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

Question #1:   
Hey Bob,

I'm not sure if I've asked about this before, but it's about water baptism. I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but it isn't necessary for salvation, right? The pastor of the church I go to seems to think so, his reasoning being because we need to follow in Christ's footsteps, but I just wanted to make sure.

I recall John saying that, while he did indeed baptize with water, one is coming who was greater than he, and that He would baptize with fire (the spirit). That tells me that the water baptism isn't necessary, but I still thought I would ask.
Response #1:
No, water baptism isn't required to be saved. Not only "no", but "NO!!!".

So much is that true that any person or group who believes or teaches that horrible heresy might not even be saved in the first place. Why? Because that is teaching salvation by works rather than by grace. That is exactly analogous to teaching circumcision or law-keeping necessary for salvation – just a different kind of ritual and a different kind of "law".
". . . knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Galatians 2:16 NKJV

You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:4 NKJV
In fact, engaging in water-baptism is an affront to the Lord in any case, even if a person does not believe/teach that it is necessary for salvation. It is still the worst sort of legalism and is not in any way justified by scripture. Water-baptism was John's baptism, meant for the Jewish people in preparation for the Messiah. But now that He has come and now that "that generation" has passed away long ago, engaging in this obsolete ritual is analogous to continuing with other aspects of the Mosaic Law which likewise are obsolete because Christ has fulfilled the Law. So it is like saying that Christ hasn't yet come or that what He did was insufficient. Nothing more blasphemous than that.

I have written a great deal on this and I invite you to have a look at the links:
Baptism: Water and Spirit XII  
Baptism: Water and Spirit XI
The transitional nature of the book of Acts
Baptism: Water and Spirit IX
Baptism: Water and Spirit VIII
Baptism: Water and Spirit VII
John's Water-Baptism versus the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Water baptism not needed for salvation.
These will lead to many more links as well.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:
Thank you for your reply Bob, and I was almost sure it was not necessary; though, I didn't know that it would actually be a bad thing to do. Until this point, I thought it was more along the lines of a communion, where it is something that can be done in remembrance of Jesus.

If I may ask another question regarding this, though, Jesus Himself got baptized by John, right? I am not arguing, I just wish to know more of the context behind this. Is it answered more in the links you sent to me?

I thank you for your response and hope to hear from you again.
Response #2:
As to our Lord, His baptism was absolutely unique. John sought to prohibit Him because he knew that Jesus had no need of repentance, but our Lord's baptism represented Him going down into the water where all the sins had been "washed off" to make their forgiveness effective. It was a symbolic foretaste of the cross. Here's a link on that: "The baptism of John" (i.e., him baptizing our Lord).
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:
Thank you for answering and shedding light on this. And I would again like to thank you for being so helpful and responsive in the first place, as well as for Ichthys as a whole. I just wanted to say that I am so glad that the Lord saw fit to have me discover you and your site, and I know I already said as such not too long ago, but it has been overall a great help to me. Thank you.
Response #3:
Thanks for the kind words!
Question #4:
Dear Bob,

First, I want to open up with an apology for still being somewhat 'hung up' on this topic, but I have a tendency to obsess over topics that I don't fully understand, and it has caused me no short measure of distress over the years, especially with matters of faith. It is once again about water baptism and it's importance or lack thereof.

I'm reading the book of John right now in my studies, and I came upon the party in John 3:22, where it said Jesus (?) and his disciples tarried and baptized. But earlier on ichthys I thought I read you saying that Jesus himself never water baptized? And in the next verse it says that John "also was baptizing", implying that they were both water-based baptisms?

Please don't misunderstand this as some kind of 'gotcha', I am just genuinely confused, and believe I may be misunderstanding John 3:22. Because this does take place before his physical death and resurrection on the cross, and so were probably just carrying on the purpose of water baptism before that -- in preparation for the coming of the Messiah and His work on the cross.

I again apologize for bringing this up, when it should be resolved. I am just conflicted. Like, I am almost sure water baptism isn't necessary, but I do have a tendency to obsess and wonder 'what if?' when I am unclear or uncertain about something.

p.s., I just wanted to tell you that as I continued my reading today into John 4, I received the answer I was inquiring about yesterday, and had I just read a little bit more I would have seen it. John 4 clearly spells out and states that Jesus Himself did not baptize. So a response/answer to that particular concern in my previous email is not necessary.

Yesterday, I think I let my emotions drive me again, and I grew worried. I wanted to apologize if I were a bother to you, or coming to you over again over a topic discussed before. The subject of water baptism, as mentioned before and in your other writings on the topic, is an emotionally-charged one for many people -- including me. Even now, with all of the evidence pointing toward it not being necessary, the back of my mind does continue to ask 'what if? what if? what if?'

I have been reading everything I can about it on Ichthys, and it has put most of my concerns to rest. I suppose this is something I will just have to pray to the Lord to help me finally 'get over.'
Response #4:
No worries, my friend. This was indeed the first thing I was going to point out.

It's not unusual for the evil one or for organizations that have bought into his lies a little or a lot to defend legalistic positions energetically, and one of the main ways they do this is by heaping guilt on those who don't see it their way. If you don't worship on Saturday, you're going to hell. If you don't refrain from eating pork/blood/meat/whatever, you're going to hell. If you don't go to a brick-and-mortar church where their positions are unbiblical and there is no spiritual growth going on, then you are a bad Christian . . . and maybe you are going to hell. And if you don't belong to THEIR organization/denomination/church, they you are sure as __ going to hell.

It is always hard for believers who have had some exposure to groups of this sort – or worse, organizations like the RCs, Mormons, Masons. 7th Day, COC, etc. – to completely escape from the negative gravity of guilt brought on by some legalistic false teaching or other of these groups wherein said believer naturally feels guilt. I.e., if a person wasn't water-baptized or it didn't happen the way this groups says it should, they are lost or evil (guilt and fear). There are a number of groups out there which teach sinlessness after salvation and that would make any believer who was persuaded enough to feel guilty about it nervous if looking at his/her behavior objectively . . . because IN FACT "all sin" (Rom.3:23; cf. 1Jn.1:5-10). There are also a number of groups out there which teach that a divorced person who marries a second time needs to divorce the new spouse and return to the old one (irrespective of whether or not abuse, unfaithfulness, unbelief, etc. was the cause), and if they don't, you guessed it, "you are going to hell" – and they say it straight out like that.

Legalism is a horrible thing. Perhaps the most horrible thing in the world, because it is the devil's ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing, masquerading as God's Word when in fact it is Satan's lie.

