Are you referring to the so called "Baptism in the Holy Ghost?"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
1 Peter 3:21 Is Not About Water Baptism
- Thread starter Hark
- Start date
Are you referring to the so called "Baptism in the Holy Ghost?"
Hark
Well-Known Member
I am referring to the promise from the Father that Jesus will baptize us with the Holy Ghost at our salvation when we come to & believe in Jesus Christ.
~~When we come to Him and believe in Jesus Christ~~ --- THAT, IS, ~~the Father (who) baptized us with the Holy Ghost at our salvation~~.
The Baptism which saves is / was JESUS' 'baptism' with death's SUFFERING and Life's Resurrection ALL HIS.
When as elect of God we IN CHRIST were “crucified with and in and through Him and were co-raised with and in and through Him”, God unawares or aware, gifted us with the Faith of Christ – indestructible inalienable Faith and Trust through and by Grace BECAUSE God had chosen us from before the foundation of the world; and in choosing us God had saved us through Jesus Christ once for all.
Both you and Hark are wrong! The only baptism promised in the Great Commission "unto the end of the world" is water baptism and we know it is water baptism because it is not administered by God to "them" but by "ye" to them.
Water baptism is found all through the book of Acts, It is found in the epistles because it is part of the Great Commission and you are suggesting the early churches and apostles were disobedient to the Great Commission.
Acts 2:41 is water baptism. Acts 8 is water baptism. Ephesians 4:5 was written after the baptism in the Spirit on Pentecost and therefore there is only "one baptism" and it is water baptism as water baptism is still being administered after the writing of the book of Ephesians as the Ephesian letter is NOT the "end of the world" or "age."
In our Context the term "like" compares the contextual baptism with the previous word "water" as they were saved "by water" and so "baptism" is put in a parallal comparison "like' WATER that lifted up the Ark which ALSO was a "LIKE" figure of the resurrection of Jesus Christ just as lifting up the believer out of the water in Acts 2:41 is a picture/figure of the resurrection of Jesus Christ AND our hope of physical resurrection out of the grave.
Both of you are contextually wrong, Biblically wrong and I am afraid no amount of evidence, no matter how clear will move you from your heresy.
~because it is not administered by God to "them" but by "ye" to them~, ~we know it is water baptism~ ...
...goodness... that's logic for you!
No sir, 'we' can 'know', nothing of the kind.
But we do know that the WORD reads, "baptise IN THE NAME".
From that fact, we DO know, the 'Baptism' which Jesus commanded is the Baptism "IN THE NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" -- in the ONE Name leaves ONE baptism and it’s NOT water-baptism!.
Besides Jesus the Risen Christ did not give US any command at all to baptise; but He gave "YOU" command --- "YOU"— Jesus' "apostles" --- HIS, 'SENT'. We are not Jesus' apostles! We are not endowed with the authority Jesus’ commanded -- that is, authorised -- his apostles.
O I know many Christians entitle themselves Jesus’ apostles. But I do not believe that, or them.
The problem is that the scriptures teach us water baptism, but many have instated harkened to either church traditions, or else "revelations" from false so called "Holy Spirit"
TCassidy View Post
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Either you are wrong or the bible is wrong. I will believe the bible.
.
.
The ~problem~ for you -- Yeshua -- is, Cassidy is right and you, are wrong.
You are principally wrong with your definition of what the "ONE baptism" which Ephesians 4:5 speaks of, is. You believe it is (as we all know) not the faked and hypocritical 'baptism' with the <~false so called "Holy Spirit"~>.
I don't think any of us is under that wrong impression.
The "ONE baptism" that to this day has made of unbelievers, believers, and of unjustified unbelievers, justified believers, is the same baptism "IN THE NAME OF GOD the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" which the apostles of Jesus administered in their own day, but ever since has been administered by the Holy Spirit Himself WITHOUT PUBLIC sign or sound but the inaudible hearing of God's Word in the secret chambers of men’s hearts.
One thing it for certain is NOT, is <~water baptism~>. Peter said “water CANNOT prevent that these (BELIEVERS IN THE NAME) be baptized”.
But you and the church general believe that WATER is what makes the “ONE” Christian “baptism” the true baptism “of Jesus” whose baptism it expressly is assured his followers, “IS NOT WITH WATER”!
~Water baptism~ is papal heresy.
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Either you are wrong or the bible is wrong. I will believe the bible.
.
.
.
The ~problem~ for you -- Yeshua -- is, Cassidy is right and you, are wrong.
You are principally wrong with your definition of what the "ONE baptism" which Ephesians 4:5 speaks of, is. You believe it is (as we all know) not the faked and hypocritical 'baptism' with the <~false so called "Holy Spirit"~>.
I don't think any of us is under that wrong impression.
The "ONE baptism" that to this day has made of unbelievers, believers, and of unjustified unbelievers, justified believers, is the same baptism "IN THE NAME OF GOD the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" which the apostles of Jesus administered in their own day, but ever since has been administered by the Holy Spirit Himself WITHOUT PUBLIC sign or sound but the inaudible hearing of God's Word in the secret chambers of men’s hearts.
