Baptism prior to the 1520s

They offer summaries of back issues there and if you like the summary they provide a place for you to order a copy of the complete issue.

In honor of your need for even more detailed information for that article -- I have updated the introduction for that quote as follows...

 

I will attempt to explain what I have learned by putting an enormous amount of material in a tiny little nut shell.

From the time of Paul through the early church fathers until around 200 AD Baptism was taught as both essential(as a union with Christ) and done with immersion. There also was no evidence that it was done to infants.

Sometime after 200 AD(250 AD?) you started to see the practice of sprinkling and pouring invade the church. Yet it was still regarded as essential, being quoted as the time when the Holy Spirt came upon the believer.

Then sometime in the 300 to 400 AD era there was a gradual transition away from fundemental baptism and its meaning. Infant baptism began to gain more popularity. It finally has been diluted to the point of where it is today in regards to importance and necessity. Yet this is NOT what the intention of baptism was and how it was used in the Bible or by the early church fathers. How we could've strayed away from what the meaning of baptism was as presented in Romans, Galatians, and Acts is beyond me. Many will extract a few verses out of the Bible to expain away the necessity of baptism with little regards to the overall weight of scripture. Yet I have found that debating these so called controversial topics amoung people who are passionate with what the believe(whether right or wrong) avails nothing. But what I have tersely presented here is what is historically presented to us in the records left behind. If needed I can present some books here that could be helpful to those interested in this type of biblical history.

 

That seems to be the same report we see from Catholic historians as well as ECF sources and it is what we see in the Bible for the first century - just as you point out.

There are two "essential keys" foundational to infant baptism and totally missing from thye NT text.

#1. The total lack of involvement by the person RECEIVING baptism - and total dependency on the "powers" of spells/sacramental-waters etc at the hands of the "sacred" clergy vs the "profane laity". The emphais switches from "faith" as a "response" to Bible/Gospel preaching and switches TO the idea of "POWER" of the sacrament to change a soul who does NOT participate!

#2. The idea that God would send an infant to hell or limbo or some less-than-good-place due to sin -- if not for some kind of magic ritual stopping Him from doing that.

Once those two errors are embraced fully - infant baptism becomes a must.

There is also a third essential - which is the idea that "making stuff up" (i.e. tradition) is just as "authorotative" as reading it in scripture. This is "key" since there are no cases of infant baptism specifically addressed in the NT == even though this is THE DOMINANT form of baptism in the RCC today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Which Catholic historians stated that there wasn't infant baptism?

Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.


Irenaeus


"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).


Hippolytus


"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

 

To All,

bmerr here. I can't help but notice the almost complete lack of Scripture on this thread. That's where we need to be looking, friends. The other sources that have been cited are useful in determining the points at which error crept in to the early church, but there's only one way to get away from these errors. We've got to get back to the Bible.

In Rom 6:3-5 and Gal 3:27, baptism is described as a burial and a raising up again. As far as I know, only immersion in water fits this description.

In Acts 2:38, and 22:16, baptism is for the purpose of the remission, or washing away of sins. The power is not in the water, it's in being obedient to God's commands.

Also in Acts 2:38, we read that baptism is to be in the name of, or by the authority of Jesus Christ. In Matt 28:18, Jesus said all power (authority) had been given to Him, and that baptism was to be in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That also means there's no authority left for Popes or conventions, or synods, etc.

In Mark 16:16 and Acts 8:37, we find that a prerequisite to baptism is belief in the gospel. Infants and the mentally infirm, therefore are not acceptable candidates for baptism.

In Acts 2:41, 47, we find that baptism was the point at which believers were added by the Lord to the church. Nobody in the NT joined a church.

There are other Scriptures pertaining to baptism, but hopefully these will be a starting point in getting back to the Bible on the topic.

After all, the events described in the NT took place WAY before the 1520's!

In Christ,
bmerr

 

Deacon's Son, I would be interested in getting a copy.

