|
|
Water Baptism or Spirit Baptism?
By Mahlon Wickey, October 2010I want to start out by saying that I was water baptized many years ago and I truly believed that it was required for salvation, and to this day I still believe that baptism is indeed required for salvation. But is it water baptism or spirit baptism? This article will explain what I personally believe about these two baptisms as I understand the Holy Scriptures. But as most believers know, there is only ONE baptism spoken of in Ephesians 4:4-5, and in the past several years I have come to believe that this is the ONLY baptism that is VALID for believers.
Hebrews 6:1 states that IF we are to go on to "perfection" then we are to LEAVE the (beginning) principles (G746) of the doctrine of Christ, and not AGAIN lay the foundations of certain doctrines, and one of those doctrines was the doctrine of "baptisms" (Heb 6:2). I believe these certain baptisms were "divers washings" along with carnal ordinances spoken of in Hebrews 9:10. The word "washings" (G909) is indeed taken from the SAME Greek word used for baptism (G907). Heb 9:10 says that these "washings" were imposed on Israel only UNTIL the "time of reformation" (G1357, to straighten or rectify). It is the TIME when the old covenant was to be straightened and rectified (made right) into a spiritual NEW covenant written on the heart.
I believe water baptism was a part of these "divers washings" IMPOSED on Israel at that time, and temple service with the carnal ordinances of the old covenant was a major part on how the Israel people served and worshipped God. I believe water baptism was practiced simply because Jesus Christ did NOT come to abolish temple service at that time, and even after Christ’s death temple service still functioned, as we all know. Therefore water baptism was still IMPOSED on Israel (Heb 9:19), and it was indeed commanded by the apostle Peter (Acts 2:38) since the "reformation" could NOT be a REALITY while the temple was still standing and functioning.
Generally people have no problem believing in one Lord, and one faith (Eph 4:5), but when it comes to ONE baptism then a choice must be made. Which baptism is the ONE valid baptism; is it water baptism or spirit baptism? The major point is; you cannot have BOTH baptisms being the ONE, and I want to now explain why I believe the ONE valid baptism is the "baptism of the Spirit". But I would never try to convince anyone to NOT get water baptized if they are convinced to do so. In the same manner I also would not try to convince any man from getting circumcised if he is convinced to do so.
Water baptism in the book of Acts was always done as a symbolic "cleansing" (washing) with the expectation of a coming physical kingdom that Israel was waiting for. But the Israelite people generally had no concept of a "spiritual" kingdom ruling in the heart, and in some cases they never heard of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2), and there were examples in which they received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were water baptized (Acts 10:44-47). The preaching of the apostles was designed to cut to the heart to cause repentance, and then they received the Holy Spirit. The point is, it was NOT dependant on them to be water baptized FIRST in order to receive the Holy Spirit.
Water baptism was carried over into the events of Acts simply because John the Baptist had a profound effect on the people of Israel in "cleansing" them to prepare them for this coming kingdom. Even Paul was told by Ananias "a devout man according to the LAW" to get baptized and to "wash away" his sins (Acts 22:12-16). In other words, Ananias was very familiar with the laws of temple service and he considered water baptism very NECESSARY to wash away sins, but Ananias ALSO knew that Paul HAD to "call on the name of the Lord" to be saved.
The laws and carnal ordinances of temple service were always used to PICTURE the spiritual realities, but the faith of the early believers was NOT YET centered on spiritual realities! Christ spoke of the TWO baptisms to the apostles in Acts 1:5, and He compared John’s symbolic water baptism to the REALITY of spirit baptism which TRULY washes away sins!
I believe water baptism was slowly phased out even before the temple was destroyed, and Paul THANKED God that he baptized only three times (1Corinthians 1:14-16). He did not want his name identified with water baptism, and he understood that carnal symbolic "washings" had nothing whatsoever to do in receiving God's Spirit, and so did the apostle Peter (carefully read 1Peter 3:21). Peter explained that the LIKE FIGURE (representative) of baptism DOES save us, but it was NOT the baptism that puts away (washes) the "filth of flesh".
