http://ichthys.com/ 
Baptism: Water and Spirit XII

Question #1:   
Hi Dr L,

One more quick question and I will give you a break (please). You said "all believers in this age are "one with Christ" from the moment of trusting in Him, even in the case of some very early believers for whom the visible "gift of the Spirit" was not instantaneously coincident with salvation," but in Acts 8:14-17, they had been baptized into the Lord's name but it specifically says the Spirit had NOT fallen on them yet. So did they not really believe the first time, or was the Spirit in them at point of faith and then left, and came back (I mean I am sure there was a good reason if it was this)? I hope this doesn't sound disrespectful.

Thank you,
Response #1:
The "baptism OF the Spirit" has two parts: 1) "by" . . . into Christ; and 2) "with", meaning the unction of Him now indwelling us. The second part here is what these Samaritan believers had not received. Acts 8:16 explicitly says that they had "only been baptized into the Name/person of Jesus". Translations which say "in the name" are thus mis-translations (this is also a problem with most version at Matthew 28:19 where we also have "into" and not "in": there's a big difference). Being baptized by the Spirit "into the Name/person" of Christ is how we are made one with Him, placed into union with Him, when we are saved. Nowadays all who believe also receive the other part of the Spirit's baptism, namely, His indwelling of us (cf. Rom.8:9).

The reason for the split between these two aspects of the Spirit's baptism in the early days of the Church Age (now there is no such split in the two parts), was for the purpose of establishing the authority of the apostles as they were necessary to mediate the unction of the Spirit for His indwelling (cf. Heb.6:2: "of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands").

For more the distinction between these two discrete aspects of the Spirit's baptism, please see the link in BB 5:
Baptized "with" the Spirit (as opposed to "by" the Spirit)
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:
Hi Dr L,

Small grammar thing: [omitted]

On water baptism: I am slowly getting what you are saying. The only point I am still confused on is the Acts 2:38 one. And I am not good enough at the Greek yet to understand. When I look at the Greek, and perhaps I will demonstrate how much I don't know, it is something like "..and having been baptised into the name of the Lord into(?) the forgiveness of your sins..." . That does seem to connect water baptism to forgiveness of sins (?). I can see how it could mean "As a demonstration of the forgiveness of your sins", but I am not certain. Maybe I just need to wait and chew on it.

Please don't feel like you have to go deep into this. But if you had a line or two to help me, and I may be able to just take it and run with it since I am learning Greek, I would appreciate it. I know you already wrote about it on ICHTHYS too, so if you are really busy, I will just try to chew on what you already have.

Respectfully,
Response #2:
Thanks for catching the typo!

If Acts 2:38 did connect water-baptism with the forgiveness of sin in meaning that the one was necessary for the other, it would be in disagreement with everything else in the New Testament, including what Peter says elsewhere:
"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
Acts 10:38 NIV
Here are a few links where I get into the grammar of Acts 2:38, explaining how this works and how the "for forgiveness" is actually tied to "repent!" (change of mind away from unbelief unto believe "in the Name of Jesus Christ" (again, in perfect alignment with every other scripture; cf. Jn.3:18):
link 1
link 2
link 3
Wishing you a wonderful 2024!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:
How are you doing? I hope you didn't get hit by any of the bad storms last week/early this week.

I have read your position on water baptism, and that you believe it isn't necessary for salvation and not applicable for Christians today. The church I am attending feels that you should get water baptized, and they say it isn't for salvation, they do it because it's a command of God. What do you think about this?

Thank you,
Response #3:
A little bit of wind here, a few fallen trees, but nothing terribly serious – thanks for asking.

It's not just that it's unnecessary: water-baptism is not authorized for believers today and is essentially a legalistic rite that has many negatives connected to it. Water-baptism was a Jewish rite given to the Messiah's herald (John) as a means to "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Lk.1:17); that is, this ritual was meant to prepare the Jewish people – all of whom were already supposed to be believers – for the coming of their Savior. While it was indulged in for a very brief period in the Church Age in early apostolic days, this was always within the Jewish ambit of the Church and always meant to be inclusive of Jews or proselytes who believed but who had not had John's baptism. For the Church Age, the baptism is that of the Spirit. Period. Just as there is only one Church, one Spirit, One Lord Jesus Christ and One Father, there is only ONE baptism:
(4) There is one body and One Spirit – just as when you were called it was in one hope that you were called. (5) There is One Lord (i.e., Jesus Christ), one faith, one baptism. (6) There is One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4:4-6

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and [with] fire".
Matthew 3:11 NKJV

(4) And gathering them together [Jesus] commanded [the disciples] not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father (i.e., the Holy Spirit) "which you heard about from Me. (5) For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Spirit not many days from now".
Acts 1:4-5

Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
Acts 11:16 NIV
When groups claim "it's commanded", they are inevitably speaking of Matthew 28:19, but this passage too is speaking of Spirit baptism, not water-baptism:
Then Jesus came over and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me, so go and make all nations my followers by baptizing them [with the Spirit] into the Person (i.e., “name”) of the Father and [into the Person] of the Son and [into the Person] of the Holy Spirit, and by teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.”
Matthew 28:18-20a
The only way anyone can be baptized INTO the PERSON of Christ (and the Father and the Spirit), is not by any human ritual but only through the baptism of the Holy Spirit who places believers into union with Christ so as to be "one" with Him (see the link). This blessing, the formation of Christ's assembly, the Church, through the miracle of Spirit baptism, is what the apostles were commissioned to share through the gospel (not dunking people into water which accomplishes nothing but division and confusion).

