If baptism required for salvation, and if so which one?
Matthew 28:19 - The "Great Commission" command from Jesus: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them"
Acts 2:38 - "The day of Pentecost" "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
In Acts 2:38 Peter said unto them, Repent, and "BE" baptized!
When John the baptist was baptizing in Matthew 3:10-11 he says "And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
The question is what tree is John talking about and what group of people he's talking to? I believe we will find the answer in the previous verse.
9) "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
John is talking to Israel!
John is the forerunner who goes out to announce the king. But he does more!
There's also an beginning to a different economy as he states in verse 10. "the ax is laid unto the root of the trees:
In verse 11 John gives precedence to another baptism that is by the Lord and not Israel's outwards profession.
11) "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
There's two baptisms here in this particular section of scripture. .
The baptism of John was to Israel identifying them to not so much a new economy but what was being projected all along.
Everything under the Levitical priesthood and old covenant was a foreshadow of the fulfillment in Christ. Paul makes this distinction in Acts 19:2-6
Water today is a profession to something that has already taken place.
Yes, you are correct and adding to what you've said.. Acts 2:38 was spoken by Peter to Israel in response to their guilt for crucifying their own Messiah. When they were "pricked in their heart" (v. 37), Peter told them to repent and be baptized-not as a ritual for the Gentiles, but as a national call for Israel to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ they had rejected ( Acts 2:36). Baptism here was a public confession that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah ( John 1:31). It offered entrance into the kingdom program still being preached to Israel, not the body of Christ later revealed through Paul.
Lets start with a very well known verse, Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.". I think just this verse is a very clear answer.
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus asks His apostles to baptize new believers. Now suppose you were a new believer living at that age. And an apostle or your pastor asked you to be baptized. God asked him to baptize new believers so he asked you to be baptized. And suppose you answer him back that you don't want to do it because you feel it is not necessary. So God wants you to be baptized and you don't want to be baptized.
Lets go back to John the Baptist.
Was John's baptism from men or from God, Jesus asked the Pharisees. They pretended they didn't know. John in 1:33 records John the Baptist saying , "And I knew him not: but HE THAT SENT ME TO BAPTIZE WITH WATER, the same said unto me, ..."
What John's baptism stant for? Luke 3:3, "And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;"
So it was not a ritual that John thought of to establish or something he did because the Jews were doing it in the past, but it was a new thing, a God's direct command to him.
But you may say that that was another baptism than the christian baptism. Yes this is true. But what I want to make you think is how it seems to you when God asks you to do something and you saying back to Him "Oh well God, I will not do it, it is not necessary". Does this sound logical to your ears?
So I tried not to answer directlly to what you asked, but tried to show you how bad it is for one to deny what God wants them to do and go around trying to make His command sound unnecessary, so actually cancelling it.
Jesus said to the Pharisses, "But the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED THE COUNSEL OF GOD AGAINST THEMSELVES, being not baptized of him.". Well lets not do the same with the christian baptism, rejecting God's Wiill for us.
Exactly right. John's baptism was not a man-made ritual borrowed from Jewish tradition but a direct command from God for a specific purpose in His prophetic plan. John 1:33 makes that clear: "He that sent me to baptize with water"-God Himself commissioned John to prepare Israel for their coming Messiah. It was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins ( Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3), identifying a believing remnant within the nation who would be ready to receive their King.
But that baptism belonged to Israel's prophetic program, not to what is revealed later through Paul. John's ministry called Israel to repentance and national cleansing before the promised kingdom could be established on earth. It was a shadow of the future when the nation will be washed and restored ( Ezekiel 36:25-27). Yet once Christ's death and resurrection were accomplished, God began a new work-offering salvation to all, Jew and Gentile alike, not through water or outward sign, but by faith alone in the finished work of the cross.
Paul declares that there is now "one baptism" ( Ephesians 4:5), not of water, but by the Spirit into the body of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 12:13). This spiritual baptism identifies believers with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection ( Romans 6:3-4). John's commission looked forward to an earthly kingdom; Paul's gospel looks upward to a heavenly calling. Both were from God, but each served its divine purpose in its proper time. I would love to hear your thoughts on the truths laid out before you.
