing wrong with imitating holy people who live exemplary lives in Christ, we just aren't fussy if they have a pulse.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes.
John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove.

I wonder if that is really what happened. I don't think Jesus was baptized in the spirit at his water baptism. Those whom Jesus baptizes with the spirit, are changed internally by the event. I wonder if Jesus was changed internally or if the dove simply landed on him?

Precisely. It happened 40 days after the Ascension when the Holy Spirit descended on the whole Church, (Pentecost) represented by the 120 in Acts 1, (who were already baptized with water) aka The Descension.

The Holy Spirit came on them, yes. But it was NOT coincident with being baptized in water. In fact, I see no Biblical Evidence that the disciples of Jesus were baptized in water. Maybe I'm missing something?

Water baptism makes possible the infilling of the Holy Spirit, but in the normative sense, not an absolute sense.

I don't know what this means.

There is also the baptism of desire

I don't know what this means either.

God isn't a rigid legalist.

Okay. But he makes conditional promises. Yes?

I think Marymog was referring to Paul saying we should imitate him who imitates Jesus. Paul is using himself telling us to imitate him.(Paul)

Certainly. It all comes down to the same thing, whether we are imitating Christ or we are imitating Paul imitating Christ.

There is nothing wrong with imitating holy people who live exemplary lives in Christ, we just aren't fussy if they have a pulse.

Hard to imitate the dead.

 

[Illuminator]

I wonder if that is really what happened. I don't think Jesus was baptized in the spirit at his water baptism. Those whom Jesus baptizes with the spirit, are changed internally by the event. I wonder if Jesus was changed internally or if the dove simply landed on him?

The form of a dove does not mean a literal bird. Jesus is God, He does not need to "change internally". Jesus doesn't need visible signs, people do.

The Holy Spirit came on them, yes. But it was NOT coincident with being baptized in water. In fact, I see no Biblical Evidence that the disciples of Jesus were baptized in water. Maybe I'm missing something?

Scripture is not clear, but what is absent in a few verses does not mean it is non-existent.
Just before his Ascension, Jesus makes clear to his apostles that baptism is a fundamental part of becoming his disciple (Matt. 28:18-20). And Jesus’ baptism is distinguished from John’s, which was a baptism of penance yet which could not forgive sins or provide grace. Luke mentions John’s baptism in Acts 1:5, 1:22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, and 19:4.

When were the apostles baptized? Scripture is not clear, but it was either sometime during the time between Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension or on the day of Pentecost. Because Luke doesn’t speak of the apostles’ own baptism in Acts 2, I would argue for the earlier time period.

I don't know what this means.

It means it's possible, but rare, to receive the Holy Spirit before water/Spirit baptism. We don't tell God what to do.

I don't know what this means either.

It means the Thief on the Cross was baptized with desire, acknowledge by Jesus when He promised he would be with the prophets and Patriarchs in Paradise, allowing the thief to die in peace. It makes no sense that a convicted criminal would have already been baptized with water/Spirit.

Okay. But he makes conditional promises. Yes?

Certainly. It all comes down to the same thing, whether we are imitating Christ or we are imitating Paul imitating Christ.

Hard to imitate the dead.

God is God of the living, not the dead. Those "physically dead" living with God in heaven are more alive than you and I, or there is no resurrection. I fail to understand how saints alive in heaven are deaf and blind to the affairs of the earth, the cloud of witnesses in Hebrews 12:1 doesn't show them to be deaf and blind.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The form of a dove does not mean a literal bird. Jesus is God, He does not need to "change internally". Jesus doesn't need visible signs, people do.

The dove was God's sign for John the Baptist.

Scripture is not clear, but what is absent in a few verses does not mean it is non-existent.
Just before his Ascension, Jesus makes clear to his apostles that baptism is a fundamental part of becoming his disciple (Matt. 28:18-20).

Jesus doesn't need to tell people what is already understood. The Great Commission assumes that Baptism was already a cultural norm during the time of Jesus' ministry. His commandment assumes that baptism was already associated with making disciples. His focus is on the teacher, i.e. whose teacher will they be? The apostles are to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit because these three alone will be the teacher.

