 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars
of Christianity:
309
Baptisms
Necessity
of Water Baptism: 3 Common Arguments
Preface for Baptisms Article Series
Baptisms: Introduction and Historical
Background
Original Proclamations about Baptism
Two Baptisms Occurring Separately
Baptizo: Two Baptisms, One Greek
Word
Synonymous Phrases: Baptism in the
Holy Spirit
Water Baptism in Jesus' Name
No Record of Paul's Water Baptism
Is Baptism Essential to Salvation?
Acts 1: Parallel Account of the Great
Commission
Necessity of Water Baptism: 3 Common
Arguments
Survey 1: Baptisms in Acts
The Baptism of Crispus (and Assuming
Evidence)
Survey 2: Baptism from Romans to
Revelation
Baptism and Hebrews 10:22
Conclusions: When and How Are We
Reborn?
Survey 3: Baptism and the Ante-Nicene
Authors
Closing: Water Baptism for the Right Reasons
At this point, we will take a few moments to dispel the main
arguments used to assert that water baptism was the more prominent
baptism for the early Church.
When it comes to the presumption that water baptism was the
more prominent baptism in both practice and significance to
the early Church, proponents of water baptism often point
to three main indicators.
1. The apostles continued to practice WATER BAPTISM
after the ascension and after Pentecost. Why would the apostles
continue this practice unless they understood this was the
command of Christ Jesus at the Great Commission?
2. There were occasions when groups were first baptized
with the Holy Spirit and afterward the apostles INSISTED THAT
THEY STILL GET BAPTIZED IN WATER. Why would the apostles insist
on water baptism for these men after they had received the
baptism in the Holy Spirit, unless water baptism was essential
to salvation?
3. There were occasions when INDIVIDUALS WERE CONSIDERED
BELIEVERS AFTER THEY HAD RECEIVED WATER BAPTISM, BUT BEFORE
THEY HAD RECEIVED BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. How could baptism
in the Holy Spirit be considered necessary if men were considered
believers before they had received it?
On the surface, these may seem like very convincing arguments.
However, there is one simple problem with this approach. The
very same points can be made concerning baptism of the Holy
Spirit. All of the following statements are accurate concerning
baptism in the Holy Spirit.
1. The apostles continued to practice BAPTISM IN THE
HOLY SPIRIT after the ascension and after Pentecost. Why would
the apostles continue this practice unless they understood
this was the command of Christ Jesus at the Great Commission?
2. There were occasions when groups were first baptized
with water and afterward the apostles INSISTED THAT THEY STILL
GET BAPTIZED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. Why would the apostles insist
on baptism in the Holy Spirit for these men after they had
received the water baptism, unless baptism in Holy Spirit
was essential to salvation?
3. There were occasions when INDIVIDUALS WERE CONSIDERED
BELIEVERS AFTER THEY HAD RECEIVED BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT,
BUT BEFORE THEY HAD RECEIVED WATER BAPTISM. How could water
baptism be considered necessary if men were considered believers
before they had received it?
Now we will examine each of these 6 claims to establish its
validity. Each of these claims was constructed using the same
pattern. First, we stated a premise. Second, we asked a question
related to that premise. Each question was designed to illustrate
what the premises theoretically indicate. We'll start with
the 3 claims supporting the prominence of water baptism.
Premise 1 states that the apostles continued the practice
of water baptism after the ascension and Pentecost. This is
absolutely true. Water baptisms are clearly recorded in Acts
8:12-17, 8:36-38, and Acts 10:47-48.
Premise 2 states that the apostles insisted on water
baptism for individuals after those individuals had received
the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This is also true, although
it occurs only one time. Acts 10:44-48 records the first Gentile
conversion. These Gentiles first received the baptism of the
Holy Spirit. Peter's words in Acts 11:15-18 confirm this.
Then Acts 10:47-48 record clearly that Peter proceeded to
have them water baptized.
Premise 3 states that individuals were considered believers
after they had been water baptized but before they had been
baptized in the Holy Spirit. This statement is based upon
Acts 19:1-7. This statement is highly controversial. The key
is Paul 's question in Acts 19:2.
Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos
was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts
came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said
unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether
there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto
what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's
baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism
of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe
on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of
the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them,
the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues,
and prophesied. 7 And all the men were about twelve.
Paul asks these men what they were baptized into when they
believed. Now, first of all, Paul does not directly call these
men believers, but by saying they "believed," he implies that
they were.