Here is a link which will lead to others (keeping reading beyond the linked Q/A) .

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Thank you as always for your quick reply. I apologize for my late response.

Your explanations were very clear and I appreciate the details you gave.

Thank you for your ministry and your kind and truthful words. I have been reading through the Peter series like you suggested.

Respectfully,
Response #4:
You're most welcome.

Feel free to write any time – and thanks much for your good words.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Hope everything is going well, and that your classes are off to a good start.

I have a few questions for you.

How do these two passages fit together? John 3:22-24 and John 4:1-2

22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea; and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. 23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon, near Salim, because there was an abundance of water there; and people were coming and being baptized— 24 for John had not yet been thrown into prison.

1 So then, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that [a]He was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing; rather, His disciples were),

The first one seems to say Jesus was baptizing and the second passage seems to say He wasn't. The subject of water baptism keeps popping up for me and my family, as the church we are attending (although very solid in many aspects, I think) pushes water baptism. I understand that the baptism now is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that water baptism is no longer, but then people say, "it's not the water that saves you, it's the act of faith". I just want to understand what the Bible says and what God wants. I know you have written lots in the subject and I have read lots of those links. Then I can across these scriptures and wanted to get clarification.

Thank you!

Respectfully,
Response #5:
Good to hear from you!

It's busy but I'm getting through – thanks for asking!

On John 3:22-24 and John 4:1-2, there is no contradiction. It probably looks more so to English readers because of the chapter division, but these are relatively "modern" inventions in the Bible (16th century for the New Testament). If read straight through without taking a chapter break, it becomes clear that the second passage is an aside which clears up possible misapprehensions about the first. That is to say, the entire context essentially says "Jesus and His disciples were baptizing . . . that is to say, He Himself was not baptizing with water but they were".
"Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel."
Acts 13:24 NIV
Water baptism was to/for "all the people of Israel", and in the John passages you reference it is indeed only Israelites who were being water-baptized.

You probably know all about the links on this at Ichthys. There is a great deal of material on this subject (sadly – because it is such a prevalent heresy). Here's the latest one posted which will lead to more just in case: Baptism: Water and Spirit XI

Re: "it's not the water that saves you, it's the act of faith" . . . but faith in what or whom? People, unbelievers, are always bragging about "their faith". But faith is obedience / belief in someone or in something, and it has to be genuine and directed toward the right object to do anyone any good.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
James 2:19 NIV
So the demons "believe" that God is one – but they do not submit to Jesus Christ. What do these people you mention "believe"? If they "believe" that water-baptism saves, they are possibly not saved.
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[
Romans 9:30-33 NIV
Everything that is not grace is works. Believing you're doing something for God by doing something He doesn't want you to do is the very definition of legalism and legalism cannot save. Only faith in Jesus Christ saves.
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:18 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:
Oh, I see now on those verses in John. I forget that the Bible wasn't written in "chapters". Thank you for helping me understand that.

I don't think our church relies on water baptism for salvation, although they believe it is a command of God and you should do it. They are very clear about the gospel message, and whenever they do communion it is about Jesus' sacrifice. The only thing is, they mention baptism a lot and when someone comes to place membership, they sometimes say, "they have come to us as already immersed believers" making it seem a requirement to become a member. I don't personally agree with "church" membership in that sense. If you are a believer in Jesus you are a member of the one true church.

Thank you for taking the time to help me understand these things more, even as you have much to do. I hope you get a restful weekend.

Respectfully,
Response #6:
No worries, my friend!

Re: "they believe it is a command of God and you should do it": If it WERE "a command of God" then of course we should do it. But there is no such command in the Bible. The disciples are commanded to "baptize" new converts in Matthew 28:19-20 but that "baptism" is the baptism of the Spirit which all who believe receive (cf. Lk.24:49). Today, that command is carried out by giving people the gospel (as the passage clearly says: "BY teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" (Matt.28:20 Greek). In the early days of Acts, however, the reception of the indwelling of the Spirit was to be mediated by the laying on of the apostles' hands, God working it this way at first to establish their authority. That this is so is easily seen by comparing that passage with this one, the last words of our Lord (cf. Acts 1:9) before He ascended to the third heaven:
And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Acts 1:5 NKJV
Throughout the New Testament, following the early days of Acts (where there is some water-baptism for the purpose described above), "baptism" is Spirit baptism. The water ritual belonged to the Jewish nation in preparation for the Messiah (Acts 13:24).

I certainly agree on denominations. That is something else which doesn't occur in scripture – neither does "church membership" – but that hasn't stopped most people from engaging even so. Denominations and membership are at the root of many problems and heresies in the history of the church-visible (this is how we got Roman Catholicism, after all). See the link for more on this: BB 6B: Ecclesiology

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:
Thank you, Mr. Luginbill! This explanation of baptism tied everything up for me. I think I finally get the concept now.

Thanks!
Response #7:
My pleasure.  Write any time.
Question #8:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

For many years I have accessed your site. Your writings are always thought provoking and often clarifying.

Indeed, there are many discussions of yours I have read on Baptism in Water and same vs Baptism in the Holy Spirit (though, I confess to not having read them all). 