Interesting thread, Matt. It made me think of some thoughts I had while reading the "Baptism in Romans 6, what is the referent?" thread. I don't have a lot of time to go into detail or get involved in an extended discussion, and can't say I agree with all your original post. But we Baptists have "devolved" on the importance of baptism. If what we preach can't be confused with being too strong even to the point of sounding like baptismal regeneration, then we have probably "fudged" the message of baptism. What about Peter in Acts 2:38 and I Peter 3:21, or Paul in Romans 6:3 or Gal. 3:27? Also consider that Alexander Campbell and many early 19th century Baptists walked together, at least thinking they were saying the same thing. How many Baptists and Restorationists could be confused as saying the same thing today? I believe we have seen the rise of the idea of "spirit baptism" in so many passages that Baptists never questioned as referring to water in proporation to how many have watered down the necessity of baptism so far that water won't fit those passages for them. In the church where I grew up, no one there could have ever been close to being accused of being a "Campbellite", but they never would have thought of the baptism in passages such as Gal. 3:27 & Rom. 6:3-6 as being anything other than water.

Well that's a lot of rambling that may not make a lot of sense, so I'll close.

 

To All,

bmerr here. I think one thing that jams alot of people up is the idea that if "group A" teaches something, then "group B" cannot accept that teaching as true.

It's often as if we're more concerned with not agreeing with another group than we are with making sure we agree with the Bible.

Truth is universal. What I mean is that there are things that are true no matter who says them.

For example, I was once a Southern Baptist. As such, I could agree with someone from the church of Christ if they said that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. But, as a Southern Baptist, I'd be ostracized if I agreed with the same person if they said that immersion in water was essential to salvation.

Why? Because the Bible doesn't teach that? No! Because "that's what Campbellites teach!"

That kind of thinking didn't make any sense to me as a Southern Baptist, and it doesn't make sense to me as a member of the church of Christ, either.

rlvaughn, I can definitely sympathize with what you described in your post. The idea of spirit baptism is a source of great, widespread confusion for millions. With this idea planted in the mind, it's nearly impossible to allow many Scriptures dealing with baptism to mean what they say. You may be suprised at the lengths some will go to in order to wring the water out of some passages where it is plainly indicated.

It's a much more honest approach to the Scriptures to be willing to abandon our beliefs if Biblical evidence warrants it. I've had to do that, myself.

In Christ,
bmerr

 

The Didache, the oldest known "statement of faith," teaches something to the effect "Baptise in living (running) water. If there is no living water then baptise in still water. If there is no still water then sprinkle. In any case, baptise."

 

Didache the oldest known "statement of faith?"

Nah!...don't think so! The Bible comes first and the "Didache" doesn't count. It's a man made doctrine.

Although; I do agree that one has to be baptized.

MEE

 

I know a man who when he was ten years old listened to a Billy Graham special on tv while he played with toys on the living room floor. After hearing Billy preach, that same night when he went to bed prayed to Jesus asking Him to save him. He had no discipling from that point until twenty five years later a friend stopped in and invited him to church. He went, and from that point began to learn scripture and about six months later was baptized in the river one Sunday. Those years from age ten to thirty-five were spent with consistent prayer and leading prompted by believing that Jesus Christ was his Savior and God.

My question is, was this man saved at age ten or only after he was baptized by water at age thirty-five?

God Bless!

 

A person is saved when God saves him or her. PERIOD!

We can wrangle over what was happening when God adopted them into His eternal family. Were they reciting "the sinners prayer?" Were they being baptized? Were they feeding the homeless? Were they taking the Mass? Were they making a deathbed confession? Were they avoiding a particular sin? were they maintaining an acceptable pious act to sin ratio? Were they _______ (insert any other human work)?

We religious types want to make sure there is some rite of passage that we can point to and control so as to make sure someone has passed the required test or jumped the proper hoop(particularly pertaining to someone else).

