Are you one of those who believe that the following Scripture passage establishes a doctrine for water baptism by immersion? Perhaps you ought to reconsider.
Acts 8:36-39 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB):
36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! (A)What prevents me from being baptized?"
37[[a]And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]
38And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39When they came up out of the water, (B)the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.
I will say to you what I wrote in another forum recently: This response is a great illustration of the problem I have with those who try to formulate or prove doctrine from the Book of Acts. “Acts” is a story of transition for the early Church (Body of Christ) and it’s new members from the Old Covenant (Testament, Will) to the New Covenant (Testament, Will), from the old relationship to God to a new relationship with God, from the old way of doing things (eg, the Law, customs, rituals, and ceremonies) to a new way of doing things (eg, grace, mercy, the movement of the Holy Spirit). Additionally, it is also a narrative about some of the early leaders of the new Church (specifically, Peter, Paul and the original apostles and disciples) and their efforts to understand this new gift that the world had been given, so that they could shape and formulate the doctrine and direction of this new movement (first called The Way, later termed “Christianity”). Think about it: Consider the confusion and turmoil which would exist in the Church today if there had been no Epistles to follow the Gospels and the Book of Acts.
It is also an example of interpreting the Message according to a Scripture, instead of interpreting a Scripture according to the message - like expecting a couple of pieces of jigsaw puzzle to represent the end picture on the front of the box.
I am absolutely amazed at how apparently learned Christians like yourself will take Acts 8:36-39 and suggest that it “clearly” represents anything about the eunuch’s baptismal process. For instance, was the water the eunuch referred to a brook, a stream, a river, a pond, or maybe a lake? Because if the water was a brook or stream or the like (which was much more likely in that part of the world), then it would have been impossible to immerse completely a grown man or woman. But lets say it [i]was[/i] a large enough body of water for complete immersion; using your attempt to make this passage a doctrine for water baptism, then we should only be using outdoor bodies of water in outdoor settings for the ceremony, because nowhere else in the NT Scriptures does it suggest that using indoor “baptistries” or pools in church settings is authorized for water baptisms. (In fact, indoor baptistries started out as fonts, and didn’t really begin to take root until around Augustine’s tenure as Church leader in the 5th century.)
Now, let’s look at the idea of Philip and the eunuch going “down into the water” (notice how you changed the word “[b]into[/b]” to “[b]in[/b]” to justify your interpretation?): If you and I were standing on the bank of any body of water, whether it be a brook, a river, a lake, or whatever, and we wanted to go stand in that water, don’t you see that we would have to walk DOWN that bank to get INTO the water? And by the same token, wouldn’t we have to come UP OUT OF the water (even if it was only ankle deep) to get UP on the bank again? Do you really not see what a tremendous stretch it is to make this simple act into a doctrine for water baptism by immersion, especially with no scriptures in the Epistles to support it? Come on, Brother, give me a break! I think that your failure to be able to provide definitive Scriptures to “clearly” support your position on water baptism by immersion brings up a very important question: Don’t you think that if water baptism was a necessary part of our salvation there would be a lot more guidance concerning the methods and procedures on conducting that ceremony so that there would be no divisive questions like this to deal with?
The Ethiopian eunuch’s actual salvation and spiritual baptism actually came with his words in verse 37 where he said that he believed with all of his heart “that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”(See John 3:16-18) Every reference in the Gospels to the baptism that Jesus Christ would perform on Believers was with the Holy Spirit, not water. “Salvation,” “eternal life” and becoming “born again” are all SPIRITUAL concepts that affect our SPIRITUAL being through the SPIRITUAL presence of Jesus Christ in our SPIRITUAL heart as a result of the SPIRITUAL immersion (baptism) of our SPIRITUAL being in the indwelling SPIRITUAL presence of the Holy SPIRIT. Every reference to salvation in the New Testament Scriptures either says or indicates that it (salvation) occurs through a combination of two components - God’s immeasurable grace and our belief in Jesus Christ, the resurrected Son of God. All other requirements are man’s attempt to control the salvation process and limit who can be saved to those who will “perform” according to his (man’s) standards. The attempt to impose rules, laws and ceremonies on the salvation process is Old Testament thinking, which Christ “clearly” said, as He died on the Cross, “is finished.”
