What is The Baptism that saves us now?

[Hidden In Him]

I disagree. It's made up because some protestants cannot understand the role of Baptism with water.
In Acts1:5 Luke writes that Jesus told the apostles
"for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
In his gospel Luke writes that Jesus told the apostles
"And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Lk 24:49)
I believe both are referring to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
But we don't people going on about anything about "power clothes".
"Have you got your power clothes yet?"
It's obviously a metaphor, the same as Acts 1:5

This is because you are defining the word by its strictly religious meaning in modern times rather than interpreting the Greek word according to its base meaning of "immerse." It was not a strictly "religious" word during New Testament times and thus did not carry a strictly "religious" meaning. The analogy of being "clothed in power" is indeed a metaphor, but βαπτίζω was used in Greek of immersing bread in wine, of cities being immersed in people (i.e. becoming crowded), of ships becoming immersed in water (i.e. sinking), and of people being immersed in water when they were simply bathing (not undergoing a purely religious ritual).

This is how you understand the accurate meaning of the word. When Pentecost came, they were immersed in the power of the Holy Spirit just as when they were immersed in water in baptism. Both were "baptisms" in two different substances; one water, the other the Holy Spirit and Fire.

Scripture doesn't use the term "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" only the verb form.

It's not a metaphor, unless one thinks that every time they dipped bread in wine they used a religious metaphor to describe how they were "baptizing" it, and if it the verb form is not a metaphor then your argument falls flat. It is proper to use the term baptism in water because they were being baptized in water, and it is proper to use the term baptism in the Holy Spirit (whether the noun form actually appears in scripture or not) because they were being "baptized," i.e. immersed in the Holy Spirit.

 

[jaybo]

Thankfully our Blessed Lord did not condition salvation on handling snakes and drinking poison.

Did you even read my post? I addressed your objection - in detail - right here ---> https://christianforums.net/threads/what-is-the-baptism-that-saves-us-now.91910/post-1691596

The condition / "emphasis" as you state, is on belief AND baptism.

I'll repost what I wrote...

...But the teaching of Jesus in Mark 16.16 is NOT what is required to be damned, but what is required to be saved. The conclusion many of you are trying to reach-- which is that because not believing alone is sufficient to condemn, therefore believing alone is sufficient to be saved -- is both illogical, and false to the text.

First, our Blessed Lord describes two necessary conditions in the first clause: belief and baptism. In the second clause, He is describing a person who, by not believing, lacks the first essential condition. Ergo, that person will not be saved.

Second, why do you all seem to think that because Jesus doesn't mention baptism in the second clause, that He's taking back what He said about the need for baptism in the first clause? He was clearly understandable to the Apostles -- and to the entire Christian world except for a minority of Protestant dissenters -- to be saying that he who believes them when they preach the Gospel, and therefore believe their preaching of baptism for the remission of their sins (Act 2.38) -- and obey, will be saved. It's obvious that Jesus and His Apostles understood that no one who refused the Gospel was going to be baptized. Why would he?

Furthermore, you are being false to the text by attempting to use the second clause to nullify the first. Jesus already introduced belief as one of two necessary conditions for salvation in the first clause. Since the unbeliever in the second clause already lacks the one of the two essential conditions, there is no reason to even mention the second, which would be insufficient by itself. Why would there need to be a separate penalty for not being baptized or any other omission? The person who doesn't believe has already failed to meet one of the two necessary conditions that Jesus just laid down: belief and baptism. There is no logical need for an additional "penalty."

Are you and the other anti-Sacramentalists asking us to believe that Jesus' command in Mark 16.16 is His way of saying if you don't get baptized, God won't hold that against you? In other words, baptism is just a suggestion?

Believe what you want and cite verses that aren't a legitimate part of Scripture. I don't care to discuss this any further. Baptism does not save. It is a ritual or a "work", neither of which saves you.

 

[Hopeful]

It isn't a matter of seeing it differently. Like I said, you are not understanding the specific point I was addressing.

If they are not born once, why would they need to be born twice?

 

[Walpole]

Believe what you want and cite verses that aren't a legitimate part of Scripture. I don't care to discuss this any further. Baptism does not save. It is a ritual or a "work", neither of which saves you.

So much for sola Scriptura!