In my previous post I mentioned John's baptism only because it resembles the christian baptism in it being a command of God which everybody has to obey. As the Pharisees disobeyed John thus rejecting the will of God for them similarly a christian who does not want to obey that command rejects the will of God for them. But lets suppose we don't know if that is a matter of salvation or not (hypothetical). Would you personally risk disobeying that command? Are you absolute sure that there would be no consequence in your salvation? Are you willing to bet your eternal life? Woild you teach it to others? Can you take upon you the responsibility of teaching others that baptism is not essential for salvation? And what if it is? What would you say to God that day? So you see it is an extremely serious issue.
What does baptism stand for?
Lets read Rom 6:2-7. Water baptism signifies the end of the old man of sin and the resurrection of the new man of righteouness. It is a landmark. In baptism we bury our old man and a new man rises who lives a holy life. Rom 6:4, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
This step has to be done. You can't just jump it. You can't go on carring the old sinful man on your shoulders in your new life. You have to bury him in the baptist fond. This is what baptism means. The new life begins in baptism, not before, not after. The spiritual baptism (if you mean the baptism of the Holy Spirit) has nothing to do with death and resurrection. It is a gift to us from God to help us obey Him and sanctify ourselves.
This is what I believe. Again thanks for replying.
What then of Ephesians 5:31-32? Paul says the husband-wife union is a mystery that illustrates Christ and the church. But Paul still names our identity repeatedly as His Body ( Eph 1:22-23; 5:30; 1 Cor 12:27), "one new man," and a "new creature" ( 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15)-never calling us the Bride. Even 2 Corinthians 11:2 ("espousedas a chaste virgin") is betrothal imagery used to guard the Body from deception; it does not rename the Body as the Bride nor collapse Israel's prophetic marriage into Paul's mystery people. Keeping these categories distinct preserves both God's faithfulness to Israel's covenants and the uniqueness of the church revealed "not made known" before Paul ( Eph 3:1-9; Rom 16:25-26).
On baptism: John's and Peter's water baptisms belonged to Israel's kingdom program ( Mark 1:4; Luke 7:29-30; Acts 2:38; 22:16)-covenantal, priestly, and preparatory for an earthly nation of priests ( Exod 19:6; Ezek 36:25-27). In this dispensation, Christ sent Paul "not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" ( 1 Cor 1:17), and there is "one baptism" ( Eph 4:5) by which the Spirit places us into Christ's death and resurrection ( Rom 6:3-5; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 2:11-12). Romans 6 describes that Spirit baptism's identification with Christ-not a ritual that completes salvation. We are saved by grace through faith apart from works ( Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Water may testify, but it cannot add to the finished cross-work ( John 19:30; Gal 2:21). To make it a salvation requirement would muddle Israel's kingdom commands with the Body's grace calling.
So, yes: saints from Israel's program and from the Body will both be with Christ and under His rule-but Scripture differentiates their identities and spheres. Israel/Zion/New Jerusalem is the Bride/Wife in prophecy and Revelation; the Body is the heavenly people of the mystery, bone of His bone and seated above. Keeping those distinctions guards the gospel of grace today and honors God's promises to Israel tomorrow.
Thanks for your reply-I think we're circling back to the heart of our earlier discussion.
First, on reigning with Christ: I agree Revelation 2:26-27 promises ruling authority to overcomers at Thyatira, and Revelation 20:4 shows martyrs from "all nations" sharing in Christ's rule. The question is not whether redeemed people reign, but who reigns where within God's revealed programs. Paul discloses a "one new man" ( Eph 2:15) called the Body of Christ, blessed "in heavenly places" and seated there now ( Eph 1:3; 2:6). Israel, by contrast, is promised an earthly kingdom under Messiah ( Isa 2:1-4; Jer 23:5-6; Matt 19:28; Acts 1:6; 3:19-21). Both realms are under the same Lord, but the stewardships and destinations differ ( 2 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 6:2-3).
That leads to the Bride question. Dispensationally, the Body of Christ is not the Bride of Christ. In Scripture, bridal/marriage language is consistently tied to Israel and Zion:
"Thy Maker is thine husband" ( Isa 54:5).