I believe that what the Holy Spirit has shown me is that baptism with water is “clearly” a physical symbol of what happens SPIRITUALLY when we become born again, just as putting on a wedding ring is a physical symbol of the spiritual bond that occurs when we get married. When we can understand [i]that[/i] concept, then the question of whether we’ve been immersed, sprinkled or sprayed will no longer be an issue, anymore than whether we wear a silver band or a gold band is for the marriage ceremony.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
For those of you who like to use the following Scripture as a doctrine, I have a few comments:
John 3:5
"I tell you the truth Jesus answered him. If any one isn’t born of water and Spirit, he can't get into Gods Kingdom."[/quote]
May I suggest that your interpretation of the above Scripture creates a huge problem for you and others like you who insist on interpreting the Message of Salvation by Scripture instead of the other way around (that is, interpreting the Scriptures according to the Message) - it negates, ignores and/or conflicts with a number of Scriptures in the Gospels and New Testament, to include the ones I alluded to in my original question. It's the same problem that occurs when Christians and churches insist on using this and other one line verses (such as 1 John 1:9 and Heb 10:25) to establish doctrine. My friend, it’s like trying to define the final picture of a jigsaw puzzle using two or three of the puzzle pieces.
Please allow me to show you what I mean. Using the above verse to justify or infer that water baptism is a requirement for Salvation, or to justify entering the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven (yes - they are two different things), creates at least the following two major problems:
1) When Jesus proposed the concept of being “born again” to Nicodemus, He was trying to explain to him that this was a “Spiritual” event which had to take place in order for Man to enter into the Kingdom of God by receiving salvation and eternal life. (Please note, nowhere in this entire passage in John chapter 3:1-21 was the word “baptism” used.) In fact, Jesus chided Nicodemus for being “flesh” or “earthly” minded in his assessment of what Jesus was saying. When you use this verse to infer that Jesus was talking about “earthly” water, then must also infer that John the Baptist was talking about “earthly” fire when he suggested in Matt 3:11 and Luke 3:16 when he announced that Jesus would baptize us with “the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Please note, the word “baptize” IS actually used in BOTH of these Scriptures.) Do you see that if I interpret these Scriptures the way you interpret what Jesus said in John 3:5, that would mean we would all have to be immersed in actual, “earthly” fire in order to be baptized? Ouch! I don’t believe that would go over too well; do you?
2) Your inference that Jesus is talking about a requirement to be baptized with water in this or any other passage negates Scripture passages like Rom 3:20-22 and Eph 2:4-9 which teach that it is only through God’s grace and mercy that we are saved and given eternal life in the Kingdom of God, not by our works or involvement in observing ceremonies or obeying “church” law. In fact, it negates another verse from the very same chapter of John you used - that is, John 3:16, which, as you probably know, says, “ For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever BELIEVES IN HIM shall not perish but have eternal life.”
When we understand what Jesus was trying to tell Nicodemus, that being born again is a SPIRITUAL event and that only our SPIRIT becomes born again - not our body (flesh) or soul (mind, will and emotions) - then it becomes easier to understand the truth of what He was saying. The Apostle Paul provides a wonderful explanation and interpretation of what Jesus was saying here in Titus 3:5-6...You should read it.
John 3:5
"I tell you the truth Jesus answered him. If any one isn’t born of water and Spirit, he can't get into Gods Kingdom."[/quote]
May I suggest that your interpretation of the above Scripture creates a huge problem for you and others like you who insist on interpreting the Message of Salvation by Scripture instead of the other way around (that is, interpreting the Scriptures according to the Message) - it negates, ignores and/or conflicts with a number of Scriptures in the Gospels and New Testament, to include the ones I alluded to in my original question. It's the same problem that occurs when Christians and churches insist on using this and other one line verses (such as 1 John 1:9 and Heb 10:25) to establish doctrine. My friend, it’s like trying to define the final picture of a jigsaw puzzle using two or three of the puzzle pieces.
Please allow me to show you what I mean. Using the above verse to justify or infer that water baptism is a requirement for Salvation, or to justify entering the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven (yes - they are two different things), creates at least the following two major problems:
1) When Jesus proposed the concept of being “born again” to Nicodemus, He was trying to explain to him that this was a “Spiritual” event which had to take place in order for Man to enter into the Kingdom of God by receiving salvation and eternal life. (Please note, nowhere in this entire passage in John chapter 3:1-21 was the word “baptism” used.) In fact, Jesus chided Nicodemus for being “flesh” or “earthly” minded in his assessment of what Jesus was saying. When you use this verse to infer that Jesus was talking about “earthly” water, then must also infer that John the Baptist was talking about “earthly” fire when he suggested in Matt 3:11 and Luke 3:16 when he announced that Jesus would baptize us with “the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Please note, the word “baptize” IS actually used in BOTH of these Scriptures.) Do you see that if I interpret these Scriptures the way you interpret what Jesus said in John 3:5, that would mean we would all have to be immersed in actual, “earthly” fire in order to be baptized? Ouch! I don’t believe that would go over too well; do you?
2) Your inference that Jesus is talking about a requirement to be baptized with water in this or any other passage negates Scripture passages like Rom 3:20-22 and Eph 2:4-9 which teach that it is only through God’s grace and mercy that we are saved and given eternal life in the Kingdom of God, not by our works or involvement in observing ceremonies or obeying “church” law. In fact, it negates another verse from the very same chapter of John you used - that is, John 3:16, which, as you probably know, says, “ For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever BELIEVES IN HIM shall not perish but have eternal life.”
When we understand what Jesus was trying to tell Nicodemus, that being born again is a SPIRITUAL event and that only our SPIRIT becomes born again - not our body (flesh) or soul (mind, will and emotions) - then it becomes easier to understand the truth of what He was saying. The Apostle Paul provides a wonderful explanation and interpretation of what Jesus was saying here in Titus 3:5-6...You should read it.
On Baptism and Baptizing
Recent statement on a Forum I participate in, with my response:
According to Acts 2:38-39 our sins are forgiven by God when we are baptized (the baptism itself is not what forgives our sins since only God can do that) and we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when we are baptized (the Spirit does not come because of the water, but because that's the time that God has chosen to impart His Spirit to His children). [/quote]
This response is a great illustration of the problem I have with those who try to formulate or prove doctrine from the Book of Acts. “Acts” is a story of transition for the early Church (Body of Christ) and it’s new members from the Old Covenant (Testament, Will) to the New Covenant (Testament, Will), from the old relationship to God to a new relationship with God, from the old way of doing things (eg, the Law, customs, rituals, and ceremonies) to a new way of doing things (eg, grace, mercy, the movement of the Holy Spirit). Additionally, it is also a narrative about some of the early leaders of the new Church (specifically, Peter, Paul and the original apostles and disciples) and their efforts to understand this new gift that the world had been given, so that they could shape and formulate the doctrine and direction of this new movement (first called The Way, later termed “Christianity”). In the process, there were several errors and, shall we say, “misspeaks” made which the Holy Spirit eventually corrected in later chapters of Acts and in the many Epistles which followed. Think about it: Consider the confusion and turmoil which would exist in the Church today if there had been no Epistles to follow the Gospels and the Book of Acts.
The first thing I would challenge you about in your use of Acts 2:38-39 as a doctrine (or shall we say, Law) for water baptism and the forgiveness of sins is wasn’t this the same Peter who was also initially limiting salvation to those who were Jewish and requiring new converts to observe Jewish rituals such as those concerning circumcision, forbidden foods and ceremonial washings? Weren’t these practices quickly challenged and corrected by God through the use of visions, the Holy Spirit and the teachings (and challenges) of Paul? And, oh yes, how about that commune thing that God had to break up by allowing persecution to descend on Jerusalem early on? For instance, take a look at what happened in Acts 10:44-48: A large group of people were listening to Peter preach about Jesus and salvation, and when they believed in Him they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. THEN (after the baptism of the Holy Spirit) Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people (they were all Gentiles - like you (I assume) and me) from being baptized with water? THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT (before being baptized with water) JUST AS WE HAVE.” Do you see that this contradicts your suggestion that we become born again at the exact moment we are baptized with water? Don’t you see that these people became born again the moment that they believed in Jesus and were baptized by His Holy Spirit, and that if a suicide bomber had walked in and blown them up before they could be baptized with water, they would have all entered the Kingdom of [b]Heaven[/b] (they had already entered the Kingdom of [b]God[/b], when they became born again through the Holy Spirit)?
Peter even contradicts his own statement in Acts 2:38 with his words concerning baptism and the forgiveness of sins in 1 Peter 3:18-21, which is more in line with the teachings of the other Epistles concerning these two different subjects. In Acts 2:38, Peter suggests that the forgiveness of sins is based on repentance and baptism (he never says whether this is with water or the Holy Spirit, although he had just experienced the latter); however, in 1 Peter 3:18 he teaches that the forgiveness of all sins of all mankind occurred the moment that Christ was put to death in the body (“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God”). This Scripture (1 Pet 3:18) agrees with other Scriptures in the New Testament, such as Romans chapter 6 and chapters 9 and 10 in Hebrews, which testify that regardless of whether or not we receive it, Christ’s suffering and death on the Cross paid the penalty for and provided forgiveness for all the sins of all mankind - once for all. Hebrews 10:17-18 seals it all with this pronouncement from the Holy Spirit: “’Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.’ And where these (sins) HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins.”
You see, after Jesus’ death on the cross, the issue of salvation is no longer about the forgiveness of sins and receiving new life; it’s solely about receiving new life, made possible by the power of the Resurrection (see 1 Peter 3:21b-22) and the Gift of the Holy Spirit. No one goes to hell for committing sins after the cross, because the exact minute Jesus died on the cross He paid the penalty for ALL of the sins of all mankind (“He died ONCE for ALL...”). After that moment, the only thing that can send a person to hell is being dead in Adam, instead of being alive in Christ - in other words, spiritual death. After Christ’s death on the cross, the one and only sin that can send a person to hell is the sin of unbelief in what He has done for us, because that is the only action that can keep a person from asking Jesus into his/her heart and receiving Life (thus, “unbelief which occurs BEFORE being born again” is the only unpardonable sin).
Finally, concerning baptism by water, Peter himself teaches in 1 Peter 3:21 that the water that saved Noah and his family and that removes dirt from the body - earthly, physical water - is a [b][i]symbol[/b][/i] of the spiritual baptism which occurs when we pledge ourselves to God (verse 21, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you”)...Which is what I’ve been saying all along, that water baptism is a symbol of the baptism which Christ provides when we become born again.
According to Acts 2:38-39 our sins are forgiven by God when we are baptized (the baptism itself is not what forgives our sins since only God can do that) and we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when we are baptized (the Spirit does not come because of the water, but because that's the time that God has chosen to impart His Spirit to His children). [/quote]
This response is a great illustration of the problem I have with those who try to formulate or prove doctrine from the Book of Acts. “Acts” is a story of transition for the early Church (Body of Christ) and it’s new members from the Old Covenant (Testament, Will) to the New Covenant (Testament, Will), from the old relationship to God to a new relationship with God, from the old way of doing things (eg, the Law, customs, rituals, and ceremonies) to a new way of doing things (eg, grace, mercy, the movement of the Holy Spirit). Additionally, it is also a narrative about some of the early leaders of the new Church (specifically, Peter, Paul and the original apostles and disciples) and their efforts to understand this new gift that the world had been given, so that they could shape and formulate the doctrine and direction of this new movement (first called The Way, later termed “Christianity”). In the process, there were several errors and, shall we say, “misspeaks” made which the Holy Spirit eventually corrected in later chapters of Acts and in the many Epistles which followed. Think about it: Consider the confusion and turmoil which would exist in the Church today if there had been no Epistles to follow the Gospels and the Book of Acts.
The first thing I would challenge you about in your use of Acts 2:38-39 as a doctrine (or shall we say, Law) for water baptism and the forgiveness of sins is wasn’t this the same Peter who was also initially limiting salvation to those who were Jewish and requiring new converts to observe Jewish rituals such as those concerning circumcision, forbidden foods and ceremonial washings? Weren’t these practices quickly challenged and corrected by God through the use of visions, the Holy Spirit and the teachings (and challenges) of Paul? And, oh yes, how about that commune thing that God had to break up by allowing persecution to descend on Jerusalem early on? For instance, take a look at what happened in Acts 10:44-48: A large group of people were listening to Peter preach about Jesus and salvation, and when they believed in Him they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. THEN (after the baptism of the Holy Spirit) Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people (they were all Gentiles - like you (I assume) and me) from being baptized with water? THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT (before being baptized with water) JUST AS WE HAVE.” Do you see that this contradicts your suggestion that we become born again at the exact moment we are baptized with water? Don’t you see that these people became born again the moment that they believed in Jesus and were baptized by His Holy Spirit, and that if a suicide bomber had walked in and blown them up before they could be baptized with water, they would have all entered the Kingdom of [b]Heaven[/b] (they had already entered the Kingdom of [b]God[/b], when they became born again through the Holy Spirit)?
Peter even contradicts his own statement in Acts 2:38 with his words concerning baptism and the forgiveness of sins in 1 Peter 3:18-21, which is more in line with the teachings of the other Epistles concerning these two different subjects. In Acts 2:38, Peter suggests that the forgiveness of sins is based on repentance and baptism (he never says whether this is with water or the Holy Spirit, although he had just experienced the latter); however, in 1 Peter 3:18 he teaches that the forgiveness of all sins of all mankind occurred the moment that Christ was put to death in the body (“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God”). This Scripture (1 Pet 3:18) agrees with other Scriptures in the New Testament, such as Romans chapter 6 and chapters 9 and 10 in Hebrews, which testify that regardless of whether or not we receive it, Christ’s suffering and death on the Cross paid the penalty for and provided forgiveness for all the sins of all mankind - once for all. Hebrews 10:17-18 seals it all with this pronouncement from the Holy Spirit: “’Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.’ And where these (sins) HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins.”
You see, after Jesus’ death on the cross, the issue of salvation is no longer about the forgiveness of sins and receiving new life; it’s solely about receiving new life, made possible by the power of the Resurrection (see 1 Peter 3:21b-22) and the Gift of the Holy Spirit. No one goes to hell for committing sins after the cross, because the exact minute Jesus died on the cross He paid the penalty for ALL of the sins of all mankind (“He died ONCE for ALL...”). After that moment, the only thing that can send a person to hell is being dead in Adam, instead of being alive in Christ - in other words, spiritual death. After Christ’s death on the cross, the one and only sin that can send a person to hell is the sin of unbelief in what He has done for us, because that is the only action that can keep a person from asking Jesus into his/her heart and receiving Life (thus, “unbelief which occurs BEFORE being born again” is the only unpardonable sin).
Finally, concerning baptism by water, Peter himself teaches in 1 Peter 3:21 that the water that saved Noah and his family and that removes dirt from the body - earthly, physical water - is a [b][i]symbol[/b][/i] of the spiritual baptism which occurs when we pledge ourselves to God (verse 21, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you”)...Which is what I’ve been saying all along, that water baptism is a symbol of the baptism which Christ provides when we become born again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