And Jesus’ baptism is distinguished from John’s, which was a baptism of penance yet which could not forgive sins or provide grace.

I disagree. God is at liberty to forgive anyone he wants. There are NO conditions on grace. God does not obligated to forgive anyone or provide them with grace no matter what ritual, rite, or religious technique is performed. God responds to proper inwardness, which is why it says, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, God, You will not despise." Psalm 51:17

Neither you nor I can say whether God forgave those whom John baptized. That is between God and each individual.

When were the apostles baptized? Scripture is not clear, but it was either sometime during the time between Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension or on the day of Pentecost. Because Luke doesn’t speak of the apostles’ own baptism in Acts 2, I would argue for the earlier time period.

Silence is not evidence.

It means it's possible, but rare, to receive the Holy Spirit before water/Spirit baptism. We don't tell God what to do.

I would never argue that is is rare. We don't know. All we know is that God offers no promise that Spirit baptism will automatically follow water baptism. It just isn't true. Let's stick to what God actually promises.

It means the Thief on the Cross was baptized with desire, acknowledge by Jesus when He promised he would be with the prophets and Patriarchs in Paradise, allowing the thief to die in peace. It makes no sense that a convicted criminal would have already been baptized with water/Spirit.

The man on the cross remarked that Jesus didn't deserve a death sentence. The man asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom. Jesus responded to his confession, telling him that he would be with him in paradise. The concept of baptism is absent from the context.

God is God of the living, not the dead. Those "physically dead" living with God in heaven are more alive than you and I, or there is no resurrection. I fail to understand how saints alive in heaven are deaf and blind to the affairs of the earth, the cloud of witnesses in Hebrews 12:1 doesn't show them to be deaf and blind.

The issue isn't whether or not the spirits of the dead are alive in heaven. Its a matter of communication between heaven and earth. One thing is certain, God does not approve of necromancy.

 

[Illuminator]

The dove was God's sign for John the Baptist.

Was the Voice from Heaven just for John the Baptist?

Jesus doesn't need to tell people what is already understood.

Then Jesus didn't need to tell the Apostles to teach all nations, baptizing them... if they already understood.

The Great Commission assumes that Baptism was already a cultural norm during the time of Jesus' ministry.

Sola scriptura doesn't make assumptions.
A sacrament isn't a "cultural norm". The culture despised Christians then as it does today.
A sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace.
water = outward sign
Spirit = inward sign.
The same simple principle is present in all 7 sacraments.

Biblical Evidence for Sacramentalism

“Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law...” (CCC 1210)

www.ncregister.com

His commandment assumes that baptism was already associated with making disciples. His focus is on the teacher, i.e. whose teacher will they be? The apostles are to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit because these three alone will be the teacher.

Yes, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the ones who reveal divine truths to the Apostles, that's why THEY don't need anyone to teach THEM because it's IMPOSSIBLE for any man to do that. "let no man teach you" doesn't mean any believer with a Bible doesn't need teachers.

I disagree. God is at liberty to forgive anyone he wants. There are NO conditions on grace. God does not obligated to forgive anyone or provide them with grace no matter what ritual, rite, or religious technique is performed. God responds to proper inwardness, which is why it says, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, God, You will not despise." Psalm 51:17

a contrite heart precedes baptism, or its an empty ritual.

Silence is not evidence.

Then provide a plausible alternative using scripture alone to determine WHEN the Apostles were baptized, instead of a smart-mouth comeback.

I would never argue that is is rare. We don't know. All we know is that God offers no promise that Spirit baptism will automatically follow water baptism. It just isn't true. Let's stick to what God actually promises.

In most instances in the Bible, spirit baptism follows water baptism, yet there is ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Ephesians 4:5.

The man on the cross remarked that Jesus didn't deserve a death sentence. The man asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom. Jesus responded to his confession, telling him that he would be with him in paradise. The concept of baptism is absent from the context.