Certainly, we are commanded to do certain works: Love our neighbor as ourselves, don't steal, prayer, baptize all nations, honor father and mother, do this in rememberance of me, etc. None of these save us. Why should we do them? Because our Lord is pleased when we do them. If Jesus is our Lord, we want to please Him as much as possible, because He saved us.

If anyone is in Christ (saved) they are my brother and sister, regardless of the "strange" notions they (and I) profess. We'll know each other by our fruits.

It is not complicated.

 

I agree Michael.
Your post just refuted the COC, the Oneness Pentecostal, and the Catholic Church doctrine of "baptismal regeneration."
DHK

 

Perhaps what should be used for comparison is the Bible. Truth is universal. By that I mean that anyone can make a true statement. Our basis for acceptance or rejection of one's statement ought to be "does it agree with the Bible", not whether it agrees with what this group or that teaches it.

For example, if Eph 2:8-10 were the sum total of what the Bible had to say about salvation, then it would be wrong to say that baptism had anything to do with salvation. But there's more to NT teaching on salvation than Eph 2:8-10, isn't there?

In fact, if we study our Bibles, we can find out just what went on in Ephesus in regards to their salvation, and find out what the above verses meant to the original recipients of Paul's letter.

There's an often overlooked word in our text. That word is "ye", as in "For by grace are ye saved through faith..."

"Ye" in our text refers to the saints at Ephesus. We find that way back in the 1st verse of the letter.

If we read on down to 1:13, we read that they trusted in Christ "after that [they] heard the word of truth, the gospel of [their] salvation: in whom also after that [they] believed, [they] were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise".

So here we see that they heard the gospel and believed it, and trusted in Christ.

Now let's turn back to Acts 19:17, where the seven sons of Sceva had just gotten their butts kicked by a demon-possessed man. We see that the the name (or the authority) of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

In verse 18, we read that many "...believed, and confessed, and shewed their deeds." This word for "deeds" can also be translated as "works". Reading further, we see that the work they were doing was public repentance from their curious arts.

So here we see them believing, confessing, and repenting. But let's continue.

If we go back to the beginning of Acts 19, we find Paul just arriving in Ephesus, "...and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Before we go further, let's notice a couple of things.

First, there was the assumption on Paul's part, that if these men were disciples, then they had been baptized. There was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian in the Bible. Seems as though many think this is possible today, though.

Second, the baptism they had received was not valid. Apparently they had received John's baptism after Christ had died, and John's baptism was no longer in effect (Acts 13:25 refers to John fulfilling his course).

They had believed in the Christ who was coming, when the Christ had already come, and thus believed in the wrong Christ. Their baptism was insufficient. Point? It matters why we are baptized.

Anyway, Paul expalins the fulfillment of John's message in Christ Jesus, and "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Here we have saints at Ephesus hearing, believing [implied], and being baptized in the name (or authority) of Jesus Christ.

In all, we find the "ye" of Eph 2:8-10 hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized. It is in this way that the Ephesians (and all under the New Testament) being saved by grace through faith.

It's a pattern seen throughout the book of Acts, the book of conversions.

In Christ,
bmerr

 

I guess it is too trivial to mention the thief on the cross, so I won't.

However, I do have a question. When were Jesus’ disciples baptized, by water, unto salvation?

Most, probably assume that Jesus’ disciples had undergone John’s water baptism (Acts 1:22), just as Jesus had. As you pointed out, Paul encountered the men who had also undergone John’s water baptism, yet they had not received the Holy Spirit. If one assumes that they were not saved until they received the Holy Spirit, subsequent to being baptized in Jesus’ name, then that may be a valid assumption. Now, we read no were, that I can think of, were Jesus’ disciples were re-baptized, by water, into Jesus’ name (or any other “formula”). We know that Jesus’ disciples received the Holy Spirit when the risen Jesus breathed on them and were subsequently empowered to speak in tongues when the Holy Spirit fell with power at Pentecost. Yet, there is no explicit mention of the disciples being baptized again in water. Certainly, it could have happened and the inspired writers just failed to mention it anywhere. But it seems to me that, that question would be a rather significant point to be shared with us, especially in light of the importance some Christians place on the importance and efficacy of water baptism in one’s salvation.