There is only ONE way to "put away the filth of the flesh" and that HAS to be by WATER, and NOT by the SPIRIT. Water baptism represented "spirit baptism" that comes in the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as Peter explained. This is HOW "spirit baptism" clears the guilty conscious for believers. As Peter explained; we are saved by "the answer of good conscious toward God".
The truth is, water baptism in a LITERAL sense can ONLY "cleanse" (wash) the "filth" of flesh; it CANNOT "cleanse" the carnal heart and mind. Only the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Christ gives can truly cleanse the heart, and the point is, that was the true message that John the Baptist preached ANYHOW! John understood his work of water baptism in symbolically "cleansing" Israel to receive their King was only a temporary work. He made it very plain that the one to come after him (Christ) was the one that was to give the ONE true baptism of the Holy Spirit and with FIRE (Mat 3:11). The Holy Spirit of God is the "fire" of God simply because God is called a "consuming fire" (Heb 12:29).
I never in all my life really considered what Christ told John when He himself was water baptized. "Suffer it to be so NOW" were Christ's words (Matthew 3:15). The word "now" was used, and again it only proves the temporary nature and purpose of water baptism. In other words, Jesus Christ himself accepted to get baptized by water for NOW (at that time), and to me it is very obvious that "NOW" really meant ONLY at that time in history during temple service, and was NOT meant to apply in all the history of the Church for 2000 years.
There was a logical reason why Christ himself DID NOT water baptize (John 4:2), and there was also a logical reason why Christ did NOT send the apostle Paul to water baptize (1Corinthians 1:17). It would have been a spiritual conflict or a sort of contradiction for Christ to water baptize since He himself (the SPIRIT of Christ felt in the heart of TRUE believers) was WHAT water baptism represented since Christ was the reality (NOT water) that believers were to be "washed" with. Paul was sent to people outside of Judea (Israelites known as "Gentiles" that were "dispersed") who were people NOT under the LAWS of carnal ordinances of temple service, and therefore they were never compelled to do the "works" of ceremonial "washings" known as water baptism.
It is interesting that the word "baptize" (G907) means to "make whelmed" (fully wet). It could also be defined as "overwhelm" (Thayer’s Lexicon). To "whelm" could mean to cover or to immerse, but as we shall see, to cover or immerse DOES NOT have to be with WATER! This possibility is generally ignored by our Churches! So the question is; WHAT are believers to be covered, overwhelmed, and immersed WITH?
Keep in mind, the Israelites were ONLY familiar with ceremonial physical "washings" done by immersion in water, and our churches generally ALSO teach on the premise that baptism is always done with WATER. But please understand, in the New Testament baptism did NOT always mean to cover, whelm, and immerse with WATER! I want to mention again; John the Baptist explained that Christ was to baptize (make whelmed) with the Holy Spirit and with "fire". It is very obvious that this type of baptism is NOT DONE by immersing, covering, and overwhelming with WATER!
Also in Mark 10:39 Christ told His apostles that they shall (future) be baptized with this SAME baptism as Christ was being baptized with, and again I stress the very VALID point that this baptism most certainly was NOT done with WATER! Yes, the apostles were to be "immersed" and "overwhelmed" with the SAME burden and spiritual work that Christ was "immersed" and "overwhelmed" with. This is a major truth about TRUE baptism in the New Testament!
I believe Christ's instructions to the apostles to "baptize all nations" (Matt 28:19) was simply preaching the gospel which CONVERTED and then "overwhelmed" and "immersed" believers with the Holy Spirit. Christ’s instructions were to baptize INTO the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; which implies that when believers responded to the gospel they were baptized (immersed) INTO the complete Godhead; which is what salvation is truly based on. The word "INTO" (G1519) in Matt 28:19 was the original Greek word; it was NOT the word "IN" as mistranslated in our KJ Bibles. But the commanded baptism by Peter in Acts 2:38 was done "IN" (G1909) the name of Jesus Christ because it was one of the (beginning) principles (G746) of the doctrine of Christ, but "perfection" requires that we are to LEAVE this doctrine (Heb 6:1-2). This is WHY baptizing only "IN" the name of Jesus Christ is NOT the same as baptizing "INTO" the complete Godhead.