Here are some links on this:
*Legalism (in Hebrews 1)
Legalism, Past and Present V
Legalism, Past, Present and Future IV
Legalism, Past and Present III: Sabbath observance, tithing, dietary regulations and other issues
The Trinity and Messianic Legalism II
Apologetics, Legalism, Cults and Philosophy
The Law, Legalism, and Rome
Judaism and Legalism in the church-visible
The Trinity and Messianic Legalism
Believers in the World III: Prosperity Gospel, Tithing, Cults and Legalism
Legalism, Past and Present II
Legalism, Past and Present
The Dangers of Messianic Legalism IV: Unclean and Impure?
The Apostles, the Jerusalem Council, and Legalism then and now.
Apologetics and Legalism II
The Dangers of Messianic Legalism III
The Dangers of Messianic Legalism II
The Dangers of Messianic Legalism.
Combating Legalism VI
Combating Legalism V
Combating Legalism IV
Combating Legalism III
Combating Legalism II
Combating Legalism I
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:
Thanks for the nice note. We are doing well and doing a little for the Lord. I do a short lesson of about 8-10 minutes once a month at a nursing home near us that our church has been involved with. We have singing and take communion. So that helps keep my feeble mind somewhat active. I am definitely not a preacher. 

I am still studying baptism in the first century church. Our Sunday Bible class is studying Acts now so there are several references to it that are confusing. The baptism of the Holy Spirit of the disciples during Pentecost and again when Peter preached to Cornelius and family at Caesarea. I believe those were unique events that confirmed the word and gave the apostles special attributes that we do not get today. When I am trying to develop a short lesson for the nursing home, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is giving me help in coming up with a topic and material to present. Not the same as what the apostles received at Pentecost or Cornelius as the first gentile convert. 

Any comments you have about this would be appreciated. I think this is an area that a lot of Christians struggle with or do not understand. God Bless. 
Response #5:
Thanks much for the update! Good to hear that you're doing OK.
On Spirit baptism including it's historical progression, best link is "Baptized with the Spirit" in BB 5: Pneumatology (you have to read a rather long way down to (k) and (l) to get that second part). For the cessation of certain gifts, best link is "Temporary Gifts" (in the same study).
For the uniqueness of the Book of Acts in regard to these and other such issues, see BB 6A: Ecclesiology, "The Nature of the Book of Acts" followed by "Acts Chapter by Chapter".
There is a great deal more about all these matters at various places at Ichthys.  For example, the topic of "water baptism" has a long series devoted to it (most recent:  "Baptism: Water and Spirit XII").

Do feel free to write back, and best wishes for your sharing of the Word of God!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:
It doesn't seem like the issue of water baptism will ever be resolved universally so we can just go ahead from the start and agree to disagree. The key issue in our relationship to each other and to Christ is that we are believers without that there is no hope and no fellowship. Just because we disagree on an issue doesn't mean that we are not brothers/sisters in Christ. So we can't give up, we must press forward even though we continue to sin. When we give up we are lost. 

There are numerous passages that affirm water baptism in the NT. Jesus Christ(John's baptism of repentance), Ethiopian eunuch, Pentecost, Cornelius, Saul and some others. The scripture clearly states that faith without works is DEAD faith. Now some people conclude that baptism is a "work" and not an act of faith, but I believe it is both. It reminds me of all the tithing by the jews in their regulations for every little thing, from dill to cumin and their minutiae of regulations of what is work on the Sabbath. They got caught up in the works and forgot about faith. The main issue is do people love God or not. If they do they will humble themselves and do what he asks them to do, which formerly was through the patriarchs and prophets and now through Jesus and the apostles, which is living by faith, i.e. the Naaman the leper, Noah and the ark, etc. 

Next, I would say that scripture regarding the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is not something that all Christians take part in. That baptism only took place during the time of the apostles when God used it to confirm who spoke for Him and that what was said was the truth. After the scripture was completed that was no longer needed. It is only during water baptism that all Christians receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, in other words we receive the Holy Spirit in our lives to help us in living the Christian life. 

I can say that baptism is more important than some other issues that seem to divide Christians such as the rapture, various millennialism's, numerology, once saved always saved, instrumental music, church organization/leadership and predestination to name just a few. Always enjoy and appreciate your studies and comments on scripture and living the Christian life. God bless. 
Response #6:
It's no small issue. If a person thinks that being dunked in water is going to save them, then they are relying on works and not on faith in Christ – and only believers in Christ are saved. So whether this lie of water-baptism is taught as necessary for salvation or "just necessary", it's devastating for all true spirituality and spiritual growth.

Is there water-baptism in the New Testament? Of course! John came baptizing with water; but Jesus' victory results in our baptism with the Spirit (Mk.1:8; Lk.3:16). If you do not have the Spirit, you do not belong to Jesus Christ (Rom.8:9). Is the Spirit being given in a visibly miraculous way nowadays? No, that hasn't happened since the early days of the apostles – and water-baptism doesn't happen in the New Testament since the early days of the apostles either, a brief continuation of the baptism of John until the transition from Law to Grace was completed (read Hebrews; read Galatians; see the link).

There is much to say on this issue, and it has been said. If you are interested, I would recommend first of all reading part 6B of the Bible Basics series: Ecclessiology at the link; then the series of email responses entitled "Baptism: water and Spirit" (link is to the latest one which will link to many more postings).

You are certainly right about these issues you mention being divisive (Matt.10:34-39). But then, the truth is always divisive. Here in the late innings of Laodicea, we find false positions abounding. The answer is not to forget about the truth; the answer is to find the truth, believe and embrace the truth, and turn away from all that is false. Lukewarmness says it doesn't matter. Believe you me, it matters. Nothing matters more than the truth, and if you seek for it, you will find it.
My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding—indeed, if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God.
Proverbs 2:1-5 NIV

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."
Matthew 7:7 NIV
Thanks for the kind words. Have a look at the links above and I think you'll see what I mean.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.
Question #7:
You're welcome! 

Hey, if you say that answer is fine and we leave it at that, I'm perfectly fine with that too! Thanks! No worries on my end. That does lead me to say... 

One of my fears (in general) is people not liking the answers I give them if they happen to ask me things like this or just in general. What if what I told them was true but they still weren't happy with my response? It's possible I didn't explain it well enough, but what if I did and they still didn't agree? I've just come to accept that just because someone (or anyone) isn't satisfied with an answer I gave doesn't mean I was wrong or didn't answer their question. Either they misunderstood (or didn't understand at all) or just flat out disagreed (or perhaps they're still thinking it through and need time). So I know that I shouldn't worry. 