The Bible teaches us John the Baptist baptized in water before Jesus’ time had come. We know clearly John was focused on his mission as is explained for example in both John 1:23 He said, “I am tthe voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” and Luke 3:16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 

My questions: Where can I find Biblical references to the history on John the Baptist’s journey prior to his mission for God? What, where, when was John inspired to begin baptizing in water? 
I am very grateful for your time and expertise, as well as your dedication to sharing. Your work matters to me, Sir, and I thank you most sincerely.

The grace of Jesus Christ be with you,

Yours in Christ,
Response #8:
Good to make your acquaintance – and thanks for your encouraging words.

All we know of John is what scripture gives us. In addition to mentions of John throughout the New Testament, the main passages are the prophecy about John and his birth and Zacharias' prophecy about John's ministry (in Luke 1:5-25; 1:57-80); the descriptions of John and his ministry (in Matt.3:1-10; Mk.1:2-6; Lk.3:1-17; Jn.1:19-23); John's baptism of our Lord (in Matt.3:11-12; Mk.1:7-8; Lk.3:21-22; Jn.1:24-28); John's testimony about Jesus being the Messiah (Jn.1:29-42); John's imprisonment (Matt.14:3-4; Mk.6:17-18; Lk.3:19-20); John's embassy to our Lord and our Lord's testimony about John (Matt.11:1-19; Lk.7:18-35); and John's execution (Matt.14:1-12; Mk.6:14-29; Lk.9:7-9 ).

It is clear from the testimony of scripture that John was specially chosen, specially empowered with the Holy Spirit, and thus was guided by Him to engage in the prophesied ministry in the way in which he did. None of the above explains precisely why John was directed to water-baptize, but purification with water figures large in the Law of Moses. E.g.:
He shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean.
Numbers 19:12 NKJV
The above is just one of numerous passages and places where symbolic cleansing from sin was necessary to purify from uncleanness (e.g., Ex.29:4; 30:18-19; 40:30; Lev.14:8; Num.19:21; Ps.51:7; Mk.7:4; Heb.9:10), and that is the essential symbolism of John's water baptizing: the Jewish nation was unclean and needed to be purified in preparation for the coming of her Messiah. This is why his water-baptism is called "a [water] baptism of repentance [looking forward] to the forgiveness of sins" (Mk.1:4; cf. Lk.3:3) . . . BUT only for "all the people of Israel" (Acts 13:24). 

Only the Messiah could forgive sins. The water represented the washing away of their sins through faith in Him, and that is why Jesus' water-baptism was necessary "to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt.3:15), namely, for our Lord to go down into the water and symbolically take all of those washed off sins onto Himself.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:
Hi Dr L,

When John the Baptist went our baptizing, it seems like a normal thing for the Israelites; where did it come from? There are verses about washing with water when one becomes impure, but not about doing so when you repent. Or about having someone else (Esp someone not a priest) doing to to you. Do we know where it came from?

Respectfully,
Response #9:
Re "it seems like a normal thing".  There were of course many cleansing rituals in the OT, but nothing exactly like what John did had ever happened before. I doubt that he would have attracted the audience he did except that this was God's the Father's plan for announcing the coming ministry of His Son (Is.40:1-5). If you mean the likes of John 1:25 (NASB20): "Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?", it seems that the Pharisees at least realized that this was a unique development so that John had to be somebody special and that his ministry had to be something special – but as the quote also shows they hadn't even figured out Isaiah 40:1-5. Here's something I've written about this previously:
On water-baptism, this was a ritual designed for Jewish people under the Law wherein water was often employed to represent cleansing. On the eve of Jesus' earthly ministry, Israel was laboring under a double burden of legalism and secularism (represented by the Pharisees and Sadducees respectively). Requiring those willing to repent and prepare for the coming of the Messiah to physically leave the settled land and go out to the wilderness and then engage in a purification ritual similar to but not actually connected to the Law was a very graphic way of representing that the Messiah would not be a part of the current power-structure and that His coming would not be what everyone expected. Still, most did not "get" the message and most who were baptized by John did not accept Jesus (or at least did not stick with Him when the going got rough). This was a unique ministry meant to very vividly represent the Messiah's break with the past though doing so in a way not foreign to those growing up under the Law.
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:
Hi there,

I came across your website while searching online for support that Matthew 28 refers to Holy Spirit baptism and not water baptism. 

I loved reading through all of the emails and I found them very helpful and encouraging. It seems so clear to me now that our Lord did not command water baptism in relation to the great commission and obviously no where else in scripture was it mentioned. 

Why is it so misunderstood? 

I actually had a baptismal interview scheduled at a Baptist Church I’ve been attending and I just had to cancel it. 

I was baptized as an infant and I’ve come to faith in Our Lord Jesus two years ago and have had Thai feeling I need to be re baptized
Response #10:
Good to make your acquaintance, and thanks so much for the positive words.

As to the "why?", one could ask this question about the whole realm of doctrine taught in scripture, truths which the church-visible started to lose hold of just as soon as the apostles passed on. 