Yes, the concept of water baptism in this instance is totally absent. The concept of Baptism of Desire is readily apparent, other wise Jesus wouldn't promise Paradise to the Thief, whose sins were REMOVED, (probably after death) not covered up.

The issue isn't whether or not the spirits of the dead are alive in heaven. Its a matter of communication between heaven and earth. One thing is certain, God does not approve of necromancy.

You've been on this board long enough to know that intercession of the saints has nothing to do with communication between heaven and earth. It's been explained to you dozens of times. "Necromancy" is a false, insulting canard. Either you don't know any better or you do. I think you do know better, you just refuse to accept it, making you a slave to a falsehood. Or you just like to irritate Catholics with this "necromancy" whopper.
Saints in heaven don't communicate back to us, they take our prayers to God, as plainly shown in Scripture.
Saints in heaven don't answer prayers, God does.
Saints in heaven don't heal or do miracles, God does.

Intercession Of The Saints In Heaven On Our Behalf

Intercession of the saints is no different from asking a person on earth to pray for us. We always pray in Christ, through His power, & to Him, directly, or indirectly through saints.

www.patheos.com

SAINTS AND INTERCESSORY PRAYER - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 I. We are One Family in Christ in Heaven and on Earth1.2 II. God Desires and Responds to Our Subordinate Mediation / Intercessory Prayer1.3 III. Specific Instructions to Mediate and Examples of Subordinate Mediation1.3.1 New Testament1.3.2 Old Testament1.4 IV. Veneration /...

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[Ezra]

Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

Some Christians hold to the belief that Spirit baptism replaces water baptism. I recently held to this belief but I reverted back to my old position that we are to water baptize others and be water baptized.

no water baptism is a affirmations of faith to the Church and the world your saved . spirit baptized you are saved by one spirit are we baptized into the Body

 

[Ezra]

A sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace.
water = outward sign
Spirit = inward sign.

agreed and my reply should have been something like this

 

[Illuminator]

When considering the validity of non-Catholic baptism, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism instructs:

Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid. Therefore, if the rituals, liturgical books, or established customs of a church or ecclesial community prescribe either of these ways of baptism, the sacrament is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons for doubting that the minister has observed the regulations of his/her own community or church. (DE 95.a)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

no water baptism is a affirmations of faith to the Church and the world your saved . spirit baptized you are saved by one spirit are we baptized into the Body

You misread what I wrote, and you are jumping to the wrong conclusions. You have to keep reading in my posts in this thread to see what I actually believe currently. Nowhere am I denying the necessity of water baptism. I was stating briefly what I used to believe in the past in the OP (i.e., my original post or first post in this thread). I currently believe water baptism is a part of the faith.

For clarity: Here are two steps or stages we need to be concerned with involving salvation:

Step #1. Be saved by God’s grace without works Initially (Ephesians 2:8-9).​

What is being saved by God’s grace? This is believing that Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and risen the third day for your salvation (Which is the gospel message) (See: 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). This can also involve calling upon the name of the Lord and seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus Christ by way of prayer to Him (Romans 10:13, Luke 18:9-14). This can also involve inviting (receiving) Christ as our Lord and Savior, confessing Him, as “Lord” or “Lord Jesus” (John 1:12) (Romans 10:9).​

​

Step #2. The Secondary Aspect of Salvation: Focus on the Sanctification Process by the Spirit to live a holy life, following the commands that come from our Lord Jesus Christ, and His followers in the pages of the New Testament. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God has chosen you to salvation through Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth (Also see Galatians 6:8-9, Romans 8:13, etcetera). 2 Corinthians 7:1 says we are to cleanse ourselves from all filhiness of the flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Philippians 2:13 says work out your salvation with fear and trembling. This is all a part of our Sanctification as a part of God’s plan of salvation. Grace gives us the ability to do the work (1 Corinthians 15:10) (See the woman in Scripture who kept kissing Jesus’ feet because she was forgiven much). Note; This would not involve going back to the Old Testament Laws of Moses to be justified by (Like trying to be circumcised, keeping the Saturday Sabbath, holy days, dietary laws, etcetera).​

Water baptism in the name of Jesus would be in Step #2.