"I will betroth thee unto me for ever" ( Hos 2:19-20).
"As the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee" ( Isa 62:4-5).
In Revelation the identification becomes explicit: "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wifeand he shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem" ( Rev 21:9-10). The city bears Israel's fingerprints-twelve tribes on its gates and the twelve apostles on its foundations ( Rev 21:12-14). Moreover, the wife in Revelation 19:7-8 is arrayed in "fine linenthe righteous acts of saints," fitting the works-tested, kingdom saints who endure (cf. Matt 24:13; Rev 14:12), not the grace-standing, already-perfected righteousness imputed to the Body ( Rom 3:21-26; Phil 3:9).
Thanks for youre reply. I think we are returning back to our previous discussion.
I personally do not believe in a Kingdom of God for national Israel separetly from the church. I believe that during the 1000 yr period all the saints from both Hebrews and gentiles will reign together with Christ.
Go to Rev 2:26-27. Jesus is speaking to the church of Thyatira, a gentile church. He says "26And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father."
That church was a church of that time. Even if we condider that those churches represant successive periods of church history, it is obvious that gentiles from all ages will participate in that kingdom. And of course those slaughtered by antichrist from all nations as Rev 20:4 shows.
In our previous discussion you said that the Bride of Christ is Israel. Paul in Ephesians 5:22-33 gives advice to married couples. He resembles the union of the man with his wife as the union of Christ with the church. Lets read some of them.
Verses 31-32, "31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."
To me those verses make it clear that it is the church who is the Bride of Christ, and not Israel. But lets think about it deeper. What was Israel's mission? Israel's mission was to keep the faith in the true God until the Messiah would be born who would save humanity. So the big picture was the whole world, and not a separate nation. Israel's mission ended exactly there and onwards Jesus they should had placed themselves in the church which includes all nations all over the world. Which thing they didn't. But God, because of their fathers, has a plan for them to save them at the end.
Hi Lbooth1955. I don't believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation for then salvation requires a 'work' to be performed, negating salvation by faith alone. But from the two verses you shared (and many other instances), water baptism should immediately follow repentance, believing and calling upon the Name of the Lord Jesus, and being baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit; and such a baptism demonstrates identification only with the Lord Jesus, denouncing the world, false religions, & things dear to us (sins) that kept us from God's salvation.
In the Bible, whenever we read of water baptism, it is part & parcel of repentance and faith in Christ, not an extra act conducted at a time convenient, as largely done and taught today. The command given by Jesus to His disciples, or by Peter at his preaching at Pentecost, was for the one proclaiming the Gospel and leading a lost soul to Christ, to take the initiative and direct the saved sinner to the waters. Today it seems, that the command is to be obeyed either by the baptizer or baptizee whenever practicable to do so.
So, maybe the question could be asked, "if the new convert to Christ is not baptized straightaway, as per the biblical pattern & as a very present testimony of the convert to the world and himself (in "a good conscience toward God"), then does a later baptism negate the essential meaning of salvation, i.e. only by faith and not of works?" So, in such a case, I don't see that water baptism is necessary, since it amounts to works added to salvation.
Since we are admitting questions here, should a baptism take place within the confines of a Church building (e.g. a baptismal font) rather than outside in the world of unbelievers, thus demonstrating by a very real and present witness, of a changed life and a new devotion to the living God and His Son? Or, maybe I'm being too narrow and devisive & irrelevant to the modern Church pattern. For further thoughts.
You are dead wrong about equating works with baptism. You write: "I don't believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation for then salvation requires a 'work' to be performed, negating salvation by faith alone." Faith is what frames the world of believers from this world where natural laws apply. Faith is the pure speech (Ps.12.6) "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." (Gen.11.1) How do we know it for sure? God commanded, "let there be light" and there was light. That is how Gen.1.1 begins. Father-Son relationship holds on the same DNA of faith.
You die to the world so you are making a statement before angels and men and born of water you begin your life in heavenly places even as the Adam Eve were. They were naked as we are still in our ville bodies; glory of God was their covering ; Our faith sets as though we were in the beginning of things. "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." We walk by faith which entails work, don't you think? Fruits of the Spirit don't fall from heaven.
If looking up to heaven before healing a deaf mute ,-and he sighed, was meaningful to Christ ( Mk 7 .34-35) water baptism is a symbol as looking up. In the healing we have the proof it is valid before God. The word of God is a sound as well as a sign. This sign holds both faith with works as Jesus holds his humanity and Deity as one because the Word is the Law.(Ps.11.89)
Thank you for your response Bennymkje. This question from your comment seems to reflect how you understood mine to Lbooth1955, "We walk by faith which entails work, don't you think?"
You may have misunderstood my comments, believing that I was denouncing works as the proper response to a genuine faith. Not at all, works that follow such a God-given faith must exist, or else it is no faith at all (and James deals with this quite well). So, it is not a work that results from faith that I refer to, but a work that must accompany faith to make our salvation real & effective.
The point I tried to make earlier, was that water baptism that accompanies repentance, belief, and faith, is a true baptism and not a work for it is part & parcel of one's testimony of a new life identified and received in Christ. And this is what I read in the Word by the many examples given ( Acts 2:38,41; Acts 8:12,13; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 9:17,18; Acts 10:21,44-48; Acts 16:14,15; Acts 16:30-33; Acts 18:8). All these folk were baptized immediately, or very soon after repenting and believing. Baptism here was not a 'work' added to salvation, but a very real part of one's witness before man & within oneself. In those days (as in some countries now), many would have suffered great loss or ostracization for turning to Christ, so baptism at that early stage was truly a bold declaration of love for the Savior & turning away from religion (& family) as a very real part of conversion.
Anything we do that adds to our salvation (even water baptism, if we deem it necessary to make our salvation real), is a work. And if that work, whether baptism, doing good deeds for others, attending to Jewish Law, etc., ensures our salvation, then our salvation is no longer of faith, but of works. For the salvation of God through His Son to be effective in our lives, it must be devoid of anything that attaches to that God-given faith; for that faith does save when it remains pure, free from all associations.
So we are on to quibbling as to what works do mean. Chris, I leave you with a quote."Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."( 2 Tim.2.15)
Thank you for your reply. I found your comments very interesting and encouraging. I, too, do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation under this present dispensation of grace. However, I do believe it was necessary for salvation under the dispensation in which Jesus, Peter, James and the rest of the disciples operated under.
My original question, which I'd like to restate here, is about the two baptisms that are spoken of in Scripture-one given by Jesus, and the other by Peter. One formula was in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while the other was in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. My question is: are those two baptisms the same, and if so, in what way? Or are they different, and if so, how? That really was the focus of my question, but I do sincerely appreciate your comments and perspective.
I think you and I agree that baptism itself is a work and cannot be added to the finished work of Christ on the cross. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. Baptism today can only serve as a public declaration, if you will, that one is a Christian-nothing more, nothing less.
As far as the location of baptism-whether in a church building or in a public forum-I don't believe that has any bearing. Personally, before the Lord led me into the understanding of rightly dividing the Word of Truth, I was baptized as a young child in a church setting, and later again as an adult in a public lake. In my view, the location itself does not affect the meaning of baptism.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Thanks Lbooth1955 for adding that information. I admit, I completely missed the point of your first post, concerning 'water baptism - in which names?' Apologies. This question has come up before in these pages, and I still can't make any differentiation between the two (i.e. whether those two baptisms formulaes are the same or not).
Jesus spoke to His disciples to baptize in the Name of the Godhead, whereas Peter, in Jesus' Name only. This might trouble some as to which is correct and current for today, though I see no problem with it. Even if someone baptized in the Name of the Holy Spirit only, should that matter, since all Persons of the Godhead are One, thus represented? Yet, this could be a problem to some.
And I agree, that "Baptism today can only serve as a public declaration", but I could add that it is both an outward and inward expression of faith and commitment. Your quote reveals the outward testimony; and 1 Peter 3:21 speaks about our inward testimony, "the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ". Unlike the Jewish baptism (external washings of grime; as also performed by Muslims), the believers' baptism answers to a sure testimony inwardly, of an act and a time of turning from self and the world to cleave only to the Savior. And this assurance will be important when the enemy of our souls seeks to question the worth of our salvation & throw some into confusion and doubt. Every blessing brother.
If baptism required for salvation, and if so which one?
Matthew 28:19 - The "Great Commission" command from Jesus: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them"
Acts 2:38 - "The day of Pentecost" "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
G&P
I haven't been able to read through this thread to see all that has been covered.
I have a busy work schedule.
But there's more I would like to add.
Blessings.
In Acts 2:38 Peter said unto them, Repent, and "BE" baptized!
When John the baptist was baptizing in Matthew 3:10-11 he says "And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
The question is what tree is John talking about and what group of people he's talking to? I believe we will find the answer in the previous verse.
9) "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
John is talking to Israel!
John is the forerunner who goes out to announce the king. But he does more!
There's also an beginning to a different economy as he states in verse 10. "the ax is laid unto the root of the trees:
In verse 11 John gives precedence to another baptism that is by the Lord and not Israel's outwards profession.
11) "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
There's two baptisms here in this particular section of scripture. .
The baptism of John was to Israel identifying them to not so much a new economy but what was being projected all along.
Everything under the Levitical priesthood and old covenant was a foreshadow of the fulfillment in Christ. Paul makes this distinction in Acts 19:2-6
Water today is a profession to something that has already taken place.
Blessings
Yes, you are correct and adding to what you've said.. Acts 2:38 was spoken by Peter to Israel in response to their guilt for crucifying their own Messiah. When they were "pricked in their heart" (v. 37), Peter told them to repent and be baptized-not as a ritual for the Gentiles, but as a national call for Israel to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ they had rejected ( Acts 2:36). Baptism here was a public confession that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah ( John 1:31). It offered entrance into the kingdom program still being preached to Israel, not the body of Christ later revealed through Paul.
G&P
About water baptism.
Lets start with a very well known verse, Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.". I think just this verse is a very clear answer.
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus asks His apostles to baptize new believers. Now suppose you were a new believer living at that age. And an apostle or your pastor asked you to be baptized. God asked him to baptize new believers so he asked you to be baptized. And suppose you answer him back that you don't want to do it because you feel it is not necessary. So God wants you to be baptized and you don't want to be baptized.
Lets go back to John the Baptist.
Was John's baptism from men or from God, Jesus asked the Pharisees. They pretended they didn't know. John in 1:33 records John the Baptist saying , "And I knew him not: but HE THAT SENT ME TO BAPTIZE WITH WATER, the same said unto me, ..."
What John's baptism stant for? Luke 3:3, "And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;"
So it was not a ritual that John thought of to establish or something he did because the Jews were doing it in the past, but it was a new thing, a God's direct command to him.
But you may say that that was another baptism than the christian baptism. Yes this is true. But what I want to make you think is how it seems to you when God asks you to do something and you saying back to Him "Oh well God, I will not do it, it is not necessary". Does this sound logical to your ears?
So I tried not to answer directlly to what you asked, but tried to show you how bad it is for one to deny what God wants them to do and go around trying to make His command sound unnecessary, so actually cancelling it.
Jesus said to the Pharisses, "But the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED THE COUNSEL OF GOD AGAINST THEMSELVES, being not baptized of him.". Well lets not do the same with the christian baptism, rejecting God's Wiill for us.
GBU
Exactly right. John's baptism was not a man-made ritual borrowed from Jewish tradition but a direct command from God for a specific purpose in His prophetic plan. John 1:33 makes that clear: "He that sent me to baptize with water"-God Himself commissioned John to prepare Israel for their coming Messiah. It was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins ( Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3), identifying a believing remnant within the nation who would be ready to receive their King.
But that baptism belonged to Israel's prophetic program, not to what is revealed later through Paul. John's ministry called Israel to repentance and national cleansing before the promised kingdom could be established on earth. It was a shadow of the future when the nation will be washed and restored ( Ezekiel 36:25-27). Yet once Christ's death and resurrection were accomplished, God began a new work-offering salvation to all, Jew and Gentile alike, not through water or outward sign, but by faith alone in the finished work of the cross.
