Spirit Baptism Vs. Water Baptism

[1ptr29citizen]

I'd just like to say that there is nowhere where baptism is shown as an inward thing, that shows something that's ALREADY happened. Also, it is never mentioned as a public confession. The ethiopian eunuch was baptized very privately, on the side of the road, just him and Phillip, with maybe a chariot driver, MAYBE. And it does note that the eunuch was baptized in water, immediately after hearing the gospel, indicating that baptism was somewhere in the "good news" that Phillip preached.

As to Acts 11 where Peter says that the people were baptized in the Holy Spirit, he is specifically referring to the Gentiles at Cornelius' house in Acts 10. So what was so special about those in Acts 10? They were Gentiles, and from reading Galatians one can see that Peter had a bit of a problem with accepting Gentiles as Christians. The whole point of Acts 10 was to show that God accepts all people, that's what the vision Peter got was about, but he didn't realize that until later. Obviously Peter was just there to preach, because God called Cornelius to get Peter to preach. However, Peter most likely wouldn't have thought that the Gentiles would have been saved. But as soon as God poured out A GIFT of the Holy Spirit (speaking in tongues is a gift, not the saving conscience of God), Peter saw that God was willing to save the Gentiles as well as the Jews that were saved in Acts 2. In Acts 2 it says the Jews were baptized and "added to the Church" considered "those who were being saved." As soon as Peter saw the Gentiles COULD BE saved in Acts 10, what did he immediately do?

Acts 10:46b-48 "Then Peter said, 'Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days."

Hope it is all of help. :t:

[1ptr29citizen]

Jesus baptises those of us in the Holy Spirit who desire it.

Please eplain what you mean by this... A second baptism for elite believers?

I'd just like to point out that seperating baptisms, as being "spiritually baptized" apart from the baptism in water that occured in Acts, isn't the most scriptural thing. It has to be one or the other:

Ephesians 4:5 "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;"

[Guest mcm42]

I'd just like to say that there is nowhere where baptism is shown as an inward thing that shows something that's ALREADY happenedQUOTE]

So we just go around dunking people in water and they are saved? I would say that there is never an instance that baptism occured that something inside didn't happen first. John the baptist would baptize the pharisees because they did not have something happen insided (that is a true repentant heart.)

Show me one example when any apostle, John the baptist or Jesus baptized someone Before they repented or had some sort of inward response first!

indicating that baptism was somewhere in the "good news" that Phillip preached.

Nobody here is saying that it wasn't "somewhere" in the good news. We are saying that it is not absolutly essential for salvation. Well at least that is what I am saying.

1 Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel"

If Baptism was an essential part of the Gospel then what was Paul thinking when he wrote this to the corinthians? And with such a contradiction how could the others with Paul had let this go if they believed it to be essential? Would they not have rebuked him for such a statement?

I'd just like to point out that seperating baptisms, as being "spiritually baptized" apart from the baptism in water that occured in Acts, isn't the most scriptural thing. It has to be one or the other:

I have already quoted multiple verses, namely four gospel accounts about what John the baptist said of Christ ... "I baptize with water, but he baptizes with the Holy Spirit and Fire". Simply put it is clear that both existed, and that both are Biblical. Also which ones are essential and which are not.

If it has to be one or the other, I choose spirit over water, because no water will ever save me, but the Baptism into the Spirit is the only thing that can save me.

[Guest sanctification]

oops!

[1ptr29citizen]

I would say that there is never an instance that baptism occured that something inside didn't happen first.

And I would agree, just not in your line of thinking. All throughout the gospels where people were baptized in water in Christ it is shown that they had some form of a belief in Christ. But you're thinking that baptism in water is showing outwardly the inward salvation you have ALREADY received, which is incorrect because there is no Biblical evidence whatsoever of baptism doing that.

If Baptism was an essential part of the Gospel then what was Paul thinking when he wrote this to the corinthians? And with such a contradiction how could the others with Paul had let this go if they believed it to be essential? Would they not have rebuked him for such a statement?

All I can say is that you read the context. After reading the context, if you still can't see Paul's point in why he said what he said in that verse, then I suggest looking on the Baptism? forum. It is locked, but this verse rises question several times throughout that board. Look for it, great explanations are often given.

"I baptize with water, but he baptizes with the Holy Spirit and Fire". Simply put it is clear that both existed

First of all, do you even understand the significance of "fire" in that verse? Many who believe in non-physical baptism only overlook that Christ also baptizes in fire. Have YOU been immersed in flame? But anyways... I'm not talking about the difference between John's baptism and Jesus' baptism, because if you look at it like that then yes, they both coexisted. However, in the context of Ephesians 4 where it says there is one baptism, it is clear it is talking about God and Christ around that baptism, not like the baptism of repentance. In Acts 19 Paul compares and contrasts the difference between John's baptism of repentance and Jesus' baptism. In the end, Jesus' baptism is the only baptism that stands firm. So keeping in mind that John's baptism was nullified after Christ was resurrected, why would people continue to baptize in water? Because that's what baptism is. It means in water, it's how it was done then, how it should be done now, period. It's not immersion in water that saves my friend, it's the resurrection of Christ. But looking at 1 Peter 3:21, one can see that you are saved by the resurrection of Christ THROUGH baptism.