In terms of water-baptism in particular, moreover, we can say that it serves a useful purpose for denominations and even individual churches in that it gives them "something" people can only get from them. So it is a way to gain and hold converts, or should I say donors? No doubt most in these groups have convinced themselves of the rightness of what they are doing. They do it because their fathers did it, and their fathers did it because their fathers did it . . . but the farther back one goes, the clearer it becomes that it was never meant to be a ritual for the Church Age; rather it was a ritual of repentance for Israel to prepare for the coming of the Messiah (Mk.1:4; Lk.3:3; Acts 19:4). 

Like all rituals from the Law engaged in today, water-baptism sends the wrong message now that the Law has been fulfilled (e.g., Matt.5:17-20; Rom.10:4; Heb.7:12; 8:7; 8:13), suggesting that the Messiah hasn't yet come the first time. Legalism is a very potent evil, and once it gets its hooks into someone, it is hard for them to break free, especially if they've invested a lot in the organization or system in question – and that explains the success of the Mormons and the Roman Catholic church.

So I commend your determination to stand on grace and not on works. Because works never ends well.
Know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 2:16 NIV

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV
Do feel free to write any time!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:
Hello Bob

I see my email was sent incomplete! How embarrassing haha. Thank you for your prompt reply. 

Anyways I went on to say I felt my testimony that I was writing up seemed almost prideful. 

And then I remembered Galatians 3:3. Which for me says it all…

It’s almost as if the enemy has sewn tares with baptism…Nothing has been more divisive within the Church. 

It’s a pleasure to talk with you!

In Christ,
Response #11:
No worries! That's phones for you (e.g., "had Thai feeling" – thank you so much autocorrect!).

Re: "It’s almost as if the enemy has sewn tares with baptism…Nothing has been more divisive within the Church." That is the crystal clear truth. And you would think that this point would cause more advocates for this practice to think twice since it's wrongly applied, completely misunderstood, inconsistent within all groups and unauthorized by the Bible: no two people will give the same answer on what water-baptizing today is supposed to mean or do.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:
Thanks for the good laugh. 

I am really enjoying your website… just started on “Is Speaking in Tounges Biblical?”

Have you heard for Steve Gregg (Narrow Path)?

In Christ,
Response #12:
My pleasure!

The name sounds vaguely familiar, but there are so many ministers and ministries out there these days, I honestly can't keep up with them. I have plenty of fish to fry at Ichthys!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:
Hope you don't mind if I created a new chain. Our discussion was getting really long. 

Regarding your last response...Makes perfect sense! So these unbelievers thought water baptism was necessary to save? It makes me wonder where they got that idea from. But all false religions and cults have to start from somewhere. 

Ok, so I had another question regarding Acts 2:38, you said (somewhere in one of your discussions with someone else-I can't remember) that "repent" is in the second person imperative (correct me if I'm accidently mixing them up) and that "be baptized" is in the third person imperative. The latter here is more like an exhortation or an option, not an imperative command. My question is, how can you say that water possibly could have been involved when the grammar for "be baptized" is not in the imperative? It just sounds to me like this is saying that if this was spirit baptism, then it is "optional" to be Spirit baptized. This makes me think that the grammar and context demand that this "be baptized" refers precisely to water. I take it as referring to water and don't see how Spirit baptism is in this context (even if that occurred shortly before their water immersion). 

Is there something I'm not seeing here? 
Response #13:
You're correct about the grammar. But this is exactly parallel to what Peter says in Acts chapter ten: 
“Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Acts 10:47 NKJV
In other words, Peter seems to have had some notion that water-baptism rather than Spirit baptism was the optional thing and that Spirit baptism was what was really necessary rather than water-baptism (as in the passage above where it is an afterthought). In chapter two, he wants his listeners at Pentecost to repent so as to be saved, no doubt thinking or intuiting that the Spirit will follow that expression of faith from them not on account of the ritual (i.e., just as the Spirit had come to the assembled believers a little while before this). That is also what he says later, never mentioning water:
"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord."
Acts 3:19 NIV
So his expression at Acts 2:38 is consistent with what Peter says and does at other times. (whereas demanding water-baptism as necessary rather than as optional is not).  The lag between coming to recognize that water baptism was not only not necessary but also unauthorized and unhelpful for the Church Age to come is part and parcel of the transition which Acts represents (it was not easy for anyone to switch from the Old Covenant to the New, from Law to grace, from the dead letter to the living Spirit overnight; much had to be learned and accepted first; see the link). 
Why did they keep doing it (for a while)? Because that is the way they had been doing it. Doesn't that sound familiar? As mentioned many times (here's one link: "Peter's 'learning-curve' "), the apostles had a steep learning curve to climb in the transition from Law to grace, from the Old Covenant to the New. They were given the Spirit – as we are at the new birth – but they were not immediately and magically given to understand truths which they had to learn just like we all do after we are saved. 

That's probably the answer to your other question. Why do people persevere in all manner of unhelpful, questionable and unauthorized traditions? Because "that's the way we've always done it". That traditionalism is the basis for the RC church and for all Protestant resistance to coming to terms with all the truth in the Bible. And it's WAY easier than actually looking into scripture and finding out what is really there. So for those who are, like the apostles, actually committing themselves to growing in the truth and NOT allowing themselves to be forever mired in lukewarm (at best) tradition, there will be opposition from the evil one – but also great blessing and reward in following our Lord the way He desires us to do.
“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?"
Luke 6:46 NIV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:
Thanks for bearing with me, I know I reply quickly, but I don't see any reason not to as long as you don't mind. I have the time, so I figure, "eh, why not?" I'm busy but not that busy. Not having a job has helped with that though. 

Of course I understand water baptism was optional. Having the people repent (as another side of the coin with faith so Peter doesn't have to mention faith at all) will naturally result in the baptism of (by) the Spirit. But if the phrase "be baptized" isn't an imperative command but more of an exhortation and option, then doesn't that mean that this baptism had to be water (whether sprinkling or full immersion)? As in, there is no "possible" or "maybe" here because this was actually water baptism? Spirit baptism isn't optional but automatic. Maybe I just misunderstood, but you said earlier regarding this passage " We don't know how or whether a water baptism took place here because it doesn't say; we don't know whether there was any laying on of hands because it doesn't say; it does say they were baptized on the point of receiving the Word, but based upon Acts 8:12 compared with Acts 8:15, unless this is referring to water baptism, it probably means that they were entered by the Spirit into union with Christ which, in the other case, did not also give the gift of the Spirit. 

Could I not just interpret "be baptized" as water since the grammar seems to demand it? I mean, it isn't like it changes anything anyway. 

One final thing I wanted to ask was about 1 Corinthians 1:13-15. We already went over it, but it still isn't clear to me. Is Paul being sarcastic when he says "were you baptized into the name of Paul?" Is he also being sarcastic in verses 14 and 15 as well? (I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name)? 

In His grace and power, 
Response #14:
Always good to hear from you.

"Optional" . . . after the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit, and "acceptable" for Jewish believers of that time who had not received John's baptism – but NOT meant for continuation (and in fact discontinued long before the apostolic era came to an end; see the link).

We don't know what precisely what happened in Acts 8 regarding this issue because Luke doesn't say; just says "were baptized" (and we know from the sequel that this did not entail the reception of the indwelling of the Spirit – which is why the other apostles came later). We do know what Peter SAID, but we don't know what the upshot was. I.e., if there was not water available, did this mean that those with the inclination got water-baptized later? We are told (v.41) that "those who gladly received his word were baptized", but these aorist verbs can indicate an immediate baptism of the Spirit – as happens later in Acts chapter 10. It doesn't have to mean "water baptized".

As to 1st Corinthians 1:13-15, you can call it irony if you wish or sanctified sarcasm, but we shouldn't let definitions control our exegesis. That is what often happens in traditional theology and it can lead to many errors. What we know: 1) no, no one was baptized into the person of Paul (that is his point in saying this); 2) Paul is truly grateful he didn't baptize more people in Corinth because otherwise, apparently, given their foolish factionalism, some people might actually go as far as this nonsensical understanding of things – or at least count coup over being baptized by Paul. And we can certainly conclude that he wouldn't have made this statement if in fact water-baptism were necessary (or even helpful in the end).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:
Hey professor, 

Would teaching water baptism as necessary for salvation be considered a false gospel? I'm not sure whether we can know if said people are saved or that we should try and figure that out. But if it is a false gospel, how can people who hold to this view be genuine believers? I believe Martin Luther is in heaven, yet he believed this ritual was required to be saved. But how is this any different than the teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation which Paul condemns in Galatians? He came out very strongly by saying he wished anyone who taught another gospel to be accursed. 

What are your thoughts on this? 
Response #15:
If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he/she is saved. If a person believes he/she is saved by engaging in ritual, any ritual, he/she is attempting to be saved by works, not faith, and is not saved. Where individuals whose application is flawed and whose understanding of things is imperfect and whose motives and intentions are unclear, well, that comes down to something we have to leave to the Lord, I think – unless they ask us about it in sincerity (not as a debate tactic), in which case we try to help them dump ritual and adopt a pure faith in Jesus Christ.

As to Luther and "yet he believed this ritual was required to be saved", how do you know that? Luther is frequently misrepresented and also even often misquoted. Part of the problem there is the fact that he wrote in rather dense German of an earlier age so that many English translations are misleading. A famous one, to the effect that "James is a right strawy epistle", interpreted to mean he doubted its canonicity, turns out to be an inaccurate understanding of his writing. Clearly, Luther was not perfect, and I don't see any particular profitability for spiritual growth in reading his writings, but his fundamental break with the RC church was made over the issue of faith, the righteousness by faith and justification by faith not works found in Romans and Paul generally. So I rather suspect that your statement would need to be qualified some if you did the leg-work.

No one is perfect. On circumcision, Paul said what he said – and he also circumcised Timothy. Paul took a while to get to the point of purity of grace and rising above the Law in which he was steeped – but he was certainly saved from the moment Ananais gave him the gospel (at least). As I mentioned before, the apostles were human, they had to learn and grow as we do in spite of the fact that they were/are some of the most exceptional believers in history (see the link), and the book of Acts is devoted to charting that transition from Law to grace, from the Old to the New Covenant – and is not meant to be taken as a chronicle of perfect people doing perfect things which we should take as a model for how to do things today (see the link). Since they – and since Paul, the greatest of the twelve – had to struggle to get to the truth, to overcome tradition in quest of the truth, we ought to follow that example and not let ourselves be tempted to turn back to dead ritual instead (that is the essential lesson of the book of Hebrews; see the link).

