The Baptism Of Jesus

I believe there is an answer but I dont think we will know it here on this earth. There are just somethings we will never understand until we get to glory.

 

I believe this to be true.

The submission of Jesus to John's baptism shows the above statement to be true. Jesus never changed the baptism of John, though he certainly would have had the authority to do so, John 4 says '...he baptized not...'

I don't know, but he did teach there was one coming after him who would baptize them with the Holy Spirit.

This is a point I had never considered, the presence of the Trinity at the Baptism of Christ.
Good point.

In Acts 19 it is believed that Paul rebaptizing the disciples shows a 'different' baptism. This is not true. The greater context of the chapter including chapter 18 shows Apollos at Ephesus, the men Paul baptized were at Ephesus; they obviously were instructed by Apllos, what does the Holy Spirit say about this?

vs. 25: "This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John."

Is this enough to say that John's baptism had been overruled by another? No.

vs. 26: "And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly."

Did he reject their teaching and claim he had an authority to baptize simply because he was a believer? No.

If he had rejected their teaching he would have not received letters from them when he departed and went into Achaia. vs. 27.

Thus answers the myth that the Baptism of John is not "Christian" baptism. Unless it can be shown where Christ 're-baptized' any of the disciples, or better where it can be shown that Christ pronounced a change in the baptism he received from John.

God Bless.
Bro. dallas

 

I also posted this under 'Close Communion' any further references to the study of Baptism will be brought here, I knew this thread was here, but forgot it sorry.

We must also be reminded that almost all early Baptists rejected a successionist view. John Smyth was one of these, as can be seen in his writings: “I deny all succession except in the truth” and “There is no succession in the outward church, but that all succession is from heaven.”[15]


Third, with his newfound position on baptism, a whole new concern arose for these “Baptists”. Having been baptized as infants, they all realized that they would have to be re-baptized. Since there was no other minister to administer baptism, Smyth baptized himself and then proceeded to baptize his flock.

These quotes taken from A Primer on Baptist History The True Baptist Trail

In the first, John Smyth denies all successionism except spiritual succession; In the second it is shown that he baptized himself; The first quote is stated only in a defense of his baptism. This latter being administered by himself, it is not reminiscent of that which Christ received at the Jordan River from John, is it? Consider these other difficulties:


If Christ meant to change the Baptism of John into a 'Christian' baptism, why did he submit to John's Baptism?
If Baptism changed between this time and the time of the Acts of the Apostles, then why did Philip baptize the Ethiopian Eunich? It
is obvious that the Ethiopian could have baptized himself, even if Philip denied him baptism, right?
Ok, now look at Paul, why was Ananias sent to Baptize Paul, why did the Lord not say that the baptism had been changed since his ascension, and then command Paul to Bapitize himself?

These are much more difficult questions than the supposed lack of evidence for the succession of the baptism has ever been.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

I know you didn't mean this the way it sounds, but when I first read it you know what I thought it was saying.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

First of all, the Baptism that Christ introduced is superior to the baptism of John.

When John was baptizing, he said that he baptized with water, but one would come who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Which baptism is more important, the one in water, or the one in the Holy Spirit? That is meant rhetorically.

The water baptism that we do as baptist now, is because we believe the person has already been baptized by the Holy Spirit (we only dunk those who profess salvation).

John prophesied of a greater baptism. Luke recorded it and reminded everyone of a greater baptism.

Now, Jesus submitted to it for identification purposed. He had to learn obedience to be qualified to be our faithful High Priest (Heb. 5). Baptism is always about identification anyways.

 

Your last statement proves my point, baptism is the door into the church, it does not identify the believer as a believer, not inwardly. This is completed already, but it certainly identifies the believer with the 'body of baptized believer' which is the church.

Next, the baptism Christ introduced was not a water baptism, not even in your scenario, the baptism of the Spirit is a one time historical event occurring on the day of Pentecost and on the assembled church. This is not a 'changing' of John's baptism, his was and remains water baptism. Otherwise, Christ would have certainly felt it necessary to baptize the apostles 'into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.'

I have another question, from who did John receive baptism? The moment recorded at Luke 1.41, is that a baptism or an indwelling?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

I let this one slip by, while I agree with the premise of identification, I would be wary of using a discriptive word such as qualified. I understand what you mean, but some would not.

Bro. Dallas

 

I thought only Methodists got into the methodology of events, focusing on them instead of on the Author of Salvation!

Just as Jesus healed blind people using different methods every time, and did not heal all blind people, the message is:

Do not focus on the method, focus on the author.

John the Baptist was annointing the Messiah, using words given to him by God.

Since NONE of us are called to do what Jesus did, the words do not have to be 100% the same. It's not the words, it's what God is doing that counts.

(For those that are really angry at what I said so far, here's some tongue-in-cheek humor for you.) Gee, let me guess, any baptism that doesn't have God make an announcement like "This is my beloved, in whom I am well pleased" is an invalid baptism?????

Let God do His part His way, and follow His lead.

<><

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. If a person is following the Author, he will do it God's way. People who are not dunked are disobedient to God and it is not a valid baptism (despite what even some on this BAPTIST board have said - not you Andrey).

 

1. I agree that baptism is for intrance into the local church. I would not allow someone to join if they weren't baptized by immersion (as though there was any other way) first.

2. The church in its N.T. usage is an invisible, universal assembly of all believers. The Holy Spirit baptizes all believers into Christ's body. This began at the day of Pentecost.

There is no indication that the body of Christ began prior to pentecost.

3. The baptism Jesus instituted was Spirit baptism and granted one entrance into the Church.

Water baptism grants one into the local church.

The baptism of the Spirit is referred to in 1 Cor., Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians. It was not merely a one time event. It happens to all who call upon the name of the Lord.

 

Daniel David,

Go over to the History forum and join the discussion concerning Hassell's 12 marks of an Apostolic church.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Hi All,
It's my belief and what I was taught in my church(and I AM Southern Baptist) that the baptism done when one accepts Christ - this baptism uses water - is comparable to the birth of a baby. Then, after a Christian grows and matures, he/she goes through another process, WHEN GOD DEEMS IT'S TIME, baptism of the Holy Ghost. This is comparable to a teenager maturing and successfully "passing certain tests of life" God expects of us, a trial by fire in a way. He then baptizes us in the Holy Ghost and just as when we become earthly physcial and emotional adults, in a similar way we become spiritual adults through this second baptism. In both growing up processes we are often unaware of the exact moment, sometimes it's subtle and sometimes it's very obvious, but we do know that it happened to us. We can feel that it did. After baptism of the Holy Ghost, because we are mature and stronger Christians, we are then given higher responsibilities (again similar to physical-earthly adults), such as the gift and ability to prophesy for those who will attain that certain gift, and other gifts for other folks. These gifts can be a difficult responsibility at times and a burden as well as a gift, so it's important that a Christian has matured to the point of being able to carry the load and do his/her work that the gift itself entails, properly.
I know some (if not everyone) will disagree, but anyway that's my belief
Suzie MC

 

I would consider Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27. It is obvious that the baptism of the spirit happens at conversion. So, that is when God deems it is time.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, nominees for this years fiction of the year award are Suzie MC..."

There is just so much of what you said that flies in the face of reality that I don't even want to start. So I won't.

 

I had worried about posting, normally being pretty quiet and I actually had a nightmare that somebody would say something embarrassing and hurtful like this:

>Ladies and Gentlemen, nominees for this years fiction of the year award are Suzie MC..."

There is just so much of what you said that flies in the face of reality that I don't even want to start. So I won't.<

But on the bright side I made it to 3 posts before it happened! Anyway, thanks for having me and thanks so much for all your input about my question of another post, it really helped a lot!
God bless all,
Suzie

 

Suzie, I am the smart-alec. I was not trying to be mean, just a smart-alec. You stated that you were a Baptist and a Southern Baptist at that and didn't understand the Baptist interpretation of tongues and then proceeded to give a very clear Pentacostal/Charismatic understanding of the ministry of the Holy Ghost and stated that that was what you were taught in a Southern Baptist church. I took your very first post very seriously and took the time and effort to respond in a thoughtful and helpful manner. After your next to last post about the Baptism of Jesus I came to think that your weren't as uninformed as I at first believed. Your position is so diametrically opposed to Baptist doctrine that I found it difficult to believe that your questions were legitimate. It seemed as though you really did understand Baptist doctrine on this subject but that you disagreed and were merely wanting to assert your position. Again, I was not trying to be mean, rotten, vicious, and nasty, just a bit of a smart-alec.