The many water baptisms done in Acts only PICTURED the TRUE baptism of being overwhelmed and immersed INTO the complete Godhead. The point of the "great commission" was that Christ used the agency of the preaching of the apostles to baptize (immerse) believers INTO the complete Godhead. Today Christ uses (not necessarily PREACHED words) but the agency of the original inspired PRINTED words of scripture to baptize (immerse) believers INTO the complete Godhead if (yes, IF) they study the original inspired scriptures and are CONVERTED by them.
We in this modern day "enlightened" Christian world seem to seek and put the emphasis on symbols such as the ceremonial washing of baptism instead of seeking and setting our affection on the spiritual things above. Our so-called Christian upbringing COMPELS us to "copy" the water baptism done in the book of Acts, and strangely we never consider that the temple was still standing with all the carnal "washings" and various ordinances still in effect.
We have got to get REAL with the fact that we are NOT living in the era and history of the book of Acts! What happened during the events in Acts was simply a matter of the record of history, and NOT necessarily spiritual instructions for us 2000 years later! The point I’m making is that the events of Acts were ONLY meant for the Israel people living in that generation at that time in history.
The answer that should settle this whole crux of baptism is that if water baptism WOULD NOT have been a carnal ordinance of "washings" of temple service the people of Israel would have considered John as a false prophet and maybe even as "loony-toons", and they would never have listened to him! Please understand that the crucial point is this; John did NOT decide on his own to INVENT this "unusual" ceremony of him standing in the river of Jordan "washing away" the sins of Israelites! Do we really want to religiously OBEY an old covenant carnal ordinance of "holy washings" associated with the service of a physical temple located in Jerusalem 2000 years ago?
In conclusion, some people are made "victims" of this world’s church system, and water baptism is something very PERSONAL to them and their minds are generally SETTLED on how they believe. Therefore they no doubt will reject the way baptism was explained in this article. Please understand, this article was NOT written to CHANGE the theological views of certain people, and it was NOT written as a point of contention to expose others in how they happen to believe on baptism. It was ONLY written on the premise of how I personally happen to believe. We are ONLY ABLE to understand what is GIVEN us to understand; based ONLY on the wisdom and grace of a sovereign God! So let us give this sovereign God the GLORY since HE is the author of BOTH baptisms! Finally, I want to say that the act of water baptism of itself is HARMLESS, but we should NOT put any faith in it as a valid point of salvation.
Written by Mahlon Wickey October, 2010
(Email replies to "Water baptism or Spirit baptism")
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 7:37 PM
Subject: RE: Water baptism or Spirit baptism?
Mahlon,
This entire article is based upon assumption, based upon speculation, based upon presumption. I find it most interesting that you presume to know better than the apostles who were given the commission by Christ in Matthew 28 and Mark 16 and who then went out in obedience to that commission and baptized in water. If you don't already have a copy of Baptism: All You Want to Know and More? (which addresses nearly everything herein), I will be pleased to send you a complimentary copy. I extend the same offer to anyone on your list, if you're open and brave enough to send this response to them.
Serving the KING of kings
My reply...
Date: Saturday, November 06, 2010 10:33 PM
Hi,
It's good to hear from you. I mean that. I guess I could say you & I must agree to disagree. Like I mentioned in the article I did not write it to be contentious with anyone, but I'm sorry that you obviously did not take the article that way. Everyone believes the way they do, and I do not have the spiritual ability to change anyone's mind. It is up to our Heavenly Father to change minds and hearts as HE determines. No one can help the way they believe. I certainly can't help the way I believe and neither can you. I want to ask you, do you believe in two baptisms? Well, I do.