Paul declares that there is now "one baptism" ( Ephesians 4:5), not of water, but by the Spirit into the body of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 12:13). This spiritual baptism identifies believers with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection ( Romans 6:3-4). John's commission looked forward to an earthly kingdom; Paul's gospel looks upward to a heavenly calling. Both were from God, but each served its divine purpose in its proper time. I would love to hear your thoughts on the truths laid out before you.
G&P
In my previous post I mentioned John's baptism only because it resembles the christian baptism in it being a command of God which everybody has to obey. As the Pharisees disobeyed John thus rejecting the will of God for them similarly a christian who does not want to obey that command rejects the will of God for them. But lets suppose we don't know if that is a matter of salvation or not (hypothetical). Would you personally risk disobeying that command? Are you absolute sure that there would be no consequence in your salvation? Are you willing to bet your eternal life? Woild you teach it to others? Can you take upon you the responsibility of teaching others that baptism is not essential for salvation? And what if it is? What would you say to God that day? So you see it is an extremely serious issue.
What does baptism stand for?
Lets read Rom 6:2-7. Water baptism signifies the end of the old man of sin and the resurrection of the new man of righteouness. It is a landmark. In baptism we bury our old man and a new man rises who lives a holy life. Rom 6:4, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
This step has to be done. You can't just jump it. You can't go on carring the old sinful man on your shoulders in your new life. You have to bury him in the baptist fond. This is what baptism means. The new life begins in baptism, not before, not after. The spiritual baptism (if you mean the baptism of the Holy Spirit) has nothing to do with death and resurrection. It is a gift to us from God to help us obey Him and sanctify ourselves.
This is what I believe. Again thanks for replying.
GBU
What then of Ephesians 5:31-32? Paul says the husband-wife union is a mystery that illustrates Christ and the church. But Paul still names our identity repeatedly as His Body ( Eph 1:22-23; 5:30; 1 Cor 12:27), "one new man," and a "new creature" ( 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15)-never calling us the Bride. Even 2 Corinthians 11:2 ("espousedas a chaste virgin") is betrothal imagery used to guard the Body from deception; it does not rename the Body as the Bride nor collapse Israel's prophetic marriage into Paul's mystery people. Keeping these categories distinct preserves both God's faithfulness to Israel's covenants and the uniqueness of the church revealed "not made known" before Paul ( Eph 3:1-9; Rom 16:25-26).
On baptism: John's and Peter's water baptisms belonged to Israel's kingdom program ( Mark 1:4; Luke 7:29-30; Acts 2:38; 22:16)-covenantal, priestly, and preparatory for an earthly nation of priests ( Exod 19:6; Ezek 36:25-27). In this dispensation, Christ sent Paul "not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" ( 1 Cor 1:17), and there is "one baptism" ( Eph 4:5) by which the Spirit places us into Christ's death and resurrection ( Rom 6:3-5; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 2:11-12). Romans 6 describes that Spirit baptism's identification with Christ-not a ritual that completes salvation. We are saved by grace through faith apart from works ( Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Water may testify, but it cannot add to the finished cross-work ( John 19:30; Gal 2:21). To make it a salvation requirement would muddle Israel's kingdom commands with the Body's grace calling.
So, yes: saints from Israel's program and from the Body will both be with Christ and under His rule-but Scripture differentiates their identities and spheres. Israel/Zion/New Jerusalem is the Bride/Wife in prophecy and Revelation; the Body is the heavenly people of the mystery, bone of His bone and seated above. Keeping those distinctions guards the gospel of grace today and honors God's promises to Israel tomorrow.
G&P
[Comment Removed]
First, on reigning with Christ: I agree Revelation 2:26-27 promises ruling authority to overcomers at Thyatira, and Revelation 20:4 shows martyrs from "all nations" sharing in Christ's rule. The question is not whether redeemed people reign, but who reigns where within God's revealed programs. Paul discloses a "one new man" ( Eph 2:15) called the Body of Christ, blessed "in heavenly places" and seated there now ( Eph 1:3; 2:6). Israel, by contrast, is promised an earthly kingdom under Messiah ( Isa 2:1-4; Jer 23:5-6; Matt 19:28; Acts 1:6; 3:19-21). Both realms are under the same Lord, but the stewardships and destinations differ ( 2 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 6:2-3).