Next time I see you mention sola Scriptura, I'll remind you of this post, whereby you question the actual legitimacy of Scripture.

 

[Mungo]

This is because you are defining the word by its strictly religious meaning in modern times rather than interpreting the Greek word according to its base meaning of "immerse." It was not a strictly "religious" word during New Testament times and thus did not carry a strictly "religious" meaning. The analogy of being "clothed in power" is indeed a metaphor, but βαπτίζω was used in Greek of immersing bread in wine, of cities being immersed in people (i.e. becoming crowded), of ships becoming immersed in water (i.e. sinking), and of people being immersed in water when they were simply bathing (not undergoing a purely religious ritual).

This is how you understand the accurate meaning of the word. When Pentecost came, they were immersed in the power of the Holy Spirit just as when they were immersed in water in baptism. Both were "baptisms" in two different substances; one water, the other the Holy Spirit and Fire.


It's not a metaphor, unless one thinks that every time they dipped bread in wine they used a religious metaphor to describe how they were "baptizing" it, and if it the verb form is not a metaphor then your argument falls flat. It is proper to use the term baptism in water because they were being baptized in water, and it is proper to use the term baptism in the Holy Spirit (whether the noun form actually appears in scripture or not) because they were being "baptized," i.e. immersed in the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary you are taking the word baptizo too literally.
I think it is wrong to treat baptizo as simply a Greek word with various meanings. It is the name of a Jewish, and later Christian, ritual and therefore expresses the meaning of the ritual and not of all the Greek word possibilities.

The origins are the ritual purification of full body washing known in Hebrew as tevilah in a mikvah (ritual bath). Mikvah means a gathering of water and so a river is a mikvah. Since rivers were not commonly available it was any suitable pool of water, but not a free standing bath in the modern sense. It had to be dug into the ground, or built into the structure of a building and should contain rainwater with a minimum of 77 gallons. Bathing should be by total immersion and naked to ensure every part of the body was purified.

When the Jews and Evangelists wrote in Greek they avoided the Greek words for bathe and bath because of the sexual connotations. The Greek communal bathing was a place of gossip (often crude), communal nudity and homosexuality. So they used the word baptizo (and it’s derivatives) instead. The word therefore expresses this ritual purification in water. It is unnecessary to say “water baptism” as water was integral to the process, just as it was unnecessary to say a water mikvar or a water tevilah. That is what baptism was and is. There was no “dry” baptism.

 

[jaybo]

On the contrary you are taking the word baptizo too literally.
I think it is wrong to treat baptizo as simply a Greek word with various meanings. It is the name of a Jewish, and later Christian, ritual and therefore expresses the meaning of the ritual and not of all the Greek word possibilities.

The origins are the ritual purification of full body washing known in Hebrew as tevilah in a mikvah (ritual bath). Mikvah means a gathering of water and so a river is a mikvah. Since rivers were not commonly available it was any suitable pool of water, but not a free standing bath in the modern sense. It had to be dug into the ground, or built into the structure of a building and should contain rainwater with a minimum of 77 gallons. Bathing should be by total immersion and naked to ensure every part of the body was purified.

When the Jews and Evangelists wrote in Greek they avoided the Greek words for bathe and bath because of the sexual connotations. The Greek communal bathing was a place of gossip (often crude), communal nudity and homosexuality. So they used the word baptizo (and it’s derivatives) instead. The word therefore expresses this ritual purification in water. It is unnecessary to say “water baptism” as water was integral to the process, just as it was unnecessary to say a water mikvar or a water tevilah. That is what baptism was and is. There was no “dry” baptism.

Is that why Jesus changed the ceremonial water into wine?

 

[Walpole]

On the contrary you are taking the word baptizo too literally.
I think it is wrong to treat baptizo as simply a Greek word with various meanings. It is the name of a Jewish, and later Christian, ritual and therefore expresses the meaning of the ritual and not of all the Greek word possibilities.

The origins are the ritual purification of full body washing known in Hebrew as tevilah in a mikvah (ritual bath). Mikvah means a gathering of water and so a river is a mikvah. Since rivers were not commonly available it was any suitable pool of water, but not a free standing bath in the modern sense. It had to be dug into the ground, or built into the structure of a building and should contain rainwater with a minimum of 77 gallons. Bathing should be by total immersion and naked to ensure every part of the body was purified.

When the Jews and Evangelists wrote in Greek they avoided the Greek words for bathe and bath because of the sexual connotations. The Greek communal bathing was a place of gossip (often crude), communal nudity and homosexuality. So they used the word baptizo (and it’s derivatives) instead. The word therefore expresses this ritual purification in water. It is unnecessary to say “water baptism” as water was integral to the process, just as it was unnecessary to say a water mikvar or a water tevilah. That is what baptism was and is. There was no “dry” baptism.

Great point.

Another example is when St. Luke describes the Pharisee who got upset with Jesus because he did not wash (baptizo) before dinner.

Luke 11:38 ---> "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed (baptizō) before dinner."


Here is a passage from the Mishnah, describing exactly the Jewish washing of hands, which St. Luke references and includes...water.

---> https://archive.org/stream/DanbyMish.../n807/mode/2up

 

[Hidden In Him]

On the contrary you are taking the word baptizo too literally.
I think it is wrong to treat baptizo as simply a Greek word with various meanings. It is the name of a Jewish, and later Christian, ritual and therefore expresses the meaning of the ritual and not of all the Greek word possibilities.

The origins are the ritual purification of full body washing known in Hebrew as tevilah in a mikvah (ritual bath). Mikvah means a gathering of water and so a river is a mikvah. Since rivers were not commonly available it was any suitable pool of water, but not a free standing bath in the modern sense. It had to be dug into the ground, or built into the structure of a building and should contain rainwater with a minimum of 77 gallons. Bathing should be by total immersion and naked to ensure every part of the body was purified.

When the Jews and Evangelists wrote in Greek they avoided the Greek words for bathe and bath because of the sexual connotations. The Greek communal bathing was a place of gossip (often crude), communal nudity and homosexuality. So they used the word baptizo (and it’s derivatives) instead. The word therefore expresses this ritual purification in water. It is unnecessary to say “water baptism” as water was integral to the process, just as it was unnecessary to say a water mikvar or a water tevilah. That is what baptism was and is. There was no “dry” baptism.

Again, I don't think your position holds up in light of the word's use in scripture. But let me ask for your interpretation on a few verses to see what your answers would be:

- When Namaan the Syrian was told by Elisha to wash in the Jordon seven times, were these seven ritual baptisms or merely seven washings? (καὶ κατέβη Ναιμαν καὶ ἐβαπτίσατο ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ ἑπτάκι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Ελισαιε, καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ ὡς σὰρξ παιδαρίου μικροῦ, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη. 2 Kings 5:14).

- When Judith went out by night, did she baptize herself or did she simply wash herself in a fountain of water? ( καὶ ἐβαπτίζετο ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἐπὶ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος· Judith 12:7)

 

[Hidden In Him]

Luke 11:38 ---> "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed (baptizō) before dinner."

Greetings, Walpole.

I'm not sure this really strengthens his case, but rather weakens it, but I appreciate your sharing this verse as it further supports what I am telling him: There are instances in scripture where the word was clearly used in a non-ritualistic sense, hence it is incorrect to argue, as he is doing, that "it is wrong to treat baptizo as simply a Greek word with various meanings." It indeed does have a ritualistic and non-ritualistic sense, which is why translators distinguish between the two in instances like this and the others I mentioned.

 

[Free]

If they are not born once, why would they need to be born twice?

Please leave it alone. I was addressing a specific argument being made, using simply logic, but you have completely missed the point.

 

[Walpole]

Greetings, Walpole.

I'm not sure this really strengthens his case, but rather weakens it, but I appreciate your sharing this verse as it further supports what I am telling him: There are instances in scripture where the word was clearly used in a non-ritualistic sense, hence it is incorrect to argue, as he is doing, that "it is wrong to treat baptizo as simply a Greek word with various meanings." It indeed does have a ritualistic and non-ritualistic sense, which is why translators distinguish between the two in instances like this and the others I mentioned.

If you think what I posted strengthens your case, perhaps you can provide an example of the telivah or the yadaim done sans water?


Similarly, at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel, when our Blessed Lord instructs His Apostles to teach and baptize all nations, He gives the Apostles the the proper form for administering baptism, "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Mt 28:19)

Do you know of anyone using this form to administer a baptism sans water? In other words, are "dry baptisms" administered by simply saying over someone, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" sans water?

 

[Runmyramble]

What is the Baptisms that saves us Now?

Was there a Baptism that saved them then?

Under the Law ritual washings...

Under Faith The Spirit of Christ the living word.

But now not washings by water the dirt off skin

Vs. What?

Now the washing of the conscience by the quickening of the Holy Ghost

Salvation Does not begin with us or end with us....but in the middle God is with us.

We must enter the living word ...walking in faith, heeding to the Holy Spirit.

Now this is about 1 Peter 3:21




And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you—not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,


One can have a clear conscience because of what Christ accomplished.
It is Christ that overcame death....so that we may live by His Life(Spirit)

So Why would your water Baptism be a pledge of a good conscience before God?

Are you the one that remains faithful?

Since we are on the subject of pledge...Let's look at passages that coincides.

Ephesian 1:13 [arrhabon] ernest security (Hebrew word) pledge

13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

So the Holy Spirit is the Pledge...and it was promised by God....
Was it also the seal of Abraham's faith who is the father of us all...(gentile too)?

Where in scripture was the Holy Spirit promised by God....and what scripture shows what the conscience is clean by...

Ezekiel 36
27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Hebrews 9:14
How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!”

 

[Hidden In Him]

If you think what I posted strengthens your case, perhaps you can provide an example of the telivah or the yadaim done sans water?


Similarly, at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel, when our Blessed Lord instructs His Apostles to teach and baptize all nations, He gives the Apostles the the proper form for administering baptism, "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Mt 28:19)

Do you know of anyone using this form to administer a baptism sans water? In other words, are "dry baptisms" administered by simply saying over someone, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" sans water?

Why would I argue for that? You think I am denouncing water baptism?

 

[Walpole]

Why would I argue for that? You think I am denouncing water baptism?

I think you may have missed the point…

Implicit in the word is the use of water.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think you may have missed the point…

Implicit in the word is the use of water.

Generally implicit in the word is some form of substance things can be immersed in. I have already demonstrated it did not have an exclusively religious use, not even in scripture itself let alone classical Greek, and that the basic meaning was simply "immerse." It was used in reference to water, dyes, wine, blood, etc. Are you arguing that water is the only substance anything can be immersed in, and that the Holy Spirit therefore cannot apply?

Pardon the expression, but I don't think that theory "holds water," Lol.

 

[Walpole]

Generally implicit in the word is some form of substance things can be immersed in. I have already demonstrated it did not have an exclusively religious use, not even in scripture itself let alone classical Greek, and that the basic meaning was simply "immerse." It was used in reference to water, dyes, wine, blood, etc. Are you arguing that water is the only substance anything can be immersed in, and that the Holy Spirit therefore cannot apply?

Pardon the expression, but I don't think that theory "holds water," Lol.

Nice pun!

I think we are talking past each other. When used in context of the Christian ritual, implicit is the use of water. Hence, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is not done sans water. It would not only be invalid, but incompatible with the Christian faith.

 

[Hopeful]

Please leave it alone. I was addressing a specific argument being made, using simply logic, but you have completely missed the point.

Then please make your point.
Thanks.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think we are talking past each other. When used in context of the Christian ritual, implicit is the use of water. Hence, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is not done sans water. It would not only be invalid, but incompatible with the Christian faith.

If it helps any, I agree with Mungo in principle that the baptism in the Holy Spirit should follow immediately on the heals of water baptism in the same way it did with the Lord Himself. The trouble is that this is not always the case, as was evident even during NT times. But being baptized with water and then baptized with the Holy Spirit are supposed to coincide, as a reflection of the saint dying to the fleshly man of old and being raised up "in Spirit" anew.

 

[n2thelight]

Baptism is not a requirement for being saved

 

[n2thelight]

I Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

You are not going to get rid of the filth of the flesh body and it's nature until you pass away. However, just as the water floated the ark to give salvation to Noah from the flood, so also your baptism of a good conscience toward God, which is by your faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ shall save us today. The one is a type of cleansing, but don't loose sight of the fact that it is only a type. The only thing that can cleanse you from your sins is the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross. Jesus was the only pure one that could pay the price because wee all fall short of God's law. You can't get rid of the flesh as long as you are in it, and flesh is sin.