WATER BAPTISMS VS HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM..which one is right?

mrcrow · Jun 9, 2005

i feel they are the same and the one...you dont necessarily have to have water baptism...not all did...but then again they do not preclude each other or take preference...
you need to receive the holy spirit and you may do so at the time of baptism
baptism of john iirc is the water one..???
on the other hand you may receive the holy spirit and not be water baptised...some did.
if you need a mechanism to receive the holy spirit it may be a false spirit who sneaks in on your 'desire'
i was converted before i got baptised...and only did because i felt it was relevant but not vital

SPALATIN · Jun 9, 2005

billywhizz said:
hi,
Would you like me to prove to you there is a God as well otherwise you wont believe that.
You seem to be saying that you have to be baptised in water in order to be saved, is that correct? Please tell me you dont believe that!

thanks rob

Well let's see. Yes, I do believe that. As a Christian who is very loyal to my Lutheran theology and background it is very much true that God uses a means of Grace in a physical element such as water and when attaching God's word to it becomes that which washes away my sin, your sin, my baby's sin etc. This is how we are BORN AGAIN and not by some emotional feeling of elatedness that you preach. Emotion does not bring us faith, but faith can lead us to be emotional. I put all my faith on Christ and what he did for me on the cross 2000 years ago and when I consider that I am awed by his sacrifice.

From what I have seen you are more into where the emotion of "being in the Spirit" can take you.

For me it is not necessary to "feel" the Spirit but to have the faith and assurance through my Baptism that he will always be there unless I reject him of my own free will.

We do not have free will to choose God or to seek him out.

Zoomer · Jun 9, 2005

It says in eph4 that there is only one baptism. That being the case, the question is which one, Holy spirit or water?

As there is only one, then one of them is obviously not needed or possibly worse!

I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins. One must be born of water and the Spirit. How can one be baptized with water and the Spirit and only have one baptism. The answer is that water baptism is a means in which we receive the Spirit. One baptism of water and Spirit.

Blackhawk · Jun 9, 2005

billywhizz said:
Not quite certain whether you are agreeing with me or not , sorry

rob

What I am saying is that I do not think the Eph 4 passage is talking about one baptism in the sense that you are using it. It is not about 1 mode of baptism. It is not about whether one sprinkles or dunks or whatever. I think the one refers to the who not to the what. So the only Baptism is the one that comes from God. Just the same as the one faith is the one that comes from God. So asking whether the one baptism is water baptism or of the Holy Spirit is missing the point.

Strong in Him · Jun 9, 2005

The Son of God himself chose to submit to water baptism, he didn't have to. If it had been wrong, don't you think the one who could even see into the hearts of men would have avoided it? It was after his baptism that God spoke affirming that Jesus was his Son, he loved him and was pleased with him.

Baptism means - or comes from a word meaning - immersion. Early converts were immersed in water, having confessed their sins and declared faith in Jesus. The water did not save them, the confession did. It was just an outward symbol of what had happened to them. Paul writes about this in Romans 6 - when people were baptised, they were baptised into Jesus' death. John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan; for the Jews, the Jordan symbolised death. This is what the last verse of "Guide me o thou great Redeemer", refers to;
"when I tread the verge of Jordan,
bide my anxious fears subside" etc
The hymn writer is asking that God will give us peace at the hour of death, and bring us safely to "Canaan's side" - into his presence.
A new believer being immersed in water was making the statement that they had died to their sins; as they came up out of the water, it symbolised being raised with Christ, which we will experience one day.

Baptism in the Spirit means, to me, being immersed in the Holy Spirit. I know we are told to be filled, and go on being filled, with the Holy Spirit, but am not sure if Baptism in the Spirit is a "one time event" or if it can be repeated often.

Whatever the case, these two do not contradict each other, and it should not be a case of either - or. We are baptised in the name of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is symbolic of the faith we have professed and the new life we have already received. We are baptised in the Holy Spirit because we need his power and strength, and need to become more like Jesus.

At least, that's what I think.

billywhizz · Jun 9, 2005

hi all,
thanks for replys so far, ithink that they have all been pretty well answered already, though may be missed by some. I shall to incorperate them all in this post.

Firstly think of this; if there were tests in the old testament then why could the baptism in water not be a test? Now of course it does not say that in scripture but if it were pointed out that it was a test we would not fail would we! Keeping this in mind lets try to answer some of questions.

If you check through all the gospels from where john baptised in water through to acts lets say, there is a clear change from judaism to christianity.
I understand that some of you may all ready have preconceived ideas, i my self use to believe in them though i always saw that something was not quite right. How for example could people get baptised 'immediatly'. What did they do just jump straight in, assuming there was water there?!

All things were not explained to the apostles that was one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit the spirit of Truth jh14 . Why was phillip spirited away so quickly? Why did we never have a strange ocurrence like that again?

Peter realised he was wrong in acts 11, when he said 'who was i to appose God'. Other people might have there own interpretation of that. You need to realise that the Holy Spirit had already been given, so there was no need to baptise in water, 'do not call anything unclean that i [God] have made clean.acts11

Peter also says: 'then i remembered what the Lord had said, [who brought it to rememberance, the HS] john baptised with water but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit!

Is this helping?!
If you cant see that we must rely on GOD and JESUS CHRISTS righteouness alone, and if that does not really 'hit you' as it were, then you are probably not going to get it.

Matt 23 said about the cleaning of the outside of the cup and platter while the inside remains unclean.

Being baptised in water does nothing and may be even worse than that if you think that it is actually washing away your sins! Everything is a shadow of the things to come.

Any one taking this posting seriously, should think very carefully, and read the word slowly and pray, it will come if you truly seek to find the truth heb 11.6
Please dont take that the wrong way, we are all christians trying to find the way mat7

Born again; water and the spirit, the water is the word of God, eph5, that you have been washed with, and jh6.

That will have to do for now,

May God be with you

rob

Strong in Him · Jun 9, 2005

billywhizz said:
Peter realised he was wrong in acts 11, when he said 'who was i to appose God'. Other people might have there own interpretation of that. You need to realise that the Holy Spirit had already been given, so there was no need to baptise in water, 'do not call anything unclean that i [God] have made clean.acts11

Peter also says: 'then i remembered what the Lord had said, [who brought it to rememberance, the HS] john baptised with water but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit!

Is this helping?!

This particular quote isn't helping at all, because Acts 11 is not about Baptism, it's about Gentiles receiving the Gospel.

If you read Acts 10, it's about a God fearing Gentile called Cornelius, who received a message - in a vision - to send for Simon Peter. Peter would not normally have gone into the house of a gentile, but himself had a vision from God in which he was instructed not to consider unclean something that God regarded as clean. After this, he received the messengers from Cornelius, went to his house, preached the Gospel and witnessed them being filled with the Holy Spirit. Those around him were astonished that God should bless even the gentiles in this way.
When the other apostles heard of Peter going into the house of an uncircumcised man and having fellowship with him, they criticised him, (Acts 11v2+3) Peter then explained his whole experience, including how God had filled Cornelius with the Holy Spirit, and reminded them that this was what John the Baptist had prophesied about Jesus.

He was explaining to them that it was God's will for the Gentiles to receive the Gospel - contrary to what he had previously thought - and says "who was I to oppose God?" IE if God wants to give his Spirit to people that he had previously considered to be unclean, who was he to stand in his way?
It is not about methods of baptism.

Rich48 · Jun 9, 2005

Strong in Him said:
This particular quote isn't helping at all, because Acts 11 is not about Baptism, it's about Gentiles receiving the Gospel.

If you read Acts 10, it's about a God fearing Gentile called Cornelius, who received a message - in a vision - to send for Simon Peter. Peter would not normally have gone into the house of a gentile, but himself had a vision from God in which he was instructed not to consider unclean something that God regarded as clean. After this, he received the messengers from Cornelius, went to his house, preached the Gospel and witnessed them being filled with the Holy Spirit. Those around him were astonished that God should bless even the gentiles in this way.
When the other apostles heard of Peter going into the house of an uncircumcised man and having fellowship with him, they criticised him, (Acts 11v2+3) Peter then explained his whole experience, including how God had filled Cornelius with the Holy Spirit, and reminded them that this was what John the Baptist had prophesied about Jesus.

He was explaining to them that it was God's will for the Gentiles to receive the Gospel - contrary to what he had previously thought - and says "who was I to oppose God?" IE if God wants to give his Spirit to people that he had previously considered to be unclean, who was he to stand in his way?
It is not about methods of baptism.