So we believe the truth. We teach the truth. We have no personal tolerance for what is not true. But we don't assume we know everything about what is going on in the hearts of others. We err on the side of mercy in our dealings with them and on the side of making the truth plain in any opportunities we have with them.
My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
James 5:19-20 NIV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:
Regarding Luther, I must confess that I did not know this. Well that's actually a relief! Everywhere I've read and everyone I've talked to said he basically disregarded the book because he didn't like it. But this is news to me! You do have a point about verifying his views on water baptism. The latest source I'm getting this idea about his beliefs (maybe it isn't true?) come from his "Large Catechism" where he writes- [I] affirm that Baptism is no human trifle, but that it was established by God Himself. Moreover, He earnestly and solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. No one is to think that it is an optional matter like putting on a red coat. It is of greatest importance that we hold Baptism in high esteem as something splendid and glorious. The reason why we are striving and battling so strenuously for this view of Baptism is that the world nowadays is full of sects that loudly proclaim that Baptism is merely an external form and that external forms are useless…. Although Baptism is indeed performed by human hands, yet it is truly God’s own action (1978, pp. 98-99). https://apologeticspress.org/martin-luther-speaks-on-faith-only-and-baptism-958/ 

What do you think? You may be right that some have possibly misinterpreted his words, but I don't know. I did only bring him up as just one example, but your comments have made me reconsider whether he should be used as one or not. To be honest, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what he believed since all that matters is what the Bible says anyway. Only the Lord truly knows whether he is in heaven or not (I do think he is with the Lord). And of course I agree with you that we should never try to act like we know the other person's heart or standing with God. 

Sincerely, 
Response #16:
Sounds pretty definitive! However, Luther's larger catechism was published nearly thirty years before his death, meaning that it was the product of his earlier years. I will also note that the verse he cites defending baptism comes from the longer ending of Mark – which we now know is not a part of the Bible (link). 

I'm no Lutheran or student of Luther. I am sure that if he'd had more time, if he lived today, he wouldn't have stopped his theology where he stopped it but would have made more progress towards the truth. Calvin falls into the same category on that score. I will draw the analogy that even the apostles did and said many things in the book of Acts which later on they wouldn't have, such as Paul's final visit to Jerusalem where he allowed himself to be bullied into participating in ritual which ended up in him being in captivity for many years. The apostles in spite of everything were given to lay the foundation through their work and most especially through the Spirit-inspired completion of the Bible in the New Testament. What is so sad is that their (eventually) complete understanding of the truth was not maintained by those who followed, and it has been a struggle ever since to get back to that "high ground" (the struggle we are presently engaged in).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

I had another question, kind of relating to our previous discussion.

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. - 1st Peter 3:18-22

Who are the spirits in this passage, the imprisoned angels or people?

How does the baptism in this passage relate to baptism of the Holy Spirit? Why did God use water to symbolize baptism and how do we view these passages since we know it's baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Thank you!
Response #17:
The "spirits" are the demons of Genesis chapter six.

This passage is much misunderstood and I have treated it in great detail at the link: Paragraph III of 1st Peter chapter three (at the link).

There is no water baptism in this passage at all (i.e., in "and this water symbolizes", the word "water" is not present in the Greek). The "baptism" is entirely that of the Spirit which is symbolized by Noah and his family entering the ark as we enter into Christ. Details in the link above.

Keeping you and your family in my daily prayers, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:
Yes, lies are flying around out there, with the present-day world being awash in false teaching and cults and semi-cults, and by the grace of God I have been contending against such for years, but as Wikipedia is such a primary source and will not allow statements from the non-credentialed and the section dealt with the meaning of words, then I thought to enlist you, in which area you have helped much before.

So thank God for your help again. And note that when I said "thus be baptized and live for Him" I was referring to the response to being saved, as in the verse quoted, water baptism following baptism with the Spirit, and not as the means of salvation, thanks be to God.
Response #18:
Peter's allowance of water-baptism to these gentiles who had already received the Holy Spirit was what I would call a sanctified mistake. Peter didn't yet understand many things about the new Church Age – as his conduct throughout this episode makes abundantly clear (i.e., he needed a threefold command from the Spirit to even go to Cornelius) – and wasn't perfect even later in his understanding and acceptance of the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New: Gal.2:11-14. His allowance of water-baptism on that occasion might have done Cornelius and his friends no particular harm. On the other hand, it had the potential of leading them into legalism, engaging in a ritual that had already been fulfilled.

". . . John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Acts 1:5 NKJV

John's water-baptism was meant to prepare Jewish believers for their Messiah. But Christ has now already come. That is why water-baptism was no longer engaged in after a very short period of transition in the days of the apostles – at least it's not in the Bible. After the first half or so of Acts, which represents a small portion of even the apostolic period in terms of raw time, we don't find water-baptism in scripture except in negative terms in contrast with the baptism of the Spirit, the true baptism of the Church Age (cf. 1Cor.1:17; Eph.4:5; 1Pet.3:21).

This is an issue of no small import (and I have written much about these issues and will give you some starter links below in case you are interested in pursuing it). That is because engaging in any non-authorized ritual and proclaiming it to have spiritual significance (and intimating that those who do not engage in it are not spiritual or worse) is a text-book definition of legalism (and there is nothing more deadly to faith than works; see the new Hebrews series at the link). 