Three things are evident from his question. First, when he asked,
Paul did not know which baptism these men had received. Since
Paul did not know whether or not these men had been baptized
in water or in the Holy Spirit, he is actually calling them
believers regardless of which baptism they had NOT received.
In other words, from Paul 's frame of reference, these men
may not have been water baptized at that time and so he applies
the term "believer" to them even if they had not been water
baptized.
So, this text itself invalidates the conclusion of Premise
3. The conclusion of Premise 3 is that if individuals were
considered believers before they received the baptism in the
Holy Spirit, then baptism in the Holy Spirit must not be necessary
for salvation. However, Paul's question assumes these men
were believers no matter which baptism they had not received,
water baptism included. So, this passage actually proves that
individuals could be considered believers before they had
been water baptized just as much as it proves they could be
considered believers before they were baptized in the Holy
Spirit.
So, while Premise 3 is true, its conclusion is not true. Premise
3 does not prove baptism in the Holy Spirit was unnecessary
for salvation.
Second, Paul's question in Acts 19:2 is significant because
it applies the term baptism equally to both forms of baptism.
This proves that for Paul, it is perfectly normal to refer
to someone receiving the Holy Spirit as being "baptized."
This is significant because it further demonstrates that the
term "baptism" was used by the apostles to denote both forms
of baptism.
Third, we don’t want to pass through Acts 19 too quickly because it actually contains a very strong proof that baptism in the Holy Spirit was the baptism the apostles expected for new converts, at least as far as Paul understood. Notice Paul’s follow-up question after the men announce in verse 3 that they hadn’t even heard “whether there be any Holy Ghost.” Paul could have simply said, “OK, then I will baptize you in the Holy Spirit now.” But instead, Paul expresses surprise that these men could have been baptized in anything other than the Holy Spirit. When they say that they had not heard “whether there be any Holy Ghost,” Paul says, “what then were you baptized into?” Paul’s words do more than reveal his expectation for new converts to receive a baptism in the Holy Spirit. Paul’s words actually undermine any expectation for new converts to necessarily receive water baptism. If Paul had understood water baptism to be necessary for salvation, there would be no place for him to ask these converts, “Unto what then were ye baptized?” because Paul would have easily assumed they were baptized in water.
Ultimately, Paul’s comments show an unequivocal expectation that baptism in the Holy Spirit, not water, was the baptism received by new converts. When we examine 1 Corinthians 1 later on we will find additional evidence confirming that Paul did not associate his commission to preach the gospel with a commission to baptize with water.
Now, Premise 1, 2, and 3 are true. But, as we have said, they
can only be used to support a pro-water baptism position IF
the same cannot be said of baptism in the Holy Spirit. And
we will now show that the same can be said of baptism in the
Holy Spirit, starting with Premise 1 of the second three premises.
Premise 1 states that the apostles continued the practice
of baptism in the Holy Spirit after the ascension and Pentecost.
This is absolutely true. Baptisms in the Holy Spirit are clearly
recorded in Acts 2:38, 8:15-17, 9:17, 19:1-7.
Premise 2 states that the apostles insisted on baptism
in the Holy Spirit for individuals after those individuals
had received water baptism. This is also true. Such accounts
can be found in Acts 8:12-17 and Acts 19:1-7.
Premise 3 states that individuals were considered believers
after they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit but before
they had been baptized in water. Not only have we partially
demonstrated this from the text of Acts 19:1-7, but further
evidence of this can be found by the accounts of the first
Gentile conversion as recorded in Acts 10:44-48, Acts 11:15-18,
and Acts 15:7-9. Mark 16 and 1 Corinthians 12 also indicate
that these first Gentile converts would have been considered
believers before they were baptized with water. Acts 10:46
says these Gentiles spoke in tongues and that is how it was
known that they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Mark 16:17
lists tongues as a sign that follows believers. 1 Corinthians
12:13 tells us that having been baptized by the Holy Spirit,
we are members of the body of Christ. So, these Gentiles had
to be considered believers and members of Christ’s body before they were baptized in water.
At this point, we have demonstrated that both water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit were continued in practice and insisted upon. We have also demonstrated that individuals could be considered believers before they were baptized in water and before they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. As such, these arguments do nothing to indicate which form of baptism was commanded by Christ in the Great Commission and considered essential for salvation by the apostles and the early church.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |