Church of Christ and Baptism

[Yeshua1]

That's easy. The Corinthians were not a acting in a Christ-like way as baptized individuals should have been acting. In effect Paul was saying, "I'm glad it wasn't me who baptized you because it doesn't seem to have made any difference in your lives."

Of course as soon as Paul wrote this, he backpedaled a little and acknowledged a couple of individuals he had baptized as well as the household of Stephanus. In fact everywhere Paul went he baptized. The Philippian jailer and his household; Lydia and her household; the Ephesian disciples who had received the baptism of John and who had to be rebaptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

There is not a single instance in the New Testament church of anyone coming to Christ without being baptized. Consider the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. He was baptized immediately, while he was still on the road. There was no one around but him and Phiip. If baptism were meant to be a public demonstration of one's belief, he would have waited until there were other people around.

the ordiannce of water baptism is a restaging of what hgas already happened to one now saved by Grace of God!

Saved by God, THEM baptized is the biblical example!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are wrong in your assessment.
1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

There were very few in the church at Corinth that were baptized by Paul.
In other places it was not his habit to baptize others. God did not send him to baptize as he clearly states. There are occasions where he does. But that is not his practice.

IF any say water bapisism by itself either washes away ouroriginal Sin before god, or else regenerates us, they make a mockery of the shed blood of jesus on the cross!

 

[DHK]

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

It is interesting to note that not even Peter baptized. After he preached and many were saved that day, he commanded others to do the baptizing.
He himself did not baptize.

 

[Yeshua1]

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

It is interesting to note that not even Peter baptized. After he preached and many were saved that day, he commanded others to do the baptizing.
He himself did not baptize.

seems the Apostles saw the Cross and His resurrection as what saved sinners, eh?

 

[Zenas]

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

It is interesting to note that not even Peter baptized. After he preached and many were saved that day, he commanded others to do the baptizing.
He himself did not baptize.

You're jumping to a conclusion for which you have no scriptural basis. In fact we don't know who baptized this household. Peter ordered these people to be baptized; he DID NOT order someone else to baptize them. It might have been Peter and most likely it was Peter.

However, we should remember that anyone can baptize. It doesn't have to be someone who is ordained. It can be anyone.

Finally it is important to note that Peter ORDERED them to be baptized. He did not suggest that they be baptized. He did not tell them to wait till they joined a church to be baptized. He ordered it to happen and it was done--whether by him or someone else.

 

[DHK]

You're jumping to a conclusion for which you have no scriptural basis. In fact we don't know who baptized this household. Peter ordered these people to be baptized; he DID NOT order someone else to baptize them. It might have been Peter and most likely it was Peter.

It was not Paul's practice to baptize; neither was it Peter's.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Look again at the Scripture:
He commanded THEM to be baptized.
Peter did not baptize. He commanded others to do the baptizing. The scripture is clear on this point. Only those who are biased would deny the clarity of the Scripture.

However, we should remember that anyone can baptize. It doesn't have to be someone who is ordained. It can be anyone.

That may be true, and thus it didn't have to be Peter.

Finally it is important to note that Peter ORDERED them to be baptized. He did not suggest that they be baptized. He did not tell them to wait till they joined a church to be baptized. He ordered it to happen and it was done--whether by him or someone else.

Yes, it was done. It was done because they were saved, after they were saved, and NOT in order to be saved. Those facts are made abundantly clear in this passage. Only adults were baptized. Only those with the capability of believing were baptized.

 

[carpro]

Actually they sort of substituted baptism for circumcision. Both are permanent and both can only be done once. Colossians 2:11-12. Of course circumcision had no spiritual efficacy per se, whereas baptism is the gateway to Christianity. It washes away sins. Acts 22:16.

So when one repents and gives their life to Jesus, they need to be sure to do it where there is plenty of water. Otherwise, no salvation.:tear:

 

[Yeshua1]

You're jumping to a conclusion for which you have no scriptural basis. In fact we don't know who baptized this household. Peter ordered these people to be baptized; he DID NOT order someone else to baptize them. It might have been Peter and most likely it was Peter.

However, we should remember that anyone can baptize. It doesn't have to be someone who is ordained. It can be anyone.

Finally it is important to note that Peter ORDERED them to be baptized. He did not suggest that they be baptized. He did not tell them to wait till they joined a church to be baptized. He ordered it to happen and it was done--whether by him or someone else.

the way laid out inthe NT is ALWAYS asinner believes unto Jesus fro salvation, THEN water Baptized!

as Baptism does NOTHING regarding making them right with God!

 

[Zenas]

So when one repents and gives their life to Jesus, they need to be sure to do it where there is plenty of water. Otherwise, no salvation.:tear:

It only takes a few drops of water to baptize.

 

[Zenas]

Look again at the Scripture:
He commanded THEM to be baptized.
Peter did not baptize. He commanded others to do the baptizing. The scripture is clear on this point. Only those who are biased would deny the clarity of the Scripture.

DHK, sometimes I wonder if English is your native language. Could you per chance be one of those French Canadians? The sentence you quoted, "He commanded THEM to be baptized," says nothing of who did the baptizing. "THEM" is a reference to the persons in the household of Cornelius. To paraphrase, "Peter told the new believers they had to be baptized." Who did it we don't know but the written account in no way excludes Peter.

Yes, it was done. It was done because they were saved, after they were saved, and NOT in order to be saved. Those facts are made abundantly clear in this passage. Only adults were baptized. Only those with the capability of believing were baptized.

Again, I have to question your understanding of English. Nothing says or even implies that only adults were baptized. In fact, the angel told Cornelius, "He will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household." He didn't say "all the adults in your household." He left no one out. Of course we can speculate that there were no children in that household but that's all it would be--pure speculation--and perhaps a little wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Zenas]

It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 There were in all about twelve men. Acts 19:1-7.

This passage says nothing about Paul preaching the gospel to these believers. Really only three things happened here.

(1) They were properly baptized, probably by Paul but if not, it was done at Paul's insistence.

(2) Paul laid hands on them.

(3) These disciples received the Holy Spirit.

Either the baptism or the laying on of hands brought on the Holy Spirit. You can speculate all you want to about what else took place but when you do you are impressing your own beliefs on the words of scripture. Take your pick. Both are sacraments.

 

[ktn4eg]

Both are sacraments.

Baptism is NOT a sacrament!

The term "sacrament" as understood by most of those that post here on BB would mean some kind of an act/action that makes a person "holy" in the sense that after he/she undergoes this act/action that person then has some sort of "saving grace" accorded to them that they did not have prior to being immersed in water. (This, of course, is what the term "baptism" or "baptize" actually means.)

To advocate that baptism carries with it any type of "saving grace" is to advocate rank heresy!

The act of baptism is an ORDINANCE --something which God has "ordained" or "commanded" people to undergo AFTER an individual has already received Jesus Christ as his/her personal Savior!

One can search the NT high and low to find any specific example of an individual who was not already a "born-again" believer in Jesus Christ who received his/her salvation as a result of undergoing the ordinance of water baptism.

You will NOT find any place in God's Word of this taking place!

Why not?

Because there is no place in the NT that you can find that water baptism ever convey to its recipient any form of saving power that this person had before that person underwent water baptism!

 

[Zenas]

Because there is no place in the NT that you can find that water baptism ever convey to its recipient any form of saving power that this person had before that person underwent water baptism!

Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.

I appreciate your views, although I don't agree with them and I find them contrary to scripture and also contrary to every commentator prior to the Reformation (and most of them after the Reformation). However, you avoided any comment on Acts 19:1-7.

 

[ktn4eg]

I appreciate your views, although I don't agree with them and I find them contrary to scripture and also contrary to every commentator prior to the Reformation (and most of them after the Reformation). However, you avoided any comment on Acts 19:1-7.

Acts 19:4 states that: "....said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of REPENTANCE, saying unto the people that they [John the Baptist's at Ephesus, see 19:1], that they should BELIEVE on him which should come after him [i.e., John the Baptist], that is, on Christ Jesus."

Repentance and believing on Christ Jesus is the key in this passage. If you will go back to Acts 16, you will find that the Apostle Paul clearly states in 16:31, "Believe and the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou SHALT BE SAVED."

Nowhere in either Acts or anywhere else in the NT, do you find any specific example of a person's eternal salvation preceding that person undergoing the ordinance of water baptism.

You may choose to believe elsewise about what I have written in my posts here in this thread concerning water baptism if you wish.

As for me, I prefer to side with what the Apostle Paul told his listeners concerning water baptism.

 

[Zenas]

Acts 19:4 states that: "....said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of REPENTANCE, saying unto the people that they [John the Baptist's at Ephesus, see 19:1], that they should BELIEVE on him which should come after him [i.e., John the Baptist], that is, on Christ Jesus."

Repentance and believing on Christ Jesus is the key in this passage. If you will go back to Acts 16, you will find that the Apostle Paul clearly states in 16:31, "Believe and the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou SHALT BE SAVED."

Nowhere in either Acts or anywhere else in the NT, do you find any specific example of a person's eternal salvation preceding that person undergoing the ordinance of water baptism.