It's also hard when someone asks you a question in person that requires a lot of explanation to answer. As in, I can give the answer to a question but may need to qualify it with arguments etc. to show how I got that answer instead of just saying "Here is my view" but then walking away (water baptism is one such subject that comes to mind). People do have a tendency to ask a lot of questions which is fine. But answering them in person without online resources in front of you requires a good memory and quick thinking, something I'm, admittedly, weaker in. I may know the answers and be able to write out all the arguments etc etc. But to explain in person, for example, how we get a likely start date of 2026 for the tribulation? Yeah, there are some things that can't be more thoroughly explained in one meeting, let alone without the aid of resources at one's disposal. I also have a tendency to suffer short-term memory loss where I may know the answer but suffer a "senior moment." This is why I believe writing suits me better because I can go at my own pace without the pressure of time and quick thinking. So it would be challenging to lead an in-person Bible study for these reasons. I could do it but not in a way where it wouldn't be a struggle. True enough, I may (and probably will) have to do some "in person" leading during the tribulation. But that may not necessarily be the same as orchestrating a more defined and organized gathering, such as what __ is pursuing. I think you get what I'm saying. In person could mean speaking to one or no more than a few individuals off the side. I'll just have to wait and see. 

The job is the same as usual. It's possible I may keep doing it until the tribulation begins but I'm currently looking for something else outside of the company. [omitted] But I may have to take whatever the Lord brings around, only time will tell. I've been praying a lot about it but I'm not rushing. 

On Church, I haven't been going. I may attend here and there in the future but I'm still uncertain about that. I just get tired of people asking me whether I'm in a physical church or not (completely understandable why they ask, but still). I have a relative pool party coming up in late May and I know some people are gonna pepper me with questions about that. I do post my studies on facebook, so I know some of them are aware of my website and Ichthys. 

Your brother in Christ, 
Response #7:
On the issue with people, first, we do the best we can. No amount of preparation is ever going to get us to the point of being perfect in our responses to people "on the fly". That is something that gets better through practice, but it is also something that can never be perfect any more than any general ever fought a perfect battle. Things are uncertain "in a fight"; also in a conversation. On top of that, what we might think of as a near perfect encounter might not be – we have no idea of how the other party is actually responding in their hearts.

It's important to keep in mind that the Holy Spirit is the Chief Evangelist and also the One who directs us in sharing the truth, whether we do this orally in a prepared context or on the fly as you are asking about or in writing, whether a quick venue like email or a more thoughtful one as you have on your website. We have to get into the habit of letting Him "drive the train" so to speak. 

Also, we need not worry – and in fact we should not worry – overly about what other people think. Our job is to be concerned about what the Lord thinks. If we are striving for the truth in our daily walk, our preparation and all of our sharing of that truth, we have a right to assume that He is pleased with us. Let's not put that power into the hands of anyone else (He will definitely let us know if He is not: Phil.3:15).

I would start in any case with what we know, and with what is of utmost importance – rather than allowing ourselves to be trapped in other peoples' assumptions or proceed according to their logic.

What about baptism? If we remember to quote John about who "I am baptizing you with water" but "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit", we've set things on the right plane. It's Spirit baptism that is the baptism of the Church (as Paul also says in Ephesians, "one baptism": Eph.4:5); water-baptism was a ritual under the Law and used to introduce the Messiah to Israel by our Lord's herald, not something meant for after He had been glorified and sent the Spirit. It's great if we can remember lots of verses verbatim, but sticking to the main points is the key: this is about grace, not Law.

Anyway, we all have our "I should have said" moments, but again we need NOT to be looking backwards and overly second guessing ourselves. We need to be moving forward and "letting it go" if we only got a C- in some encounter. At least we stood up for the truth and passed the test!

Thanks for the update on your personal and job situation, my friend. I keep you and all these things in my daily prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L. 
Question #8:
Thanks for this well written and very encouraging response professor. I read through it slowly and carefully probably about four or five times at different periods. Much appreciated. 

On water baptism (just as a quick side note observation while we are on that), I recall the encounter Paul had with the twelve believers who had not yet received the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Acts 19:1-7 (by vs with). The Greek word for "into" (not "in") is present and I believe there was no water involved in this instance at all. It sounds as if this was a dry baptism because why would these believers need to be water baptized twice? This is a common passage some use to distinguish between John's water baptism and "Christian" water baptism. But Scripture never makes any such distinctions. To me, this verse helps to strengthen the truth that Matthew 28 (baptizing them into) refers to the baptism of the Spirit, not water baptism. 

However, I looked into this word "into" in Acts 19:5 and it was argued that you could also translate it as "in." Is this accurate? Also, does verse six in Acts nineteen describe what Paul did before the Spirit entered these men or after? I was leaning toward the view that verse six is a description of how the Spirit entered these men (by Paul placing his hands on them to mediate it) as opposed to some separate event that occurred after the Spirit's baptism. 

One last thing unrelated to the above. So when I made the decision to flag the other job I was originally going to take, the man I first notified came to find out I was a believer and then asked me something along the lines of "Is it just that you don't trust people? How can you witness and share the gospel with others if you don't trust them?" Of course, this didn't apply to me because it had NOTHING to do with WHY I decided to turn down the position. But I guess he was just curious as to what some of the possibilities were. He didn't want to be nosy or pressure me by any means. But he was trying to win me over because he thought maybe I just wasn't certain yet (at that time) and that I needed a little persuasion because it hadn't been that long since I started. The question did make me think though. 

Is it always wrong to distrust people before we've even gotten to meet or really know them? I think the man who asked me the question above asked in a more general sense (do you trust people in general?)? There are plenty of people we may not trust (for many good and common sense reasons even if we don't know them) but still love anyway. There are clearly people we shouldn't trust by common sense, discernment, and personal observation and experience. Yet, I don't see how that should stop a person from loving said person. Do we trust our enemies? I would answer no. But we are still commanded to love them Matthew 5:44 (granted we've already gotten the time and experience to know they can't be trusted, so a little different I guess). I once heard someone say something like, "blank doesn't love me because I don't believe he trusts me. How can you love someone if you don't trust them?" I don't like the reasoning behind this (both individuals knew each other well btw). 

I guess what I mean to ask is, is it wrong to distrust someone you're trying to share the gospel with? Is it possible to witness to someone even if you don't fully trust them (for whatever reasons)? If I sound confused, it's simply because I'm not entirely sure what this man was asking (I'm only guessing what he meant). 

Does the word "entrust" in John 2:24 mean "commit" or is this verse saying that Jesus didn't trust the people (granted He could see their hearts; something none of us can do because we aren't God)? Are both meant, perhaps (so that there really isn't any difference)? 