What do you think?

 

I guess it is too trivial to mention the thief on the cross, so I won't. </font>[/QUOTE]bmerr here. By no means is the thief on the cross (ttoc for short) too trivial to mention. To say that he was saved might be a trivial thing, for there is no question but that he was. I would bring a couple of things about him to your attention, though.

First, we cannot prove one way or the other if ttoc had been baptized or not. The Bible says several times that many from Jerusalem and all Judea went out to be baptized by John. The possibility exists that ttoc was among that number. It can't be proven either way.

Second, you'll notice that I said that there was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian in the Bible. TTOC was not a Christian, but a Jew. Christianity had not begun yet as the Old Testament was still in effect. It was in dying that Jesus fulfilled the Law, and the Law could not pass away until it was fulfilled (Matt 5:17, 18). Jesus was still alive when ttoc was promised paradise.

I would be of the assuming number you mentioned. But you asked of the disciples' (apostles?) baptism unto salvation.

If they had submitted to baptism for the remission of sins under John, while his baptism was still in effect, they would not need to be baptized again.

John's baptism was one of repentance for the remission of sins looking forward to the Christ to come (Mark 1:4; Acts 19:4). Those who received his baptism were to believe on him who would come after him, namely Jesus. These conditions being met, they recieved the promised blessing.

The disciples Paul met in Acts 19 had apparently recieved John's baptism after Jesus had been crucified, buried and resurrected. After Pentecost of Acts 2, all were to be baptized in the name (authority) of Jesus Christ. In Matt 28:19, we see He authorized baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. These guys had not even heard if there was a Holy Ghost, and therefore had not been baptized by Jesus' authority. Thus their need for "re-baptism".

Right. As mentioned above, they did not even know there was a Holy Spirit.

Before I make comment, let me say up front that I don't have everything on the Holy Spirit figured out. There are lots of good men who disagree on His mode of indwelling, and just what Peter meant at the end of Acts 2:38. On the other hand, there are a couple things I think I'm pretty straight on, so with this in mind, I'll continue.

In Acts 2:38, Peter tells his audience to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We read in other passages of people being given gifts of the Holy Ghost, such as tongues, most noteably.

Also, we have the example of the Samaritans in Acts 8 who believed Phillip's preaching and were baptized, (thus meeting the conditions of salvation in Mark 16:16), but didn't receive the Spirit until Peter and John came down from Jerusalem.

The best I can figure, is that there is a gift of the Holy Spirit that believers receive when they submit to NT baptism in water. Additionally, for the early church, there were miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit given through the laying on of an apostles' hands (Acts 8:18; 19:6).

The occurrence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is only recorded on Pentecost of Acts 2, and in the household of Cornelius in Acts 10. The main difference between these two events and the accounts of miraculous gifts being bestowed by the aposltes is that in the former cases, there was no human administrator involved. It was unannounced, and unexpected. In the latter examples, there was the laying on of an apostles' hands.

In any case, the receiving of the Holy Spirit (through the baptism of the Holy Spirit or the laying on of hands) is never given as a condition of pardon, or salvation to an alien sinner. Baptism in water is.

That is correct, sir.

The verse you mention is John 20:22, correct? I don't think the Holy Spirit was given at this point. No real proof, just that when the Spirit was to come, He would come with power (Acts 1:8), and in John 20:22 they did not receive power. I don't have a clue as to what Jesus' breathing on them was about.