I believe water baptism is now essential requirement as a part of our faith. I believe it is a part of our instructions in the Sanctificaiton Process AFTER we are first saved by God’s grace without works in our Initial Salvation (Although the Scriptures do state that some believers were baptized in water right away when they first got saved).

Please keep in mind, that I disagree with the Catholic Church, and the Church of Christ that you have to first be saved initially by being water baptized. Water baptism does not get us initially saved. Only God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior, and believing the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and seeking forgiveness with Him can save us initially. There is no works involved in being saved by God’s grace when we are first initially saved. Works of faith are required in the Sanctification Process as a part of God’s plan of salvation AFTER we are first saved by God’s grace without works (See: 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

But water baptism is a requirement.

It just comes after we are saved first initially by His grace.

I hope that helps to clarify things.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Was the Voice from Heaven just for John the Baptist?

The voice from heaven was for the people.

Then Jesus didn't need to tell the Apostles to teach all nations, baptizing them... if they already understood.

The phrase "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is not a throw away phrase or an incantation. The point is, contrary to the normal, typical meaning of baptism, whereby the teacher gathers students of his own; the Apostles will gather students for Jesus instead. Those whom John baptized became students of John; but those whom Peter baptized (if he were to baptize someone) would not be Peter's students. They would be Jesus' students instead. Peter is commanded to baptize in the name of Christ, not in his own name.

Sola scriptura doesn't make assumptions.
A sacrament isn't a "cultural norm". The culture despised Christians then as it does today.
A sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace.
water = outward sign
Spirit = inward sign.
The same simple principle is present in all 7 sacraments.

Biblical Evidence for Sacramentalism

“Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law...” (CCC 1210)

www.ncregister.com

This is untrue and I think you know it. According to Catholic doctrine, the sacraments are NOT outward signs of an inward grace. The sacraments are the means to grace.

Yes, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the ones who reveal divine truths to the Apostles, that's why THEY don't need anyone to teach THEM because it's IMPOSSIBLE for any man to do that. "let no man teach you" doesn't mean any believer with a Bible doesn't need teachers.

I have never read a verse that says, "Let no man teach you."

a contrite heart precedes baptism, or its an empty ritual.

Of course. But the baptism is NOT the means to a contrite heart.

Then provide a plausible alternative using scripture alone to determine WHEN the Apostles were baptized, instead of a smart-mouth comeback.

Sorry. It doesn't work that way. The onus of proof is on those who make truth claims.

In most instances in the Bible, spirit baptism follows water baptism, yet there is ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Ephesians 4:5.

What you consider normative is actually not. Indeed, the book of Acts records spirit baptism often following water baptism as you suggest. Nonetheless, we understand the reason why this was the case during that time. God the Father was training the church to accept Gentiles into the fold.

Yes, the concept of water baptism in this instance is totally absent. The concept of Baptism of Desire is readily apparent, other wise Jesus wouldn't promise Paradise to the Thief, whose sins were REMOVED, (probably after death) not covered up.

Or, your theory is wrong.

You've been on this board long enough to know that intercession of the saints has nothing to do with communication between heaven and earth.

Excuse me, but who was the one who said that the saints were spirits in heaven? You did.

It's been explained to you dozens of times. "Necromancy" is a false, insulting canard. Either you don't know any better or you do. I think you do know better, you just refuse to accept it, making you a slave to a falsehood. Or you just like to irritate Catholics with this "necromancy" whopper.
Saints in heaven don't communicate back to us, they take our prayers to God, as plainly shown in Scripture.
Saints in heaven don't answer prayers, God does.
Saints in heaven don't heal or do miracles, God does.

Intercession Of The Saints In Heaven On Our Behalf

Intercession of the saints is no different from asking a person on earth to pray for us. We always pray in Christ, through His power, & to Him, directly, or indirectly through saints.

www.patheos.com

SAINTS AND INTERCESSORY PRAYER - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 I. We are One Family in Christ in Heaven and on Earth1.2 II. God Desires and Responds to Our Subordinate Mediation / Intercessory Prayer1.3 III. Specific Instructions to Mediate and Examples of Subordinate Mediation1.3.1 New Testament1.3.2 Old Testament1.4 IV. Veneration /...

www.scripturecatholic.com

Sorry, I meant no disrespect. But try to see this from my perspective.