In Christ, 
Response #8:
Thanks for the good words.

Excellent points about baptism! Very well thought out.

Re: eis: it always means "into" and not "in"; the word for in is en. It's possible to find violations of this very basic rule in Egyptian papyri of the koine period, but that is not much of an argument. As if finding etc. spelled "ek-setera" in contemporary emails or on the internet (because that is how people are starting to mis-pronounce it) could be taken to mean that this was a legitimate spelling also in carefully produced literature. The only reason for this false argument is precisely in order to avoid accepting what the Bible actually says in, e.g., Matthew 28:19, that we are to be baptized "into the Person"[s] of the Trinity (something which only God can do and does do with the baptism of the Spirit). 

So, yes, Acts 19 is a "dry" baptism, of the Spirit. Paul asks them "into what" where they baptized and gets the answer "into John's baptism" which means identification with John when it's the Spirit's baptism that identifies us with Christ, entering us into union with Him, "In" would be different (using en and not eis). So in verse five when they are "baptized into the Person of Jesus", that is the Spirit putting them into union with Christ. Notice this happens automatically when they hear the truth and become believers in Him. This is still a two step process at that very early point in the Church Age, for Paul has to lay his hands on them for them to receive the indwelling of the Spirit (the "with" now that they have the "by"; see the link for the distinction of the two parts of Spirit baptism, i.e., receiving the Spirit and being placed into union with Christ by the Spirit). Very soon after this point all who believed received the Spirit and were entered into Christ by faith at the same moment (at least by the time Paul wrote Romans 8:9), and that is the case for all believers today (in spite of the Charismatic heresy claiming otherwise).
This man (Apollos) had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.
Acts 18:25 NKJV
As this passage makes clear, "the baptism of John" is what water-baptism IS, and we know, because of the symbolism of that baptism that it is now obsolete, just as John himself predicted it would be because the Messiah, when He came, would "baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matt.3:11).

On trusting, we trust God, not people. Clearly, in life we may build relationships with people who prove by their good behavior over time that they are worthy of a little or a lot of our trust, but people are still people, and no in this life is entirely reliable – only God is.

As to giving the gospel, anyone with basic spiritual common sense can probably discern fairly easily and quickly whether or not a person is really interested in hearing the gospel or not. Why would anyone dissemble on this point? We learn early on in the Christian life to be "wise as serpents" even as we try to remain "harmless as doves". The NT mentions more than once the problems and dangers of false believers, so that is something to take into account. We don't want to be hesitant to share the truth, but we are supposed to realize that this is something to be done with the receptive, not with those who are clearly not interested.
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
Matthew 7:6 NKJV
I wouldn't worry about make this a "definitional question". Those are almost always dead ends (after a lot of wasted time). I don't entrust just anyone with my car keys, e.g. Asking someone "is the road to my destination" and accepting their answer is risking a lot less, e.g.

John 2:24 says "[en]trust HIMSELF to", so that is the big difference. I might loan someone a pair of pliers. If they proved false and didn't return them, it wouldn't be the end of the world. There are very few human beings to whom I would "entrust MYSELF".

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

Re: Paul asking them "into what" they were baptized etc., I didn't notice that is how the verse read until you mentioned it here. This gives me some new insight! Just goes to show you there is always something new to learn to further refine one's views, like you've told me before! I looked the verse up in the Greek and sure enough, it says, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, " Into John's baptism." Would it be correct to say that this is also the meaning of 1 Corinthians 10:2, the people were baptized into (eis is present) Moses in the sense of identification with Moses, the exact same case we have in Acts 19:3-5? And with that said...

... would this also help explain the meaning of 1 Corinthians 1:13-15? "Were you baptized into (eis) the name of Paul?" Sounds like he was saying their true identity and salvation were in Christ alone (no, they were not Spirit baptized into him and his water baptizing them never placed them into union with Christ). Yes, there was a sense in that Crispus and Gaius were identified with Paul ONLY in the sense that they were water "baptized into" him. However, they were not placed into union with Paul by him water baptizing them and that is what he's getting at. Would this be correct? 

Acts 8:16 (the word eis is also present) describes the "by" part of spirit baptism and not the "with," correct? These believers were already baptized "by" the Spirit but not yet "with?" That leads me to ask, the men in Acts 19- weren't they already believers before Paul showed up? Verse two in Acts nineteen says, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" You said, "Notice this happens automatically when they hear the truth and become believers in Him." Was Paul's assumption that they were already believers incorrect?

On the "trust" topic. So it's not something we need to worry about (like you said) and we can just move on from it? We trust in the Lord, so that as long as we are walking by the Spirit and growing spiritually as we should, then this shouldn't be a concern. He will help guide us to make the right judgement calls and so our focus should be whether we are trusting in Him or not and NOT whether we distrust so and so over yonder? And if we are walking by the Spirit, it will ensure that we speak and act in a godly manner toward others (thus fulfilling the second greatest command to love our neighbors as ourselves Matthew 22:36-40). The real issue is whether we love people (something that is not based on trust or distrust). As long as we are doing that, then we have nothing to worry about. I believe this is the correct answer? 

On John 2:24... sorry if it's a dumb question, but in what way did Jesus not entrust Himself to the people? I mean, if I don't entrust myself to someone, it kinda means that I don't trust them to a certain extent, right? So, big difference but not entirely different? 

One quick clarification. I understand that in 1 Corinthians 10:2 no water is meant when the verse says they were baptized into Moses (no water was involved). But does this passage and the case we have in Acts 19 share any relevant similarities? 

In His grace and power, 
Response #9:
1st Corinthians 10:2 also has eis ("into"), but no onoma ("Name / Person"); and, yes, this is an "identification" baptism instead of a "literal" water one. But Moses is just a human being so what we have is a temporal identification, the people of Israel being blessed by association with him (he prayed for their forgiveness on more than one occasion), rather than being placed in eternal union with him as we are with Jesus Christ (i.e., we are "in Christ"; see the link).

That's right. 1st Corinthians 1:13-15, also having eis to onoma, is temporal (and hypothetical because it didn't happen) since the supernatural "baptizing INTO the Name/Person" only happens actually by the Spirit when we are made one with Christ (and the Trinity). When he mentions those he baptized Paul is talking about water and he just says "I baptized __" (without any formula or reference to entering into the Person of Christ).

Re: Acts 8:16, that's right. The Spirit places us in union with Christ (the "by" part); we receive the Spirit's special indwelling presence when we believe (that's the "with" part). In the early days of the Church, these were split by God in order to allow the apostles to be the intermediaries of the reception of the Spirit's indwelling – in order to establish their authority over the Church. But by the time Paul wrote Romans everyone was receiving the Spirit upon faith in Christ (Rom.8:9).

Re: "weren't they already believers before Paul showed up", this is not clear from the Greek. Luke calls them "disciples" but all they know of is the baptism of John. In other words, they hadn't heard about Jesus. Whether or not they had been saved in time past in anticipation of the Messiah, we can't say from what's here. Paul's, "upon belief" doesn't mean, "I know you are believers", although it may seem like that in the English. Paul is unsure about their status and not clear about how someone at that point who HAD put their faith in Christ didn't have the Spirit. Upon investigation, he realizes that they are not recent converts so he inquires about the circumstances and discovers they haven't heard the gospel as it is revealed after the incarnation and the cross. Then the following takes place:
(5) When they heard [Paul's explanation of the gospel in Acts 19:4] they were [immediately] baptized [by the Spirit] into the Person of the Lord Jesus, (6) for when Paul placed his hands upon them [to mediate the Spirit], the Holy Spirit came upon them and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
Acts 19:5-6
Paul's placing his hands on them was necessary at this point to accomplish the mediation of the Spirit (as Peter and the others had to do at Pentecost as well).

On trust, doubtless this question wouldn't have come up in the first place if this fellow hadn't made this comment to you. So is it really a Bible question? People have all manner or strange assumptions which are not biblical, maybe especially believers. In terms of our Lord, I take this to mean that He never had any illusion about "what was in people", i.e., what people are really like (unreliable since infested with the sin nature), and behaved Himself accordingly rather than relying on people when it could be avoided. Not a bad model to follow.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

Ok, I'm still thinking this through. When Paul says, "Were you baptized into the name of Paul," he is referring (by the word "baptized") to water baptism and not spirit baptism, correct? It's just that some people incorrectly take that phrase to mean, "Oh, well, if they weren't water baptized into Paul, they were water baptized into Christ" (obviously wrong). I know the arguments needed to refute that but did I originally word them correctly when I said, "Sounds like he was saying their true identity and salvation were in Christ alone (no, they were not Spirit baptized into him and his water baptizing them never placed them into union with Christ)?" But if I say verse thirteen means, "no, they were not Spirit baptized into Him" that isn't quite correct since Paul was referring to water baptism as verse 14 seems to confirm (they weren't water baptized into his name- he never mentioned anything about Spirit baptism). In a way, I feel like that seemingly puts me in a slight dilemma if I were to explain this to someone. So how do we resolve this? 

Since believers couldn't be baptized "by" the Spirit before Pentecost (the coming of the Spirit), then, like you said, if they were believers, they would have gotten saved the way all Old Testament saints did (by looking forward to Christ's future sacrifice in faith through animal sacrifice)? So when we teach through this passage, it would be best to say they were "possibly" believers except that we cannot say so definitively? Is that the safer route to take? 

You mentioned believers only in God and His promise of the coming anointed One. I mean, true, they didn't have all the information about the coming Messiah (as all Old Covenant believers didn't). But by demonstrating faith in God's solution to the sin problem (even if the details and particulars weren't known), they were still believing in Jesus in a sense, weren't they? 

On trust, is what I wrote originally the best way to approach this (see above)? 

In His grace and Power, 
Response #10:
Q1: Paul water-baptized some of the believers in Corinth. This was early in his ministry so that there probably were mediations of the Spirit in the process as well. The fact that he didn't feel the need to baptize them all tells me that many already at this point were receiving the Spirit's indwelling at the point of faith without any "hands on" mediation. What he says essentially that he did NOT do was to "place them into union with him" – which is an absurdity and meant to be taken as such in order for them to understand that their factionalism is wrong.

Q2: The Bible says they were "disciples" but not of whom. They only know of John. If some of them were believers after the Old Testament pattern, in any case they didn't yet have the Spirit, but when they hear Paul giving the gospel, they are "baptized" into Christ and then "receive the Spirit. Since we are talking about a group here it's probably unwise to characterize them either way. The main takeaways for me here are 1) God's grace in seeing to it that everyone who wants to be saved is given what is necessary to be saved; and 2) water baptism accomplishes nothing: these individuals were part of the original cadre of those water-baptized, but it didn't but them into union with Christ or give them the indwelling of the Spirit. That happened through faith (and in this case, apostolic mediation) and without water. Q.E.D.

Q3: As mentioned, I believe this is correct. We don't trust or distrust anyone without evidence. We just recognize people for what they are. We are not surprised when they prove themselves untrustworthy.  We are pleasantly surprised when the demonstrate otherwise.  But we don't rely on those not fully vetted over a long period of time unless it's absolutely necessary.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

Understood on 1. 

Re: trust and recognizing people for what they are. As in, calling a spade a spade and proceeding accordingly, correct? Using good, righteous, discerning, and prudent judgment? 

Thanks for your time professor and I hope and pray that you are getting the rest you need to keep doing what you have been doing so well for so long. You, your career, and your ministry will continue to be in my prayers. 

Your brother in Christ, 
Response #11:
Re: "Using good, righteous, discerning, and prudent judgment?" Amen!

Rest will be forthcoming once the semester is over (although not too much of a break since I've got some articles to write this summer).

Thanks for those prayers! Keeping you in mine as well, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:
On another note, is there a difference in the Bible between discernment and judgement (discerning versus judging something)? Like, would discerning something be gathering the facts (evaluating) leading up to a "verdict" a judgment being the result? One is possibly the process that leads to a conclusion (the judgment being the conclusion)? Or does Scripture use them as synonyms without making any distinctions? 

Acts 10:47-48- does the text really say/imply that Peter ordered/commanded these believers to be baptized with water? If so, was the reason simply (as we know was usually the case) that Peter still had learning to do (this was a command only for certain individuals and not something universal)? But why would he command them in this instance if we put so much confidence in the fact that Peter exhorted and never commanded it in Acts 2:38? Just something I haven't thought of before and trying to further refine my view on this matter because to tell you the truth professor, I feel like I'm gonna get beat up on this issue more than most of the other views I hold that contradicts much of what the church accepts as true. 

Do you have an issue with believing there is no possibility being wrong about the Trinity? I can't help it but that's just what I believe. I would never bring it up or make it an issue in any discussion involving the subject with others because how we say things matters. However, I don't see any problem with me believing what I just said. I know what you said last time in your response (it's on the Saturday posting) but I don't believe there is a difference between saying "I don't believe I could be wrong" on the one hand and "I don't believe there is any possibility I could be wrong on the other." Don't both statements mean the same thing? Just asking for clarity and, assuming I understand you correctly, I'll say no more about it. 

How are you doing by the way? You have and will continue to be in my prayers. 

In His grace and power, 
Response #12:
On discernment versus judgment, they are synonyms in English and various versions use these and other synonyms for a variety of words in Greek and Hebrew interchangeably. Did you have a passage in mind?

Acts 10:47 is one of the places where there is no doubt that there was a follow-on water-baptism. I will note, however, 1) while the Spirit give Peter explicit instructions about going to Cornelius and giving him and his the gospel, nothing is said about water; 2) the Spirit falls upon them once they hear and believe with no hands-on mediation by Peter and no water; 3) the water is an after-thought: and notice that Peter "allows it" rather than commands it, as if he is giving them a special dispensation. That is the right way to see this. Water baptism was John's baptism meant for Jewish believers to repent and prepare for the coming of the Messiah. It was never meant for gentiles – which is why Peter phrases this the way he does. In his thinking, this is a special exemption rather than filling out a salvation requirement or anything of the sort. Also, when Peter explains himself to the counsel who complain about him going into a gentile home in the next chapter, nothing is said about baptizing them with water and Peter testifies that he remembered that it was the Spirit that would be the New Covenant sign.
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. “Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ “If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”
Acts 11:14-18 NKJV
The "mystery", after all, is the expansion of the Assembly of believers (the Church), from only/mainly Israel unto the gentiles. Peter and the other are never ordered to water-baptize. This is something they do early on where they don't yet fully understand the implications of the Jewish Age being over and all rituals of the Law having become obsolete (much about this in the Hebrews series at the link). That water-baptism falls into that same category of things now obsolete – because it too was looking forward to the Messiah but He has now come – is clear from these two chapters above and from every other scripture which treats the issue. The baptism of John was for uniquely for Israel in anticipation of the Messiah; the baptism of the Spirit is for us all now that He has come and won the victory of the cross.
“for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Acts 1:5 NKJV
Re: "Do you have an issue with me believing there is no possibility I could be wrong about the Trinity?" Not at all. I think __ feels the same way. He's just not averse to discussing it. I think you are all on the same page; you're just arguing about the wording of some of the paragraphs.

I'm doing well enough. A few health issues, but "we endeavor to persevere". Thanks much for the prayers! Keeping you in mine daily as well.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:
Thanks for everything. 

I didn't have any passages in mind for the judging/discerning subject which I guess leads to me asking if there are any verses in the Bible that don't use them as synonyms (is there ever any instance that you know of where the words have different meanings or do they always have the same biblical/theological idea)? Do you get what I'm asking and am I making any sense? 

Thanks for further explaining Acts 10, the part about chapter eleven was very helpful. But why does the ESV say he commanded them to be baptized (verse 48 says "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." The NIV puts it differently when it says "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Was it the recipients Peter ordered or some of his own companions who came with him who did the baptizing? I also assume the word "in" is the correct translation from the Greek instead of "into" (it would have to be)? 
Response #13:
ESV's translation is not bad (for prostasso), but the point is that this direction is for the manner of the water-baptism in verse 47 (i.e., "in the name"), not for a command to be baptized with water in the first place (a very big distinction). Acts 10:47 clearly frames this as an allowance or special exemption or dispensation rather than a mandatory action.  But if they are going to do it in the next verse, then they need to "do it right".
"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
Acts 10:47 NKJV
"Not forbidding" is the opposite in sentiment from "commanding", allowing someone to do something instead of commanding that they do. Clearly, Peter assumed that water-baptism was something they would want to do to be "the same" as the Jewish believers who had received John's baptism of water, but nowhere here is there any support for saying water baptism is necessary. The whole passage and also Peter's commentary on it in the next chapter is about Spirit baptism coming to the gentiles being the marvelous thing.

The preposition is also important here. Peter says "in" (en) not "into" (eis), because here we are indeed talking about water and not Spirit. The believers had already been "baptized into Christ" by the Spirit as evidenced by Him in granting the miraculous demonstrations of their salvation just earlier. So Peter uses "in the Name of" instead of "into the Person of" since the latter had already been accomplished.
On judgment/discernment, there's nothing wrong with your logic or your understanding of the way we are using these terms in English.  But I don't think we can automatically "back-interpret" into scripture on that basis.  We'd have to have a specific verse to take this out of the realm of theory.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Thanks for taking a look at everything. I appreciate your time. 

On Acts 10, could you explain to me again why Peter wasn't commanding water baptism? I just don't understand, that's all. What are all the reasons and arguments for that and why would the text say he ordered them to be baptized (was he ordering the recipients or those who carried out the ritual)? 

One final thing. Ok, I'm sorry, but regarding the whole believing there is no possibility I could be wrong about the Trinity, I read back over that part in my email and realized I didn't word it the right way (I didn't ask the right question). On the one hand, there may be a difference between saying "I do not think I could possibly be wrong" and "It is objectively impossible for me to be wrong." With that said, would you have a problem with me saying I believe it is objectively impossible for me to be wrong? That is what I wanted to ask you. 
Response #14:
On Acts 10, to paraphrase, 
"Since they have been baptized with the Spirit, who can refuse them the water (so as not to feel that they are in any way deprived of the experiences we had)?" So he directed that they be baptized-in-the-Name-of-the-Lord [since that is what they desired, even though it had nothing to do with them being saved or receiving the Spirit which they had already received as those already saved].
Acts 10:47-48
So the water baptism is a CONCESSION here; the "direction" has to do with the "how": "if you're going to do this, do it this way". In other words, Peter was not commanding them to be water-baptized; he was allowing it; his directive had to do with the manner, if it were going to happen (which, as we know, was unnecessary). 

*I hasten to add that these people were proselytes and that all of the early baptisms with water in the book of Acts have to do with either Jews or those closely associated with the Jewish faith – not gentiles outside of Palestine who were unconnected in any way to a synagogue. Such people knew about John's baptism . . . which had just recently happened . . . and most of the believers in the community they were joining had received John's baptism. So wanting to be part of that (and the community wanting them to be part of that) was understandable – especially before even the apostles came to understand that the Law was not obsolete (link). 

Also, please note, that the Spirit fell on these new believers in Acts 10 without any water or even any laying on of hands – a clear sign that the water added afterwards was not in any way necessary. That is why, no doubt, Peter frames it as a concession; but he also wants to make clear that Christ has already come so as not to apply the meaning of the prior baptism, that is, to show that it shouldn't mean anticipating the Messiah. That is why he "commands" it to be done in a certain way, "in" not "into", lest the issue be confused.

So Peter is somewhat on the right track, but the unnecessary act of water baptism always results in more harm than good – as the entirety of Church history from Acts to the present testifies.

On the Trinity, we could just say, "The Trinity is true, and I believe it 100%!" Nothing wrong with that . . . and it doesn't involve unnecessary theological disputes.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:
Hello, you came to my mind and I hope to catch up with your Hebrews study this month. I have been in an in-depth personal study of Ezekiel and am somewhat lost there, though finding new (to me) insights that are very interesting.

I still attend two churches, the Reformed Presbyterian and the __ Church that is basically part of the Churches of Christ in this area.

I know you grew up a Reformed Presbyterian, and left that church for the churches that espouse dispensationalism. The Presbyterian Church I grew up in is the mainline PCUSA that is apostate.

There are some aspects of the Reformed Church I don't agree with. The 'amillennial' view is one thing. There are other differences, and I wonder if you might have a resource or personal statement that describes why to departed the Reformed Fatih.

Have you ever considered that the key aspect of baptism is the instruction that it be in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Other aspects such as how much water and when may not be the pressing concern.

I have noticed that various pastors of conservative churches now end their prayer for the worship service or at its end, not in the Name of Jesus, but in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that is wrong. ? I once heard a sermon that said: Even our praises should be in the Name of Jesus, for God is moved only by the work of Christ (or something to that effect). In other words, we have no right to approach the throne except in the name of Jesus, even if our purpose is to praise God.

I certainly don't expect you to reply quickly, or at all, if you are snowed under. I am assuming you still teach at UofL.

I hope all is well with you and your cats. I have a part-time job at Right to Life and work daily on my blog and website.

God Bless You!
Response #15:
Good to hear from you, and I'm glad to hear that you are doing well.

Re: "Have you ever considered that the key aspect of baptism is the instruction that it be in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?" First, this doxology as added to the Lord's prayer is not in the original Greek (it is a very late addition: 17th century). As to using it for water-baptism, Matthew 28:18-20 is speaking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not about baptizing with water. The Greek actually says, "baptizing them INTO the Name (meaning the "Person") of . . . ", and that identification of us with God, being placed into union with Christ, can only be accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Thus this shift from water to the Spirit was anticipated by John and sealed by our Lord:
"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
Spirit baptism is the "one baptism" of the Church (Eph.4:4-6); water was for Jewish repentance in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah before the transition from Law to Spirit after the cross (here's a link on that: BB 6B: Ecclesiology, section IB, "The Church Age and the New Dispensation of the Truth").

Re: the practice you report, why the church-visible has been doing this and continues to do so and why or how they do it has to do with putting tradition over the clear words of scripture, a fault not at all confined to this particular problem. 
The prophets prophesy falsely,
And the priests rule by their own power;
And My people love to have it so.
But what will you do in the end?
Jeremiah 5:31 NKJV
Keeping you in my daily prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Thank you, I grew up with a lot of good Bible truth from my parents and grandparents. We didn't attend an organized church during my childhood, we home churched (often with other families) and would go through a book of the Bible one chapter every week. (We're not a cult and we don't have any weird beliefs! My mom and dad just didn't think that what the church we were attended taught enough Biblical truth). I was young when we left, it was an AG church. Growing up outside of denominations/legalism/etc (although surrounded by committed believers!) has been very helpful. I got a lot of Scripture (a lot of churches just use a few verses a time) and I didn't wrestle with a lot of doctrine that denominations hold to but isn't Biblical. Sorry, I'm saying their positive influence is huge!

And of course going through your studies has helped a lot! Sometimes I know the "what" but not the "how" or the "wow!" Knowing God is almost like mining - you're digging and hit a new gem that you didn't know (or fully understand) was there, and it's like wow! Sometimes I feel like I'm learning things over again. Like I knew the concept, but it's almost like I have to apply it personally before I get it.

Thank you for the links - I had come across the term "soul sleep" on your site, but I didn't know much about it. I had never heard of it when my boss explained it to me. It sounded odd.

Ok, I see that with the 4th commandment. Thank you for pointing that out! I'll remember that in the future. Yes, I think the person who told her that probably was legalistic - he told her something like the true Sabbath is on Saturday, that's why she shouldn't work. Which is true, it was, except his application was incorrect. My boss didn't grow up with much knowledge of the Lord I don't think - she does attend a baptist church. So hopefully they're not giving her too much erroneous thinking, but I don't know anything about the pastor or his sermons.

The on thing that keeps coming up for my family and me is water baptism (a lot over the past 2 years). I know we have emailed in it previously and I thought I understood it. I'm just confused why people keep talking about it and as a family we keep talking through it, trying to understand it. True, it's a common practice and the church we are attending (we started about 2 years ago) says it's a command of God - per that last part of Matthew 28. So it's no surprise - but then, we visited family and went to their church, and the sermon was on baptism! So I thought, either God is telling us to get water baptized or it's a test, or something? __ was talking to our pastor's wife. They came to the Lord later in life. Well, apparently __ and the pastor had been believers for years, and then they were going to get water baptized, and __ didn't think it would do much to her cause __ was a believer. __ said it was life changing! __ didn't explain how and __ didn't think to ask. But when I heard that, it makes me question why? Am I misunderstanding something? Do I not believe in water baptism for the wrong motives or just cause I don't want to do it?

I don't understand how you can be saved for years and then get baptized and it does something. But what for? There are people who say it's necessary for salvation (I don't believe that) or that it gives you the Holy Spirit (I don't believe this either).

People say "it's a profession of your faith in Christ and that you are committed to following Him". Or "communion is a ritual still in operation, why not baptism?" Jesus commanded communion and His work on the cross is what everything depends on, so it's right that we remember that. Did Jesus truly command water baptism? Is Matthew 28:19-20 for everyone or just for the apostles? I know you say it is Spirit baptism. How do people get water then?

I've looked at a lot of what you've written on this and I'm not disagreeing with it. I just can't nail down a concrete, Biblical answer. I want to settle this question but every time I think I finally understand, water baptism comes up again!!

I don't want to do it (or not do it) just cause of what other people tell me, (if there's no biblical support.) If Jesus truly wants me to get water baptized, then I will.

Wouldn't it be unadvisable to do it if you don't understand the concept? Even from a pure heart, if someone said, "God, I don't understand this. I am truly seeking you, but I don't know what to think, so I will get water baptized. If it's wrong, forgive me." I'm not saying it would be wrong or a sin - but do you think God would want that? Why doesn't Jesus seem to give more answers to this? Why is it such a confusing topic? And what about people that get re-baptized? I know it's NOT the water. Faith in Christ would have to be the ultimate good, and whatever God did with that faith during/because of baptism. But why would the act of water baptism be important if it's all spiritual significance? Of course communion is the same way - the physical ritual is nothing if your attitude toward Jesus is wrong.