I'm with you. If the apostles had been re-baptized, I'm sure we would have a record of it. Like I said before though, there would not have been a need for it, since the (assumed) baptism of John was effectual when they received it. It's probably a safe conclusion that they were baptized under John.

As I said, I don't have it all figured out. I'm leaning just like everyone else. There are some things I'm sure of. There have also been alot of things I was sure of until I studied them more carefully. It's hard to change our minds, but if the evidence shows us to be in error, we must be willing to change. Sadly, very few are.

Let the Scriptures have the final say. I'll try to do the same.

In Christ,
bmerr

 

So when did Jesus’ disciples become Christians so they were no longer Jews? Are Messianic Jews also Christians?

It seems your argument for the efficacy of John’s water baptism of Jesus’ disciples (apostles?) hinges on, “The disciples Paul met in Acts 19 had apparently recieved John's baptism after Jesus had been crucified, buried and resurrected.”

Ac 19:1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
Ac 19:2 And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
Ac 19:3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."
Ac 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Ac 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Ac 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

It is possible that these disciples received John’s baptism after Jesus had been crucified, buried and resurrected, but NOT by John (maybe John’s disciples?). I think I have heard Baptist preachers say this. Myself, being a “good” Baptist (“listen to what the preacher says, trust what the Bible says”), can’t see where this passage proves that they received John's baptism after Jesus’ resurrection. If someone’s theology depends on the Bible saying something it doesn’t explicitly say, maybe it is a good time to question some presuppositions. Hey, I do that all the time. That’s why I like this forum.

Now, If they received John’s baptism before Jesus’ resurrection, then they are no different than Jesus’ disciples with respect to water baptism, except that these didn’t know Jesus! It doesn’t explicitly say Paul preached the Gospel to them. But I think it is safer to assume he did than to make the assumption you made.

Ac 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

There is no question that this could be referring to water baptism (it probably is). But, a key point on the effectual baptism unto salvation is made by John the Baptist himself:

Mk 1:8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Unless one is to make the assumption that everyone who received John’s baptism automatically believed in the risen Jesus to their salvation, then it would seem that John is speaking of a “greater” baptism to come that is Jesus’ to perform.

We'll never have the opportunity for John or Paul to immerse or lay hands on us, but they still preach to us through the Bible and Jesus can certainly baptize us with the Holy Spirit.

 

So when did Jesus’ disciples become Christians so they were no longer Jews? Are Messianic Jews also Christians?</font>[/QUOTE]Michael52,

bmerr here. I don't think there is a reference to "Jewish Christians" in the New Testament. The whole concept of conversion centers on turning from one thing to be something esle, doesn't it? No, I'd have to say that once a person converts to Christianity, he is, and should always be, simply a Christian.

To look at the other side of the fence, Gentiles converting to Christianity from idol worship would certainly not maintain allegiance to their former pagan gods, would they?

However, on a couple of occasions Paul does refer to himself as a Jew (Acts 21:39; 22:3), and also as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). I think this would have more emphasis on his background and upbringing than his current preaching and practice, though, since in Acts 26:2 he makes distinction between himself and the Jews.

Here's why I have that hinge. Acts 13:25 indicates the time at which the valididty of John's baptism faded out. It reads,

"And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worhty to loose."

This was spoken by John about the same time that Jesus began His earthly ministry. Given the time interval between John 1:19-27 and Acts 19, I'd say it's a pretty reasonable conclusion that the Acts 19 disciples had received John's baptism after it passed out of efficacy.

It is possible that these disciples received John’s baptism after Jesus had been crucified, buried and resurrected, but NOT by John (maybe John’s disciples?). [/quote]

Not only is it possible, but I think I might even have a suspect!

Look back to Acts 18:21, where Paul is leaving Ephesus bound for Antioch. It seems as though shortly after his departure, Apollos comes to Ephesus, and is preaching the baptism of John (18:24-25).

Of course I couldn't prove it, but based on the evidence, it may have been Apollos who baptized the disciples that Paul found on his return to Ephesus in Acts 19. Later on we learn that Paul and Apollos became laborers together with God in Corinth, where Apollos was bound for just as Paul was returning to Ephesus (18:27).

It would be a stretch to say that my theology depends on the timing of the disciples' submission to John's baptism. I just think it's a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

There are lots of things the Bible doesn't explicitly state that are neccessarily true by implication.

For example, in Gen 12, we read of Abraham going down into Egypt to escape a famine. In Gen 13:1, we read that Lot came up out of Egypt with Abraham, but it is never explicitly stated that Lot went down to Egypt in the first place.

However, the fact that Lot came up out of Egypt implies the fact that he went down into Egypt.

We must remember the three ways the Bible teaches us: direct command, approved example, and neccesary inference (implication).

I can't begin to tell you how broad the implications are in your statement that I bolded above! In the future I'm sure we'll discuss some topics that fall under this description.

You give another example of neccessary inference. Since salvation is by faith, and faith cometh by hearing the word of God, it is implied that Paul preached the gospel to these men.

I don't think this is any "safer" of a conclusion, but it is an easier one to come to.

I would agree that the men in Acts 19 received baptism in water, and I wouldn't even say "probably".

The statement by John in reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit is one of several promises in the Bible that is announced to many, but not applicable to all.

The promise of the land of Canaan to the children of Abraham is another one. Ishmael was also Abraham's seed, but his decendants were not the recipients of the inheritance. Only Abraham's seed through Isaac recieved this promise.

Likewise, the prophesy referred to by Peter in Acts 23:17-ff says that God would pour out of His Spirit upon "all flesh". This promise would have to be narrowed down to a few, or else unbelievers and animals would also be included in this promise. No one would argue for that, would they?

In this instance "all flesh" would be fulfilled as "Jew and Gentile", specifically the apostles in Acts 2 (Jews), and the household of Cornelius in Acts 10 (Gentiles).

Exactly. As mentioned above, the baptism of the Holy Ghost was administered by Jesus, without the mediation of man.

The rarity of such an event is noticed by Peter in Acts 11:15, where he compares what happened at Cornelius' house to that which happened to the apostles "at the beginning". If it had been a common occurrence, I doubt he would have mentioned it at all.

Jesus was said to be the administrator of two baptisms. One was the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That has come and gone. The other is the baptism of fire at the Judgement. This is yet to come.

The baptism that was to endure "even unto the end of the world" (Matt 28:20) is one administered by man (Matt 28:19, etc), and can only be immersion in water for the remission of sins. That's the only one that fits the description of a burial and a raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12).

Actually, Jesus cannot still baptize us with the Holy Spirit. To do so would be to violate His word. Eph 4:5 tells us there is "one baptism". It's clear to me that that "one baptism" is immersion in water. For Christ to baptize us with the Holy Spirit would mean that there were "two baptisms", and would contradict the Word of God, which is true from the beginning (Ps 119:160).

In closing, I'd like to say I appreciate the time invested in the replies of all of you. Whether we always agree or not, we all only get 24 hours each day, and if your lives are anything like mine, free time is in short supply. So thanks to you all for taking time to discuss these matters. It is time well spent.

In Christ,
bmerr

 

bmerr:
I appreciate your post. You are a workman that needeth not be ashamed. II Tim. 2:15. God bless you.
Frank

 

Actually, it is VERY clear from scripture that there are two baptisms. One by water and one by Holy Spirit. So when Eph 4:5 tells us that there is "one", we must discern which one is the critical spoken of. That would be the baptism of the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ at conversion. Immersion of the new child of God with the indwellment of the Holy Ghost.

God Bless!

 

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..." (1 Cor 12:13)

What are we all (believers) baptized with? Answer is "one Spirit".

This is the "one" baptism Paul speaks of. Water baptism does not deliver the Holy Ghost, nor save.

God bless!