[serotta]

I just don't understand how any physical act, including baptism, can save you. Should we be baptised? Yes it is an outward sign of our inner cleansing, but it is not the act of being immersed in water that saves you. We are saved by God's grace. A person accepts God's grace during an alter call, but has a heart attack and dies before he is able to be baptised? This person is going to be refused entry into the kingdom of Heaven? Nope, I cannot believe that.

[Guest mcm42]

not immersion in water that saves my friend, it's the resurrection of Christ. But looking at 1 Peter 3:21, one can see that you are saved by the resurrection of Christ THROUGH baptism.

"And corresponding to that Baptism now saves you- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

Is water baptism the same thing as "an appeal to God for a good conscience?"

The word But means not this BUT this... the first is water baptism... the secondis an appeal to God for a good question.

Since the sentence is set up like this

this... not this...BUT This...

Dodge... not a Neon... But an Inrepid...

Baptism... Not water... But an appeal to God for a good conscience.

Please explain how you handle this.

[Guest mcm42]

one can see that you are saved by the resurrection of Christ THROUGH baptism.

Funny I thought it was by grace through faith that we are saved.

[Guest london]

I just don't understand how any physical act, including baptism, can save you. Should we be baptised? Yes it is an outward sign of our inner cleansing, but it is not the act of being immersed in water that saves you. We are saved by God's grace. A person accepts God's grace during an alter call, but has a heart attack and dies before he is able to be baptised? This person is going to be refused entry into the kingdom of Heaven? Nope, I cannot believe that.

Well, serrota, I'm sure you are familiar with the verse that says "We are saved by grace through faith." I'd like to focus in on through faith. Here a passage found in James that may help answer your question about physical acts. *note: in no way am i calling you a "foolish man" that's just what the verse says. haha.

James 2:20-24

"You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

I believe that the passage here clearly says that if you have faith then your actions will follow up. Yes, I know that it doesn't have a direct reference to baptism but if you did have faith in Christ and believe baptism was necessary for salvation, would you not be baptised. According to this passage and in this circumstance, I believe the answer would be that you would. And yes, i also realize that you don't agree baptism is necessary for salvation but that's not the point that i'm getting at. If we are saved through faith, which works hand in hand with our physical actions and would be dead without them (James 2:26), would our physical actions not also be apart of our salvation. The point i'm trying to make is that action and faith must be present in order for justification, or, if you will, salvation because true faith bring about action according to the main passage above.

You may argue that it is "not by works that we are saved." You would be correct in saying that because it is definately Scriptural. But let's think about that. If it were up to us alone (as in w/o Christ) to get to heaven by works would we make it? Well no, because we're imperfect. It's by God's grace that He sent Christ to redeem us so that we would have a way to heaven. We accept that grace, i believe, through baptism.

As far as recieving salvation through God's grace and acceptance or baptism, it would take me too long to discuss all of it at the moment. Perhaps you should read the other locked forum - "Baptism?" It should interest you. I do disagree that the point of acceptance is at an alter call (which i'm not exactly practicing the term but i do understand what you mean). Rather, i propose to you that complete acceptance of salvation does occur at baptism. As far as if someone dies after or during the alter call, it is not for man to judge whether they are saved. We may never know. God/His Word is the judge and will be the judge in that situation. It is not for man to say for certain. I hope my post has been of some enlightenment and I haven't been of any offense.

[Guest london]

Baptism... Not water... But an appeal to God for a good conscience.

I believe you have changed the words.  It says "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pladge of a good conscience toward God." or in your own format "Baptism... not washing dirt...  but pledging a good conscience toward God"  It does not say "not water" and may i remind that we should not add, take away or alter the Bible. 

It think it is distinguishing physical from spritual.  Think about it... why would he need to reference to physical cleansing done by water if there was nothing to confuse with it spiritually.  Confusing? (I had to read it a couple time to make sure it made sense)  Let me refrase - Does baptism of the Spirit wash dirt off the body?  I believe Peter is saying basically "The water that you are being baptised in isn't washing the dirt off your body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God."  If it was talking about Spirit baptism why would he refer to a physical washing of dirt? It would be irrelevant. There would be nothing to confuse of whether the Spirit was getting rid of physical dirt or sins because the Spirit doesn't get rid of physical dirt.  I hope that I'm not being too redundant and that you understand what i'm trying to say.  I know my wording is very confusing, i apologize. 

QUOTE

one can see that you are saved by the resurrection of Christ THROUGH baptism.

Funny I thought it was by grace through faith that we are saved.

As far as being saved through faith and through baptism. Make reference to my previous post. Faith and actions work harmoniously. Those two (faith and baptism) work together for salvation. And if you really want to get technicalb aren't we also saved through hearing, and through believing, and through the resurrection of Christ. And don't forget Jesus says "No one comes to the Father except through me." Are you possibly saying that you must choose only one to get to heaven? (and I'm pretty sure you aren't saying that) But the Bible says they are necessary for salvation and it also says that there is only one way to heaven? (I regret not having an available passage at the moment but I trust that you know that already) We know that the Bible doesn't not contradict itself so how does that makes sense. It tells me that all of these are harmoniously essential for salvation.

Again, I hope i brought some enlightenment and have done justice to God's Word.