That leads to the Bride question. Dispensationally, the Body of Christ is not the Bride of Christ. In Scripture, bridal/marriage language is consistently tied to Israel and Zion:
"Thy Maker is thine husband" ( Isa 54:5).
"I will betroth thee unto me for ever" ( Hos 2:19-20).
"As the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee" ( Isa 62:4-5).
In Revelation the identification becomes explicit: "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wifeand he shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem" ( Rev 21:9-10). The city bears Israel's fingerprints-twelve tribes on its gates and the twelve apostles on its foundations ( Rev 21:12-14). Moreover, the wife in Revelation 19:7-8 is arrayed in "fine linenthe righteous acts of saints," fitting the works-tested, kingdom saints who endure (cf. Matt 24:13; Rev 14:12), not the grace-standing, already-perfected righteousness imputed to the Body ( Rom 3:21-26; Phil 3:9).
see pg2
Thanks for youre reply. I think we are returning back to our previous discussion.
I personally do not believe in a Kingdom of God for national Israel separetly from the church. I believe that during the 1000 yr period all the saints from both Hebrews and gentiles will reign together with Christ.
Go to Rev 2:26-27. Jesus is speaking to the church of Thyatira, a gentile church. He says "26And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father."
That church was a church of that time. Even if we condider that those churches represant successive periods of church history, it is obvious that gentiles from all ages will participate in that kingdom. And of course those slaughtered by antichrist from all nations as Rev 20:4 shows.
In our previous discussion you said that the Bride of Christ is Israel. Paul in Ephesians 5:22-33 gives advice to married couples. He resembles the union of the man with his wife as the union of Christ with the church. Lets read some of them.
Verses 31-32, "31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."
To me those verses make it clear that it is the church who is the Bride of Christ, and not Israel. But lets think about it deeper. What was Israel's mission? Israel's mission was to keep the faith in the true God until the Messiah would be born who would save humanity. So the big picture was the whole world, and not a separate nation. Israel's mission ended exactly there and onwards Jesus they should had placed themselves in the church which includes all nations all over the world. Which thing they didn't. But God, because of their fathers, has a plan for them to save them at the end.
see pt 2
[Comment Removed]
In the Bible, whenever we read of water baptism, it is part & parcel of repentance and faith in Christ, not an extra act conducted at a time convenient, as largely done and taught today. The command given by Jesus to His disciples, or by Peter at his preaching at Pentecost, was for the one proclaiming the Gospel and leading a lost soul to Christ, to take the initiative and direct the saved sinner to the waters. Today it seems, that the command is to be obeyed either by the baptizer or baptizee whenever practicable to do so.
So, maybe the question could be asked, "if the new convert to Christ is not baptized straightaway, as per the biblical pattern & as a very present testimony of the convert to the world and himself (in "a good conscience toward God"), then does a later baptism negate the essential meaning of salvation, i.e. only by faith and not of works?" So, in such a case, I don't see that water baptism is necessary, since it amounts to works added to salvation.
Since we are admitting questions here, should a baptism take place within the confines of a Church building (e.g. a baptismal font) rather than outside in the world of unbelievers, thus demonstrating by a very real and present witness, of a changed life and a new devotion to the living God and His Son? Or, maybe I'm being too narrow and devisive & irrelevant to the modern Church pattern. For further thoughts.
You are dead wrong about equating works with baptism. You write: "I don't believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation for then salvation requires a 'work' to be performed, negating salvation by faith alone." Faith is what frames the world of believers from this world where natural laws apply. Faith is the pure speech (Ps.12.6) "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." (Gen.11.1) How do we know it for sure? God commanded, "let there be light" and there was light. That is how Gen.1.1 begins. Father-Son relationship holds on the same DNA of faith.