You may choose to believe elsewise about what I have written in my posts here in this thread concerning water baptism if you wish.

As for me, I prefer to side with what the Apostle Paul told his listeners concerning water baptism.

I prefer to follow the advice of Paul also. Everything he said, not just one verse cherry picked out of many pages that relate what he did and said. One thing I have noticed about those who quote Acts 16:31 is that they leave out the last phrase. "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." Take that verse literally (and I tend to take it literally) and you find that if just the jailer believed, his whole household would be saved. Just curious, why don't people ever include that when quoting this verse?

Having read thousands of posts here, as well as the writings of a number of professional theologians, I believe one of the errors we make in approaching scripture is that we look at what people said but we ignore what they did in application of their faith. When you do, you will see that EVERY time someone was saved he was baptized. They didn't wait for a crowd to gather; they didn't wait for the convert to join a church. They did it immediately, and in many cases the only evidence of the person(s) being saved is their baptism. Like the Ephesian believers who had to be rebaptized, they didn't make a new profession of faith, they simply submitted to baptism in the name of Jesus. And they didn't receive the Holy Spirit until AFTER this had been done.

This is off topic, but examining what the early Christians did rather than just regarding what they said requires us to conclude that there were three levels orders (four if you count apostles which of course we no longer have). First there were bishops who had authority over multiple churches. Timothy and Titus are the best examples. Then there were presbyters, who were appointed by the bishops as pastor of a single church. Finally, of course there were deacons, whose role was mainly not of leadership but of assisting with the needs of the congregation. You will probably miss this if you just read the qualifications of these orders but when you consider how they were conducting themselves as leaders of the church, the three levels of orders becomes abundantly clear.

 

[ktn4eg]

The portion of Acts 16:32 that you bolded has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not the act of a person undergoing water baptism makes that person saved.

The only thing that this verse tells us is that Paul and Silas spoke these words to not only the jailor himself but also to the members of his family ("....and to all that were in his [the jailor's] house." -- the latter part of Acts 16:32).

You will not find anything in this passage to indicate that anybody who submitted to water baptism was, by that act, saved.

I stand by everything that I've posted in this thread concerning the relationship to water baptism to a person's salvation.

 

[DHK]

DHK, sometimes I wonder if English is your native language. Could you per chance be one of those French Canadians? The sentence you quoted, "He commanded THEM to be baptized," says nothing of who did the baptizing. "THEM" is a reference to the persons in the household of Cornelius. To paraphrase, "Peter told the new believers they had to be baptized." Who did it we don't know but the written account in no way excludes Peter.

You just believe what you want to believe in complete disregard to Scripture. The Magesterium and Catechism means more to you than the Bible at this point.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
--There is a subject: HE
--There is a verb: COMMANDED.
--There is an object of the verb--THEM

"Them" does not include the subject "he." This is really basic grammar.
Peter did not do the baptizing.
The same was true when "Christ baptized." Though it clearly says at that time that it was not Christ that baptized but his disciples. Peter is following the example of Christ. He is delegating authority.
Paul said: "Christ sent me not to baptize."
Peter took the same position.

Again, I have to question your understanding of English. Nothing says or even implies that only adults were baptized. In fact, the angel told Cornelius, "He will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household." He didn't say "all the adults in your household." He left no one out. Of course we can speculate that there were no children in that household but that's all it would be--pure speculation--and perhaps a little wishful thinking on your part.

Here is what Peter preached:
Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

This is what Peter preached:
God is no respecter of persons; of righteousness, "Ordained" or predestination, and remission of sins.
How many children are going to understand these things in order to do what is commanded in verse 43:
"whoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins"?

There were no children baptized because there were obviously no children that could understand the message enough to put their faith in the message, and consequently be baptized. Comprehension must come first. Small children and infants don't have that do they?
Please use common sense.

 

[carpro]

It only takes a few drops of water to baptize.

There is only one form of baptism and that is by immersion.

Sprinkling makes a mockery of scripture.

Apparently water loses it's power to save unless there is enough of it to do the job properly.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I find it interesting that there are instances in the book of acts where people received the Holy Spirit before being baptized.

Eph_4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

This alone refutes baptismal salvation.

 

[Zenas]

I find it interesting that there are instances in the book of acts where people received the Holy Spirit before being baptized.

Eph_4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

This alone refutes baptismal salvation.

Only one instance, that being the household of Cornelius. It is likely Peter would never have baptized these people had he not seen evidence of the Spirit having been given to them. There had to be an exception made for them as a sign to Peter that they acceptable to God.

The sealing in Ephesians 4:30 is a direct reference to baptism.