First of all, I have never read an explanation of your view on this board. It's not that you didn't give one. It's just that I have never read it.

Second of all, when I said that it is hard to imitate the dead, you mentioned the idea that the saints were alive in heaven.

Now, in your answer to me, you deny communication between heaven and earth and so my original point stands. Otherwise how can you imitate a living saint, existing in heaven, of whom you have no communication? Paul exhorted the Corinthian church to "be imitators of me" predicated on the fact that he spent some time with them, allowing for an examination of Paul's behavior, seeing him in action responding to various exigencies and challenges. In what sense are you seeing the saints in action, since they are located out of your sight?

Can you understand my confusion? I realize that religious systems don't need to make logical sense. But can you try anyway?

 

[DJT_47]

You misread what I wrote, and you are jumping to the wrong conclusions. You have to keep reading in my posts in this thread to see what I actually believe currently. Nowhere am I denying the necessity of water baptism. I was stating briefly what I used to believe in the past in the OP (i.e., my original post or first post in this thread). I currently believe water baptism is a part of the faith.

For clarity: Here are two steps or stages we need to be concerned with involving salvation:

Step #1. Be saved by God’s grace without works Initially (Ephesians 2:8-9).​

What is being saved by God’s grace? This is believing that Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and risen the third day for your salvation (Which is the gospel message) (See: 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). This can also involve calling upon the name of the Lord and seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus Christ by way of prayer to Him (Romans 10:13, Luke 18:9-14). This can also involve inviting (receiving) Christ as our Lord and Savior, confessing Him, as “Lord” or “Lord Jesus” (John 1:12) (Romans 10:9).​

​

Step #2. The Secondary Aspect of Salvation: Focus on the Sanctification Process by the Spirit to live a holy life, following the commands that come from our Lord Jesus Christ, and His followers in the pages of the New Testament. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God has chosen you to salvation through Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth (Also see Galatians 6:8-9, Romans 8:13, etcetera). 2 Corinthians 7:1 says we are to cleanse ourselves from all filhiness of the flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Philippians 2:13 says work out your salvation with fear and trembling. This is all a part of our Sanctification as a part of God’s plan of salvation. Grace gives us the ability to do the work (1 Corinthians 15:10) (See the woman in Scripture who kept kissing Jesus’ feet because she was forgiven much). Note; This would not involve going back to the Old Testament Laws of Moses to be justified by (Like trying to be circumcised, keeping the Saturday Sabbath, holy days, dietary laws, etcetera).​

Water baptism in the name of Jesus would be in Step #2.

I believe water baptism is now essential requirement as a part of our faith. I believe it is a part of our instructions in the Sanctificaiton Process AFTER we are first saved by God’s grace without works in our Initial Salvation (Although the Scriptures do state that some believers were baptized in water right away when they first got saved).

Please keep in mind, that I disagree with the Catholic Church, and the Church of Christ that you have to first be saved initially by being water baptized. Water baptism does not get us initially saved. Only God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior, and believing the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and seeking forgiveness with Him can save us initially. There is no works involved in being saved by God’s grace when we are first initially saved. Works of faith are required in the Sanctification Process as a part of God’s plan of salvation AFTER we are first saved by God’s grace without works (See: 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

But water baptism is a requirement.

It just comes after we are saved first initially by His grace.

I hope that helps to clarify things.

You're both wrong no matter how well intended.

Baptism is not an affirmation to the church. That's nonsense. That's not why people were baptized. And baptism is 100% required for salvation.

What did the Ethiopian eunuch do when he was converted in Acts 8 and what was the verbal exchange between him and Philip? He asked about water and baptism? Why? He knew nothing about it. So obviously, it had to have been part of the gospel message that Philip preached to him
He believed, confessed his belief, which is consistent with Romans 10:9, and was immediately baptized, immersed in water. Who was there? Just him and Philip in the middle of nowhere in front of no church or no one else.