Who do you believe did the REAL baptizing; was it the apostles or was it Jesus Christ? I believe it was Jesus Christ. Now you have to agree with me on these two points. You do, don't you?? Why do you claim that the apostles baptized by water as commissioned by Christ; when in fact Christ did not mention water? You only assume He meant water baptism, along with the assumptions of millions of other people. You can call this just frivolous talk on my part if you want, but it is a biblical fact nevertheless. Why do you put such special importance and emphasis on water baptism?
John the Baptism himself would disagree with you since it was HIM that put the emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit (not water). But I got the impression you truly are determined to defend water baptism. Why? Do you put your faith in water baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit? In all due respect my point is you cannot put your faith in BOTH baptisms. The whole intent and purpose of the article was to shed light on the "two baptisms" as I understand the subject of baptism. But you right away made very broad accusations on how wrong I was. Why? Sure, I confess, I no doubt am wrong about certain doctrines. Can you confess and say the same? If I decide to be "brave" enough to forward your response to others as you suggested I will of course include this response to you. God bless.
http://bible.freehosting.net/
http://bibletruths.150m.com/
In His Service, Mahlon
---- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: Water baptism
Baptism was not "phased out": Act 2:39- "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." See Acts 2:38-41. Peter tells them to repent, each and every one of them. He tells them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Some translations actually render this --so that your sins will be forgiven. He tells them this is for every one of them. He tells them that if they do this they will receive the Holy Spirit. He tells them this is a promise of God. He tells them this promise of God is for them. He tells them this promise of God is for their children as well (meaning it is for all generations). Peter tells them very clearly and carefully this promise is not just for them, but for all that are far off—this is God’s plan of salvation for everyone for all generations everywhere, for all time. (This applies to us today. God’s salvation plan is still the same for us today as it was when Peter spoke these words to this crowd. It has not changed.) For further emphasis he tells them this promise of God is for everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Him.
My reply….
Date: Sunday, November 07, 2010 8:52 AM
Hi,
I totally agree that water baptism was honored by Jesus Christ and sins were indeed forgiven at that time. But does the physical agency of water of itself TRULY forgive sins? That is the question. It was their broken hearts that Jesus Christ honored, and water baptism was ONLY practiced on the premise of "symbolically" washing their sins away. That is what and how they believed at that time in history, and that is why I believe Peter (inspired by the MERCY of Christ) still honored how they believed. But what about the times when they were NOT water baptized and they still received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:43)? And what about the times when they were water baptized and had NEVER heard of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2)? These questions must be addressed.
The remission and forgiveness of sins happens when "whosoever believeth in Him (Christ)" as explained by Peter in Acts 10:43. When Peter spoke those words that is WHEN and HOW they received Holy Spirit, and they were water baptized AFTERWARDS simply because they still HONORED the symbolic "washings" of the old covenant temple service. It was by the spoken words of Peter that caused conversion and forgiveness of sins, and NOT caused by water baptism. The temple ordinances speak NOTHING about receiving the Holy Spirit.
I tried to explain these very important points in the article, but they were ignored. But that is fine with me. I truly believe in order for water baptism to be somewhat valid today the temple must still function, simply because I believe that is where and how this symbolic washing comes from. But as we all know, the physical temple building was destroyed back in 70ad, and the physical ordinances were rendered USELESS and were "nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14). But WE are now the temple of God, and we are spiritually "washed and cleansed" on the INSIDE of these temples where God the Father and Jesus Christ dwell. This concept is supported in many New Testament scriptures as you know. This is how I believe; take it or leave it as the saying goes. Anyway thank you for your message, and please stay in touch. God bless.
http://bible.freehosting.net/
http://bibletruths.150m.com/
In His Service, Mahlon
Back to Home Page
Questions or comments?... Email: mrwickey7@gmail.com