Exactly! Again-attempting to apply this passage to baptism is going to the scripture to prove a pre-conceived notion, and NOT taking the passage in context.

Rich

billywhizz · Jun 10, 2005

Rich48 said:
Exactly! Again-attempting to apply this passage to baptism is going to the scripture to prove a pre-conceived notion, and NOT taking the passage in context.

Rich

I agree, i also use to believe a pre-conceived idea about water baptisms but i have since then realised that i was wrong. The only one that is going to save you now is Jesus Christ, the Spirit of truth jh14, he said he was the truth jh14, and he said he would not leave us as orphans, he said another counsellor lived with them though he had not yet sent it jh14, He does not leave us as orphans, He does come back to us, as the Spirit 2cor3.17 that we need, to be saved. He who believes and is baptised will be saved mk16

may the Lord be with us all

rob

Archangel · Jun 10, 2005

Both are correct.

Spirit Baptisim occurs when a person recieves Christ. Water baptisim is their symbolic act in response to their faith. Spirit baptisim is not some wacky event that makes you a btter chrstian..no it happens when u becoem a christian...because the bible says that we have been given the gift of the Spirit when we received Christ.

Be Happy · Jun 10, 2005

like i said, no where in the bible does it say that we have to be baptised in water.

The Acts passage shows example.

We live by example when no direct command is given.

If the Eunuch was baptised in water afterwards, that is plenty enough precedent to show that we all should be.

billywhizz · Jun 10, 2005

Archangel said:
Both are correct.

Spirit Baptisim occurs when a person recieves Christ. Water baptisim is their symbolic act in response to their faith. Spirit baptisim is not some wacky event that makes you a btter chrstian..no it happens when u becoem a christian...because the bible says that we have been given the gift of the Spirit when we received Christ.

hi,

Unless someone can correct me, i dont see in the bible anywhere where it says either 'symbolic act' or 'outward expression of an inward reality' both of which are used frequently by christians to explain something that is not in the bible using phrases that are not in the bible [now watch everybody check through all my postings to say the same about me].

There are three things in question here in my opinion:

1 if water baptisms are not needed and just an 'expression' of someones faith, then why do them, and why defend them so much?

2 If they are not needed, then are we insulting Jesus who paid such a high price of suffering for us, and does that effect our salvation?

3 If they are needed, then why is it not rock solid clear, that you must be baptised in water to be saved?

yours in Christ

rob

Forest · Jun 10, 2005

Be Happy said:
The Acts passage shows example.

We live by example when no direct command is given.

If the Eunuch was baptised in water afterwards, that is plenty enough precedent to show that we all should be.

I have wondered about living by example when no command is given.

We also have the examples of only the apostles and an evangelist baptising, does that mean that only an apostle or evangelist can baptise?

Saint_George · Jun 10, 2005

billywhizz said:
hi,
mat28.19 baptise in the NAME [singular] of the Father Son Holy Spirit is the baptism of the Lord Jesus in acts. That is the baptism of the Spirit, the spirit of Truth jh14
No where in the bible are we commanded to be baptised in water, Peter incedently was mistaken which he realised later, and Paul apposed him 'to his face', in galatians, about 'the circumsion', which also is works, though no one seems to be calling to bring that one back.

rob

Hey, no offense but in your posts you are taking scripture out of context. I suggest reading before and after the quotes you want to use.

billywhizz · Jun 10, 2005

Forest said:
I have wondered about living by example when no command is given.

We also have the examples of only the apostles and an evangelist baptising, does that mean that only an apostle or evangelist can baptise?

hi
good point! Perhaps we should take the example of Paul who said he was not sent to baptise but preach the gospel! naa! that would be too easy eh! And too scriptural

billywhizz · Jun 10, 2005

Saint_George said:
Hey, no offense but in your posts you are taking scripture out of context. I suggest reading before and after the quotes you want to use.

hi
out of context? please explain.

yours in Christ

rob

billywhizz · Jun 10, 2005

Forest said:
I have wondered about living by example when no command is given.

We also have the examples of only the apostles and an evangelist baptising, does that mean that only an apostle or evangelist can baptise?

Hi
Jesus gave the example. He had to be baptised in water to fullfil the law and all righteousness. We, being gentiles are not under the Law, so are not supposed to be baptised in water, which is an outward cleansing.