One thing it for certain is NOT, is <~water baptism~>. Peter said “water CANNOT prevent that these (BELIEVERS IN THE NAME) be baptized”.
But you and the church general believe that WATER is what makes the “ONE” Christian “baptism” the true baptism “of Jesus” whose baptism it expressly is assured his followers, “IS NOT WITH WATER”!
~Water baptism~ is papal heresy.
Last edited by a moderator:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Mk 16:16
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; 1 Pet 3:21
The 'literal' connection between baptism and being saved is undeniable.
The connection is found only in your failure to understand rather simple sentences.
He that boards the bus, and sits down, will ride into town. He who boards not shall be left behind.
It is abundantly clear that it is the belief, not the baptism, that saves. Baptism is included only as the evidence of salvation, not as the cause of it.
Baptism is only the anti-type of the salvation of Noah (who was saved because he believed God, not because of the water of the flood).
Baptism is a "true likeness" of that which actually saves us, "the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Those who are trusting in their baptism for their salvation remain lost in trespass and sin.
"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."Those who are trusting in their baptism for their salvation remain lost in trespass and sin.
38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2
I understand that 'rather simple' and straightforward sentence, do you?
It's abundantly clear that you hold to the prevailing/popular constricted view of 'sozo'. Instead of recognizing the 'temporal deliverance' that is intended in the context, you willy nilly with a broad brush misapply eternal consequences to it.
Yep. Next verse explains it. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh (born of water) and that which is born of the spirit is spirit (and of the spirit). Best commentary on the bible is the bible.
Yes, I do.
I got a medal for bravery. Which came first, the medal or the bravery?
I got a ticket for speeding. Which came first, the ticket or the speeding?
My wife got a prize for beauty. Which came first, the prize or the beauty?
Baptized for the remission of sin. Which came first, the baptism or the remission of sin?
Usually, yes, but you have to read the Bible from the point of view of the audience to which it was written.
1. Everyone would agree that being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5) is the same thing as being “born again” (John 3:3). So what does it mean to be born again? We see what it means in Romans 6:4: “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” The newness of life is a reference to being born again.
2. The larger context of John 3:5 shows a theme of cleansing, of which baptism is an essential element, whether it is viewed from a symbolic perspective or from a salvific or regenerational perspective. John 1 tells of the works of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. In John 2 we see Jesus cleansing the temple. After the Nicodemus meeting in John 3, we see Jesus baptizing with His disciples. The baptizing continues into Chapter 4. So cleansing is one of several themes we see as we read through the Gospel of John and baptism is a cleansing ritual. See. Acts 22:16.
3. It was universally held that John 3:5 refers to water baptism from the 1st Century until Huldrych Zwingli in the16th Century decided otherwise. The church fathers who expressly held to this view include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysotom, Gregory of Nazianz, and Augustine. I have not discovered anyone who held another view during that period of time. There are those who pay little attention to historical development of Christian doctrines but they are missing out on the wisdom of the ages by their failure to do so. I pay attention to these things and show them great deference unless they are manifestly contrary to scripture. The idea that baptism is only symbolic is a new idea in Christian thinking, and a wrong idea.
4. Before Jesus and before John, baptism was a common practice in the Jewish world. Anyone who converted to the Jewish faith had to be baptized. The water of immersion (mikvah) in Rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. His status was changed and he was referred to as "a little child just born" or "a child of one day". We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as "born again," "new creation," and "born from above." Therefore, the phrase “born of water” would immediately tell a devout Jew like Nicodemus that Jesus was speaking of baptism. That is why everyone in the early church knew that being “born of water” was a reference to baptism. There was never any debate about it because it was always understood. Only in modern times did people get confused about the meaning of John 3:5 because its correct meaning interfered with their faulty soteriology.
No, everyone wouldn't agree. Your a priori statement is blatantly wrong thus your conclusions, based on your false a priori statement, are equally false.
Being born of water is the first birth and being born of the spirit is the second birth, hence the term "born again."
Cute.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mt 3
There was a deliverance, a salvation, for the Jew from the wrath to come upon that generation through baptism as an act of profession.
23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. Acts 3
Well I see there is one misguided soul who thinks Jesus was speaking of physical birth. I'm not a Bible scholar but the scholars--even those who refuse to see water baptism here--say it isn't so. One birth is in view here, not two. Here is what Thomas Constable of Dallas Theological Seminary says about this passage:
http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/john.pdf
His view (Constable's) is a perfectly acceptable view. But it is not saying what you think he is saying. There are still two kinds of life/two kinds of birth. One is spiritual and the other is physical. Constable says the same thing, and that is why he says water refers to amniotic fluid.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which born of the Spirit is spirit."
There are two kinds of birth. One is physical (represented by the water (or as he says is amniotic fluid), and the other is spiritual, represented by the Holy Spirit. Nowhere does Constable infer that there is just one birth. He does not say that at all. He contrasts the physical to the spiritual. It is one way to look at is.
However, having said that, I agree with brother Cassidy. In the light of the overall context, his interpretation makes the best sense, at least of the ones presented here.