Read the account of the conversion of the Jews on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 verse 38. They were told to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. They were also told it was that process by which they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And in verse 47, it states that the Lord added them to the church upon doing so. No other scriptures say these profound things. If you want to be saved and added to the body of Christ which is his church, that's how it's done.

These two examples tell you everything you need to know about being converted and what's required to be saved.
1. Belief and faith
2. Confession of belief
3. Repentance
4. Baptism

Mark 16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief + baptism = salvation

 

[Ezra]

Please keep in mind, that I disagree with the Catholic Church, and the Church of Christ that you have to first be saved initially by being water baptized. Water baptism does not get us initially saved. Only God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior, and believing the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and seeking forgiveness with Him can save us initially. There is no works involved in being saved by God’s grace when we are first initially saved. Works of faith are required in the Sanctification Process as a part of God’s plan of salvation AFTER we are first saved by God’s grace without works (See: 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

But water baptism is a requirement.

It just comes after we are saved first initially by His grace.

I hope that helps to clarify things.

i agree my only part is baptize in the name of the father son and Holy Ghost as per Jesus instructions . so it appears we are on the same page .just explaining it different

 

[Illuminator]

The voice from heaven was for the people.


This is untrue and I think you know it. According to Catholic doctrine, the sacraments are NOT outward signs of an inward grace. The sacraments are the means to grace.

I already explained it in the simplest terms possible. The sacraments are outward signs of an inward grace. "The sacraments are the means to grace." What's the difference? You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

I have never read a verse that says, "Let no man teach you."

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. KJV
This much abused verse is used as a license for biblical illiterates to mean each individual believer is a teacher. I have to repeat myself because you're being stubborn.

Yes, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the ones who reveal divine truths to the Apostles, that's why THEY don't need anyone to teach THEM because it's IMPOSSIBLE for any man to do that. "let no man teach you" doesn't mean any believer with a Bible doesn't need teachers. See post 1086.​

Of course. But the baptism is NOT the means to a contrite heart.

I didn't say that. Please read my posts.

Sorry. It doesn't work that way. The onus of proof is on those who make truth claims.

You are playing games. For the third time, the Bible is not clear on WHEN the Apostles were baptized, demanding proof on what is not clear in the Bible is arguing like an atheist.

What you consider normative is actually not. Indeed, the book of Acts records spirit baptism often following water baptism as you suggest. Nonetheless, we understand the reason why this was the case during that time. God the Father was training the church to accept Gentiles into the fold.

Or, your theory is wrong.

Baptism by Desire is not a theory, or the Thief on the cross is in hell and Jesus is wrong.

Excuse me, but who was the one who said that the saints were spirits in heaven? You did.

Sorry, I meant no disrespect. But try to see this from my perspective.

First of all, I have never read an explanation of your view on this board. It's not that you didn't give one. It's just that I have never read it.

Second of all, when I said that it is hard to imitate the dead, you mentioned the idea that the saints were alive in heaven.

Now, in your answer to me, you deny communication between heaven and earth and so my original point stands. Otherwise how can you imitate a living saint, existing in heaven, of whom you have no communication? Paul exhorted the Corinthian church to "be imitators of me" predicated on the fact that he spent some time with them, allowing for an examination of Paul's behavior, seeing him in action responding to various exigencies and challenges. In what sense are you seeing the saints in action, since they are located out of your sight?

Can you understand my confusion? I realize that religious systems don't need to make logical sense. But can you try anyway?

I have tried, you just ignore or deny. There are 3 links in post 1087 that should clarify what intercessory prayer entails. I can post another dozen, but it's pointless if you refuse to read them. It's OFF TOPIC, and I am not going to flood the thread. Either you want to understand or your don't. One can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Biblical Evidence for Sacramentalism

“Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law...” (CCC 1210)

www.ncregister.com

Faith and reason are compatible with all Catholic doctrines, so they do make logical sense, that is, for the serious inquirer.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).​

Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998) | John Paul II

Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998)

www.vatican.va

 

[Bible Highlighter]

i agree my only part is baptize in the name of the father son and Holy Ghost as per Jesus instructions . so it appears we are on the same page .just explaining it different

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You're both wrong no matter how well intended.

Baptism is not an affirmation to the church. That's nonsense. That's not why people were baptized. And baptism is 100% required for salvation.

What did the Ethiopian eunuch do when he was converted in Acts 8 and what was the verbal exchange between him and Philip? He asked about water and baptism? Why? He knew nothing about it. So obviously, it had to have been part of the gospel message that Philip preached to him
He believed, confessed his belief, which is consistent with Romans 10:9, and was immediately baptized, immersed in water. Who was there? Just him and Philip in the middle of nowhere in front of no church or no one else.

Read the account of the conversion of the Jews on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 verse 38. They were told to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. They were also told it was that process by which they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And in verse 47, it states that the Lord added them to the church upon doing so. No other scriptures say these profound things. If you want to be saved and added to the body of Christ which is his church, that's how it's done.

These two examples tell you everything you need to know about being converted and what's required to be saved.
1. Belief and faith
2. Confession of belief
3. Repentance
4. Baptism

Mark 16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief + baptism = salvation

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.

 

[Marymog]

You raise a good point. But what do you make of John's testimony here:

John 1:32-34

And John testified, saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”​

My intent is not to disagree with your earlier point. I agree with your earlier point in some aspect. But I need to explore this a bit further.
So what do you make of the fact that John says he didn't "recognize him?"

I don't have a clear answer myself. So we are just talking right? :)

Hi C&Z,

This is why I love a respectful back and forth in a discussion. Sometimes vs’s are brought up that seem to contradict other vs’s. I forgot about that vs. Thank you.

So it appears in Matthew 3, on the day John baptized Jesus, John already knew WHO Jesus was before he baptized Him. But according to John 1 he said he didn’t recognize Jesus. Previously John was told he would recognize WHO he is when the spirit descended upon Him. Very confusing.

What I have learned thru my studies is that the “I did not recognize him” (some translanstions say I did not know him) statement by John meant that he had never met Jesus but he had heard about Jesus. John knew that Jesus was superior to him when he saw him so that is why he questioned baptizing someone superior to him. I don’t know if superior is the right word but I hope you understand what I am trying to convey.

Mary

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hi C&Z,

This is why I love a respectful back and forth in a discussion. Sometimes vs’s are brought up that seem to contradict other vs’s. I forgot about that vs. Thank you.

So it appears in Matthew 3, on the day John baptized Jesus, John already knew WHO Jesus was before he baptized Him. But according to John 1 he said he didn’t recognize Jesus. Previously John was told he would recognize WHO he is when the spirit descended upon Him. Very confusing.

What I have learned thru my studies is that the “I did not recognize him” (some translanstions say I did not know him) statement by John meant that he had never met Jesus but he had heard about Jesus. John knew that Jesus was superior to him when he saw him so that is why he questioned baptizing someone superior to him. I don’t know if superior is the right word but I hope you understand what I am trying to convey.

Mary

Yes, I understand. You know, I always assumed, perhaps in error, that Jesus and John knew each other from birth, since their mothers seemed to know each other. And I always assumed, perhaps in error, that the two families shared birth stories with each other.

More to chew on. :) Thanks for your help.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

Some Christians hold to the belief that Spirit baptism replaces water baptism. I recently held to this belief but I reverted back to my old position that we are to water baptize others and be water baptized.

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

 

[Marymog]

I don't see your point. Just because Nicodemus didn't understand the concept of being baptized in the Spirit, doesn't mean that he wasn't baptized in the Spirit. Right? The fact that Nicodemus WAS baptized in the Spirit is the reason why Jesus raised the subject. Jesus was helping Nicodemus understand his own experience, which involved divine intervention and enlightenment. Had Nicodemus NOT correctly interpreted the works of Jesus, then it would be doubtful that God the Father was working inwardly in Nicodemus.

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