We need the living water, the inward cleansing ,mat23 .jh7: 37.39 Ask and it will be freely given, rev& jn4

yours in Christ

rob

Forest · Jun 10, 2005

billywhizz said:
hi
good point! Perhaps we should take the example of Paul who said he was not sent to baptise but preach the gospel! naa! that would be too easy eh! And too scriptural

But Paul did baptise.

Strong in Him · Jun 10, 2005

billywhizz said:
hi,

Unless someone can correct me, i dont see in the bible anywhere where it says either 'symbolic act' or 'outward expression of an inward reality' both of which are used frequently by christians to explain something that is not in the bible using phrases that are not in the bible [now watch everybody check through all my postings to say the same about me].

There are three things in question here in my opinion:

1 if water baptisms are not needed and just an 'expression' of someones faith, then why do them, and why defend them so much?

2 If they are not needed, then are we insulting Jesus who paid such a high price of suffering for us, and does that effect our salvation?

3 If they are needed, then why is it not rock solid clear, that you must be baptised in water to be saved?

yours in Christ

rob

Hi Rob,

You could also say the same about circumcision, which was the outward sign of a covenant that God made with Abraham. Boys grew up with a visible sign (to them anyway!) on their bodies that they had been circumcised according to this covenant. It didn't save them, or guarantee that they would keep God's law however. So you could ask well why did they do it then? Simple - God told them to. There are other things mentioned in the Bible that are outward signs. The rainbow was to be a sign of God's promise that he would never again flood the earth; when the Israelites were leaving Egypt, a pillar of fire and a cloud were signs of God's presence, that he was leading them as he had said he would. Being anointed with oil was a sign that a person was being set apart for God, and often preceded that person being filled with the Holy Spirit. (Saul and David were both anointed kings, for example.) The oils was holy and consecrated, but was not itself the Holy Spirit.

Baptism itself doesn't save, the profession of faith does. Baptism is the sign of a new way of life, it was probably a public event, and so was a public declaration of faith, and demonstration of repentance and willingness to follow Jesus. Jesus himself baptised, (John 3v22), and told his disciples to go and baptise people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Lack of baptism does not affect our salvation, I believe. There are some situations where people have not been able to be baptised after a confession of faith and before death. I do not beleive they would be condemned for something they had no control over. Jesus is the only way to God - not baptism.

Stinker · Jun 10, 2005

billywhizz said:
It says in eph4 that there is only one baptism. That being the case, the question is which one, Holy spirit or water?

As there is only one, then one of them is obviously not needed or possibly worse!

No where in the bible are we commanded to be baptised in water! John the baptists baptism was a baptism of repentance acts19 and in water, BUT after that he said that one would come mightier than he, and He would baptise in the Holy spirit.

Jesus himself was baptised in water to fulfill the law and all righteousness mat3.
Mk 16.15-16 says he who believes AND is baptised will be saved, so baptism IS IMPORTANT, but paul said that he had been sent not to baptise but to preach the gospel.

What do we conclude from this? The baptism of water is now obsolete and it it the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of Truth that we now have and need not water!

We must rely on Jesus and his righteousness for we have none. All things are a shadow of the things to come.

Though there are one or two tricky verses to contend with, any takers???

billywhhiiizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Amazing as it sounds to us today, Paul battled situations where the only knowledge of water baptism by those desiring to follow him was the baptism in the name of John. (Acts 19:1-5)

There was the problem of Gospel preachers going all over preaching and (more than likely) baptizing new converts in the name of John. (Acts 18:24-26)

So when the Apostle Paul penned Eph.4:5 about there being only one baptism he was implying that the only valid baptism is the one performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Mt.28:19) In other words, performed by their authority, or Christ's authority because it is a sign that one is His or Their disciple.

Please be aware that the portion of (Mk.16:9-20) does not stand up in scholarly debate. It is my own belief that how this ended up in our New Testament today is because of the earlier Catholic Church trying to scare people into getting baptized into the Catholic Church).

Even though I used to be a member of a church that taught that their was no remission of sins outside of their corporate 'body' or 'church' and the only way into it is through water baptism, I believe it was the early Catholic Church that came up with this concept.

WATER BAPTISMS VS HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM..which one is right?

Well-Known Member

Lifetime friend of Dr. Luther

Well-Known Member

Monkey Boy

Great is thy faithfulness

Active Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Legend

Active Member

Sith Lord

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Great is thy faithfulness

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency