Bible Discussion Thread

Most Baptist churches recognize two ordinances that believers should partake of, The Lords Supper and Baptism. My question is, since the Apostle Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, where does he include Baptism as an ordinance? Being baptized into the Body of Christ is a spiritual baptism not a water baptism and is the only baptism he writes to Gentile believers. Wasnt baptism required only for Jewish believers when Peter offered them the Kingdom Gospel... Acts 2:38? and John the Baptist preaching the Kingdom of God is at hand? It seems that the Apostle Paul stopped baptizing all together when reading the first chapter of 1st Corinthians.

Hello Frank. Just responding to the points you raised.

a. both Water Baptism and the Lord's Supper are considered ordinances of the Church, as we see both being received & performed by the apostles & the early Church: Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16-21; 1 Corinthians 11:22-34; Romans 6:3-5; Acts 8:34-38; Acts 16:27-33; 1 Peter 3:20,21; 1 Corinthians 1:14-16. And since these 'ordinances' were never rescinded during the writing of the Scriptures, the Church has continued to observe them, albeit in different ways.

b. I agree that "being baptized into the Body of Christ is a spiritual baptism not a water baptism"; though both have different meanings. When a person is truly saved by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit resides & takes ownership of this new child of God ( Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:5). The believer enters the family of God by the indwelling Spirit: this is Baptism of the Spirit. Whereas, water baptism is simply a public declaration of one's identification with Christ, which should occur very soon after conviction of sin, repentance & faith in Jesus' Sacrifice. Yet, today this order is rarely observed (but that's another matter). Can a person be water baptized, yet not have saving faith? It can happen. Or, can one be endued with the Holy Spirit & not be baptized in water? Most certainly as salvation comes by a Work of God in the heart & not by an act of immersion in water. But water baptism ought to follow as a part of God's saving Work & due diligence from the evangelist.

c. I don't see that Paul "stopped baptizing altogether". Rather the 1st Corinthians chapter 1 reference you gave speaks about him baptizing only a few, as others seemed unworthy because of their infighting & divisions, but his mission was to preach the Gospel & not be sidetracked with water baptizing, which others could fulfil. So, we would be hard pressed to find clear Scripture that rescinded water baptism for both believing Jew & Gentile.

I appreciate your reply, but I have yet to find where Baptism is required other than a man made tradition in this age of Grace. I certainly agree that we should identify with our Lords Death, Burial, and Resurrection and I have been baptized, and its certainly not harmful in any way, but it has been abused and misused in so many ways, starting with John the Baptist, a Jew; baptizing Jews. And Peter declaring baptism as part of salvation for the Jewish nation;when the Apostle Paul never mentions it except in 1st Corinthians 1.

Each of the baptisms (for the Jew, by John the Baptist, Jesus' baptism, & believers' baptism) are different in meaning, though the medium of water being common in all. That water baptism is rarely referred to in the Pauline epistles should not downplay or underestimate the requirement for baptism, even in this 'age of Grace'.

Unfortunately, the Church's view of it & performance of it, has also raised our differing approaches to it, i.e. whether it is needed for salvation to be real or not; immersion or sprinkling; misunderstanding its application with a 'take it or leave it' perception by a new believer; the baptizee being made to believe he is obeying the command, rather than the command given to the baptizer to fulfil, etc. All these I view as departures from what the early Church believed & practised, hence our present varying views about it, even whether water baptism is actually valid for today. If the Church and/or evangelist/parent viewed water baptism as going hand-in-hand with the moment of one's conversion (as per the NT), I suspect our differences in what we believe about it, would be far less.

And this departure from the original messages covers almost all other ground, in respect to the Trinity, the Second Coming, the Lord's Supper, the sins of adultery, fornication & homosexuality which permeates the Church today. If we truly held onto the teachings of Christ & His apostles, faithfully passing them down & not getting side-tracked with personal beliefs & preferences, I feel the Church would be better biblically grounded & even the matter of water baptism, properly understood & practised. Therefore, by your statement of 'the necessity of water baptism today - that it's not simply a man-made tradition in this age of Grace', I would ask, 'if water baptism is unnecessary today, then when was it made so?' Limited references to it in the epistles, I believe, shouldn't compel us to believe that it has lost its currency.