Anti-nomianism of any sort (including what you are opposing) is a huge problem and an offense to the Lord; but so is legalism – and the two often coexist very comfortably in alteration. That was the case in the first century where those who wished to return to the Law and the Gnostics essentially shared each others converts. When the truth is rejected, all manner of satanic lies are easily accepted. And that is where we are in our present day as well, it seems to me. On the one hand, "conservatives" have taken up crusading for various causes using false standards and willfully misinterpreting scripture to support their views, while for the other side "anything goes" and you can be cancelled for not accepting their lies. But where is there any godly desire to learn what the Bible says and believe that? To dedicate oneself to be closer to Jesus Christ in fact, without engaging in politics on the one hand or casting all restraint to the winds on the other? Sadly, the present situation resembles what Isaiah was given to remonstrate against:

Justice is turned back,
And righteousness stands far away;
For truth has stumbled in the street,
And uprightness cannot enter.
Isaiah 59:14 NASB20

If the churches were teaching the truth, perhaps things would not be as grim as they are – but of course that assumes a clientele eager to learn and believe the truth (and that seems to be lacking as well). It's much more "fun" to crusade or to indulge oneself (two sides of the same lukewarm coin), or to do nothing at all.

As I say, this is an important issue to get right. During the soon to come Tribulation, antichrist's religion will make use of both of these two extremes to garner the maximum amount of followers as well. Here are those links:
In BB 6B: Ecclesiology: The Time of Transition versus the Present Status Quo
In BB 6B: Ecclesiology: Water-Baptism
Baptism: Water and Spirit XI
Baptism: Water and Spirit X
Baptism: Water and Spirit IX
Baptism: Water and Spirit VIII
Baptism: Water and Spirit VII
Baptism: Water and Spirit VI
Baptism: Water and Spirit V
Baptism: Water and Spirit IV
Baptism: Water and Spirit III
Baptism: Water and Spirit II.
John's Water-Baptism versus the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
One Baptism: the True Meaning of Peter's Words at Acts 2:38.
Baptism:  Water and Spirit.
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:
I think this is akin to hyperdispensationalism . Rather, the Lord commanded the apostles to go into all the world preaching and baptizing, not just preaching or only baptizing in the world of the Jews, or as meaning baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ, (1 Co. 12:13) but engaging in the symbolic act that Peter as well as Paul baptized by both, though his main work was preaching the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17) which precedes baptism.

That "after the first half or so of Acts we don't find water-baptism in scripture is not factually true, for besides "or so" needing to acknowledge Paul water baptizing 2 chapters after the first half of Acts, (Acts 16:33) then 2 more chapters afterward "Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." (Acts 18:8) cf. "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." (1 Corinthians 1:14-15)

And in the next chapter we see the same:

"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. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." (Acts 19:4-6)

Note that " baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" refers to water baptism in Acts 8:15. And the sequence of believing, and being baptized, and then receiving the filling with the Spirit (after regeneration) corresponds to Paul's own conversion, in which he was told, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," (Acts 22:16) yet with Ananias laying hands on him to "be filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 9:17) Acts 8:14-16 seems to relate to this.

Furthermore, the reason we do not see any more in the last 9 chapters of Acts is for the same reason that we see no descriptions of conversions therein, for after cps. 19, 20 the narrative is that of Paul leaving the churches to go on his missionary journey into Macedonia, and with chapters 21-28 describing the trials and persecutions and hardships that he consequently endured. Yet wherever we see descriptions of conversions with any detail then baptism is noted.

And as for the "church age," that manifestly began at Pentecost, with the Lord Jesus have instituted the New Covenant by His sinless shed blood, and opened up the way into the holiest, and poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit, who was promised to all who believe. This was the same gospel, with baptism following, preached by Peter in Acts 2 and 10, and by Phillip the evangelist in Acts 8, and Paul believed in cp. 9, and performed in Acts 16:15, 33, and Acts 18:8 and 19:4-6

However, as in Acts 10:43-47, in Acts 2:38 it was the faith that was expressed in baptism that was means of regeneration, not any act. Like an altar call, baptism in Acts 2 was the occasion of conversion, but not the means which effected regeneration. For to believe is to obey, going together as cause and effect, like as forgiveness and healing went together in the cause of the palsied man in Mark 2 (so that Christ could ask, "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?" - Mark 2:9). 

Likewise to be baptized both requires as well as evidences faith, and to promise OT saints regeneration if they would believe, which baptism required and evidenced, is essentially the same as promising to both Jews and Gentiles, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.' (Romans 10:9-10) 

Baptism is essentially that of confessing the Lord Jesus in body language, moving one's body and not just his tongue, expressive of justifying regenerating faith. yet it is this faith in the heart - which baptism properly expresses as an formal evidential effect of faith - that is salvific, though inseparable as regards cause and effect. However, the two are not to be confused as regards what appropriates justification, with Abrahamic-type faith being counted for righteousness, thanks be to God. 

Baptism in water is not in opposition to or replaced by with the Spirit, and the act of the former does not effect the latter, regardless what Catholics imagine. But baptism in water is a testimony to faith is what the Lord commanded, as shown by the apostles doing so, and cannot be said to be legalism.

Rather, asserting than preaching the gospel of Acts 10:36-43 with baptism following being that of engaging in a non-authorized ritual, and proclaiming it to have spiritual significance (and intimating that those who do not engage in it are not spiritual or worse) being a text-book definition of legalism, instead your position is to make heretics out of those who obey the Lord Jesus as Peter, Phillip, and Paul did, with no actual evidence this practice ceased with them.

Your position requires you to change, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18-19) to read, "Go ye therefore, and teach the all nations, baptizing in water until someone decides the church age begins and this is to cease, and being legalists to obey what I commanded in all nations."

This reproof does not mean to demean you as a blessed scholarly resource, but it saddens me to see this example of aberrant teaching, even as we head to to the soon to come Tribulation, which you are correct in recognizing the church will not be raptured beforehand. 
Response #19:
Re: "Baptism is essentially that of confessing the Lord Jesus in body language, moving one's body and not just his tongue, expressive of justifying regenerating faith." That is an explanation of water-baptism I've never heard before, one that is not expressed anywhere in scripture. In that respect, it is like all the other explanations out there of "what water-baptism means": unbiblical, illogical, and incorrect (since there is no mandate for Christians in this time to be dunked at all). In other words, the mere problematic nature of this and other "explanations" lobbed up to try to justify its continuation proves in and of itself that it's wrong. Q.E.D.

Peter's mistaken water-baptism of the gentiles in Acts 10 is a description of what happened; it is not a model for the Church Age (that is true of all of the examples of water-baptism in the book of Acts which is a descriptive historical and not a doctrinally proscriptive book; see the link). 

Paul water-baptized during the early days of his ministry but came to regret it and said so – because Christ did not send him for that purpose (1Cor.1:17). There is no water involved in Acts 19:4-6 (the word water does not occur): that passage is all about Spirit baptism, and there is no water-baptism in Acts after the late 40's A.D. and Paul's first journey to Greece). Water-baptism is John's baptism, looking forward to the Messiah. But the Messiah has now come, has won the victory of the cross, and has been resurrected, ascended and glorified – and has now sent the Spirit. It is Spirit baptism that is stressed throughout the New Testament – and by John and Jesus as well, not water (Matt.3:11; Acts 1:5). The "one baptism" is the Spirit, not water (Eph.4:5). And our Lord's "great commission" to the apostles likewise is speaking of the Spirit, not water; the Spirit is the One who has been building up the Church "by teaching" new Christians the truth (Matt.28:20); water accomplishes nothing. That is why in Matt.28:19 we find "baptize into the Name/person" of the Trinity, that is union with Christ and the Father and the Spirit, something no water ritual could accomplish, but something the baptism of the Spirit indeed does (see the link).

Failing to appreciate the above results in missing out on the true power of the Christian experience; it also leads to legalism which destroys spirituality and eventually undermines faith. What, I ask, is the difference between continuing to engage in this fulfilled and defunct ritual of the Law and what the Jewish believers in Jerusalem believers were doing that earned them the rebuke of the book of Hebrews (link)?

There may be some excuse for generations of past for continuing with a ritual which was never meant for the Church, but today, on the cusp of the Tribulation, when these biblically obvious truths have been made very clear (not only by myself; I'm following others and there are plenty of more who've bothered to read the Bible correctly on this point as well), there is no excuse. The only reason – the ONLY reason – people continue to water-baptize is out of tradition. Everyone who is really "of Christ" knows in their heart of hearts that it is wrong.
Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?
Proverbs 24:11-12 NIV
It is to the Lord Jesus Christ that we must answer, not the prejudices and traditions of men.
"And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."
Matthew 15:9 NKJV
The believers of the Jerusalem church in the first century likewise fell back onto tradition – and it ruined them, spiritually. The epistle to the Hebrews makes it clear that returning to the Law is a mistake, and a dangerous one at that. That is because the Law foreshadowed our Lord and His sacrifice on the cross, but to continue with the shadows is to blasphemously assert that Jesus never came or died for us. Nothing could be worse (Heb.6:6; 10:29a).

Not a single passage in the New Testament commands believers of this age to be water-baptized. But the NT is filled with passages talking about the baptism of the Spirit and His ministry to us (see BB 5: Pneumatology).

*It's very clear from your description of "what water baptism means" that the ritual is not legitimate. Your explanation is confusing – and is different from everyone else's. Indeed, no two proponents of water baptism understand it in precisely the same way – because it makes no sense since it's not biblical. The only legitimate water-baptism was John's. That is what some of the apostles engaged in for a short transitional period – and understandably since that generation had known all about John's ritual and those who were believers had mostly been water-baptized by John in preparation for Jesus' coming. But it was clearly inappropriate to continue. So while there is a reasonable explanation for why some (wrongly, I would argue) occasionally continued with the water at the time, there is no reasonable explanation for why we should be doing it now since scripture doesn't say we should. If we do, we are involved in legalism at best and works salvation at worst – and there is no spiritual profit in that.
(4) And gathering them together [Jesus] commanded [the disciples] not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father (i.e., the Holy Spirit) "which you heard about from Me. (5) For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Spirit not many days from now".
Acts 1:4-5
The above is just the gist of it. I've written a great deal on this important subject. If you're interested in the details, see the links I gave you before.

As to "This reproof does not mean to demean you as a blessed scholarly resource", I don't think there is much profit to be had by spending time in at Ichthys for any not operating on the basis of grace but on the basis of works (which is what water-baptism is).  No offense, but this is no small matter.
A little leaven (i.e., of legalism in the context of this passage) leavens the whole lump.
Galatians 5:9 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/