The Church

Using the same type of hermeneutic, ". . .the baptism of repentance into the remission of sins. . . ." -- Mark 1:4.

 

Now compare ". . . baptized into Jesus Christ . . . ." with ". . . . baptized unto Moses . . . ." (1 Corinthians 10:2).

. . . εβαπτισθημεν εις χριστον ιησουν . . . .
. . . εις τον μωσην εβαπτισαντο . . . .

 

Not applicable. John's water baptism was for Israel and it marked a desire to repent in regard to breaking the law.

 

Jesus tought one must be born again, John 3:3; John 3:7. Nicodemus did not understand how, John 3:4. Jesus explained there are two births, John 3:5; John 3:6. That it is the latter birth that is needed. And Jesus in explaining this said nothing of water baptism.

 

It was the baptism of Jesus' first disciples, Peter, John, etc.

 

Neither have to do with immersion into water.
You are making my point that the word baptizo means to immerse. The context around the word tells us into what object the immersion will take place.
In the above case the immersion is either into Christ or into Moses. In neither of these cases is the immersion into water.

 

1 Corinthians 10:2, ". . . in the cloud and in the sea; . . ."
Romans 6:4-5, ". . . Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: . . . ." As a Baptist I was taught this is what water baptism represents.

 

Sure. Those disciples were Jewish. They were under the Mosaic Law.

You do realize that many different groups were baptizing and doing so for different reasons... don't you?

 

You are mixing things up. Just stick with the text. In Romans 6 we what we are immersed into. Guess what. It isn't water.

 

Their water baptism was their believer's baptism, was it not?

 

No. Their water baptism by John the Baptist was a baptism of repentance for Israel.
We see the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts who were not saved. They needed to know about Christ and his atonement for sin. John's baptism did nothing to save anyone.
Neither does believers water baptism save anyone. It's symbolic. It points to the effectual work of the Holy Spirit in immersing us into Christ.

 

Where else is this teaching what Paul wrote taught this? Again it is my understanding the meaning of water baptism is for Christ's death. The Greek εις never means "in order to." Denotes a reason for or direction, into something, but not the cause.


The baptism in Romans 6:3.

 

I disagree with your no. Otherwise according to you, as I understand you, Jesus first disciples never had Christian baptism. And that would be just not true.

 

The thief on the cross didn't have Christian baptism either.

The Bible (God) doesn't feel any need to describe the Apostles being baptized with water to become Christians.
Water baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Water baptism is necessary to show obedience to Christ.

 

How do you know?

JoeT

 

Well...I spose it could have been sprinkling...

 

It's an honest question, how do you know the thief was not baptized either after or prior to becoming becoming a condemned prisoner?

JoeT

 

Oh my goodness. All I can do is laugh at your suggestion.
Since the first believers baptism happened on Pentacost, we can rule out the thief.

 

The Apostle Paul, BTW, explained how John the Baptist's baptism was to be believer's baptism, Acts of the Apostles 19:4.