You die to the world so you are making a statement before angels and men and born of water you begin your life in heavenly places even as the Adam Eve were. They were naked as we are still in our ville bodies; glory of God was their covering ; Our faith sets as though we were in the beginning of things. "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." We walk by faith which entails work, don't you think? Fruits of the Spirit don't fall from heaven.
If looking up to heaven before healing a deaf mute ,-and he sighed, was meaningful to Christ ( Mk 7 .34-35) water baptism is a symbol as looking up. In the healing we have the proof it is valid before God. The word of God is a sound as well as a sign. This sign holds both faith with works as Jesus holds his humanity and Deity as one because the Word is the Law.(Ps.11.89)
You may have misunderstood my comments, believing that I was denouncing works as the proper response to a genuine faith. Not at all, works that follow such a God-given faith must exist, or else it is no faith at all (and James deals with this quite well). So, it is not a work that results from faith that I refer to, but a work that must accompany faith to make our salvation real & effective.
The point I tried to make earlier, was that water baptism that accompanies repentance, belief, and faith, is a true baptism and not a work for it is part & parcel of one's testimony of a new life identified and received in Christ. And this is what I read in the Word by the many examples given ( Acts 2:38,41; Acts 8:12,13; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 9:17,18; Acts 10:21,44-48; Acts 16:14,15; Acts 16:30-33; Acts 18:8). All these folk were baptized immediately, or very soon after repenting and believing. Baptism here was not a 'work' added to salvation, but a very real part of one's witness before man & within oneself. In those days (as in some countries now), many would have suffered great loss or ostracization for turning to Christ, so baptism at that early stage was truly a bold declaration of love for the Savior & turning away from religion (& family) as a very real part of conversion.
Anything we do that adds to our salvation (even water baptism, if we deem it necessary to make our salvation real), is a work. And if that work, whether baptism, doing good deeds for others, attending to Jewish Law, etc., ensures our salvation, then our salvation is no longer of faith, but of works. For the salvation of God through His Son to be effective in our lives, it must be devoid of anything that attaches to that God-given faith; for that faith does save when it remains pure, free from all associations.
When we are approved of God we are indeed in His own image and have the right of way at the gate, Joy and peace in Him,
Thank you for your reply. I found your comments very interesting and encouraging. I, too, do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation under this present dispensation of grace. However, I do believe it was necessary for salvation under the dispensation in which Jesus, Peter, James and the rest of the disciples operated under.
My original question, which I'd like to restate here, is about the two baptisms that are spoken of in Scripture-one given by Jesus, and the other by Peter. One formula was in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while the other was in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. My question is: are those two baptisms the same, and if so, in what way? Or are they different, and if so, how? That really was the focus of my question, but I do sincerely appreciate your comments and perspective.
I think you and I agree that baptism itself is a work and cannot be added to the finished work of Christ on the cross. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. Baptism today can only serve as a public declaration, if you will, that one is a Christian-nothing more, nothing less.
As far as the location of baptism-whether in a church building or in a public forum-I don't believe that has any bearing. Personally, before the Lord led me into the understanding of rightly dividing the Word of Truth, I was baptized as a young child in a church setting, and later again as an adult in a public lake. In my view, the location itself does not affect the meaning of baptism.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
G&P
Jesus spoke to His disciples to baptize in the Name of the Godhead, whereas Peter, in Jesus' Name only. This might trouble some as to which is correct and current for today, though I see no problem with it. Even if someone baptized in the Name of the Holy Spirit only, should that matter, since all Persons of the Godhead are One, thus represented? Yet, this could be a problem to some.
And I agree, that "Baptism today can only serve as a public declaration", but I could add that it is both an outward and inward expression of faith and commitment. Your quote reveals the outward testimony; and 1 Peter 3:21 speaks about our inward testimony, "the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ". Unlike the Jewish baptism (external washings of grime; as also performed by Muslims), the believers' baptism answers to a sure testimony inwardly, of an act and a time of turning from self and the world to cleave only to the Savior. And this assurance will be important when the enemy of our souls seeks to question the worth of our salvation & throw some into confusion and doubt. Every blessing brother.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?