I very much respect your opinion, please correct me wherever I am wrong. I apologize for the long email - please wait as long as you need, I know you are busy and I'm sure there are others with more pressing questions. Thank you so much for all your help.

Respectfully,
Response #16:
Re: "I don't understand how you can be saved for years and then get baptized and it does something. But what for? There are people who say it's necessary for salvation (I don't believe that) or that it gives you the Holy Spirit (I don't believe this either)." 

You are clearly on target here on all counts. And that begs the question: how could a ritual like this be important and yet have everyone who does it disagree about why they are doing it, how to do it, and what it means or symbolizes or accomplishes? The very fact that there are as many water-baptisms as there are water-baptizing groups should tell us something. Namely, there's no unanimity precisely because it is not laid down in the New Testament as to "how" or "when" or "why" or "what". That is because it's something we are NOT supposed to be doing, anymore than sacrificing animals.

Communion definitely is required and the manner and method are made: Our Lord made it very clear ("Do this in remembrance of Me": Lk.22:19) and Paul is given to repeat the commands and procedures too, and also to explain what it means and the purpose for it (1Cor.11:23-26; not that even so the church-visible hasn't confused it: link). 

But water-baptism is NEVER even mentioned after the book of Acts (except for Paul's regrets for having done it in 1Cor.1), and even therein never takes place after Acts 18:8 at Corinth during Paul's second journey (circa mid 40's A.D.), some twenty plus years before the completion of the New Testament. 

There is a reason for that. Water-baptism was John's baptism, a ritual of repentance for the Jewish people in preparation for the coming of their Messiah. Now that He has come and suffered for us all, we have the baptism of the Holy Spirit. THAT is the baptism of the Church Age, as our Lord and scripture make very clear.
"I baptize you with water (i.e., physically) for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
Matthew 3:11 NIV

(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

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth".
Acts 1:8

(1) When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. (2) And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. (3) Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. (4) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:1-4 NKJV
There is only "one baptism" for the Church (Eph.4:5), and that is clearly Spirit baptism, NOT water baptism. As to why people do it, they do it because they have always done it (tradition) and because they like doing it (legalism) and because they are not interested in the truth of the Word of God (Laodicea). There are many places where this subject is discussed in great detail at Ichthys. Here are some links on that
The transitional nature of the book of Acts
Baptism: Water and Spirit XII 
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
John's Water-Baptism versus the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Water baptism not needed for salvation.
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:
Dr. Luginbill, 

I hope you have been doing well! It has been a bit since we had a conversation about the scriptures and I have encountered a question that I thought you might be able to help me with. 

I have been going back through all my notes on the subject of baptism (water vs Spirit) and all our conversations relevant to the issue. My intent is to put it all in an easily referenced format for myself should I run into any issues in the future. 

The question is in regards to 1 Peter 3:21, and what Peter refers to as the “type” of the baptism of the Spirit. It is my understanding that the “type” he speaks of is the Ark - that seems to be the entire point of the passage. Noah and his family entered into the Ark to escape the waters of the flood. However, I recently read an article where the author makes the argument that grammatically, Peter is referring to the water as the type (not the ark). Here are his words:
“The Greek language, unlike English, has what is known as concord, in which a modifying word will agree in gender and number with its antecedent. The first word in this verse is the neuter pronoun translated ‘which,’ referring back to ‘water,’ a neuter noun, not to ‘ark,’ which is a feminine noun. Wuest translates it, ’which (water) as a counterpart now saves you, (namely) baptism.’”
Is this author correct in his assertion that “which” grammatically cannot be referring to the ark but rather to the water of the flood? I really don’t know what to make of this since I don’t know how all these things work in Greek. 

Thank you, 
Response #17:
This is an often misquoted and abused passage. I have treated it in detail in the Peter series. Here is my translation:
(18) For Christ died once for us on account of our sins, the Righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in [His] flesh, but having been made alive by the Spirit. (19) It was also by means of [this same Holy] Spirit that [Christ] visited the [angelic] spirits in prison (i.e., in Tartarus in the Abyss), and proclaimed [His victory to them]. (20) [These are the angels who] were disobedient in the days of Noah at the time when God patiently waited (i.e., delayed His judgment) while the ark was being built, in (lit. "into") which ark [brought in as a sort of baptism "into it"], a [precious] few, specifically, eight people, were brought safely through the water. (21) And it is [this true] baptism [of the Spirit] which now saves you: [you are saved] not through any [literal] washing away of filth from your flesh, but [through] an appeal to God for a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (22) [this same Jesus Christ], who, having traveled to heaven, is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
1st Peter 3:18-22
You'll have to read the whole section in Peter #35 (link) to see / understand the argument that Peter is making, but it should be clear enough from this (or really any) legitimate translation that when Peter says "not" he means not. I.e., it is NOT washing that saves, but our faith response to the gospel ("an appeal to God for a clean conscience").

As to "water" in the first part of verse 21, as many versions translate it, the word "water" is NOT present in the Greek text. The Greek only has "which" (the relative pronoun) which is picked up by "baptism". Meaning, "which baptism" (NOT water but Spirit). This makes it clear, grammatically, that the "which" is not talking about the word water but about the entire preceding idea, namely, being delivered from destruction by the grace and power of God through His Spirit (n.b., this is a very common thing in Greek, namely, for a neuter to refer to the prior sentence or concept; but one has to know Greek well not to miss that here). 

Thus the "water" of verse 20 is what we are delivered "from" and not the means of our deliverance (that is the Spirit). Clearly. In the analogy it is the ark which was the means of deliverance from the water which destroyed everyone else. That is why it is "not", as Peter says, washing which saves but the "appeal" to the Lord, responding to the gospel, and so being saved, with our "being baptized by the Spirit into Christ" – our own "ark of deliverance" – whereby we are saved, delivered from death and destruction: as He was resurrected so we shall be as well.

It is not the easiest passage to understand, but please note that those who want to make this about water-baptism pass over all the other verses in the context in blissful ignorance of what they might even mean.

As I say, this is the short version. Please consult the link above for the details.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Thank you, this was encouraging! I do feel like I have "many fronts", some spiritual, some that come just living in the world - sometimes it's nice to know you are "not the only one" who struggles. Thank you for the reminder to march on.

I went to Ichthys after work today to study Hebrews 10:25. With all my musings over church attendance, I want to know what I believe and why. Here's what I'm thinking:

- the true, Biblical church is everyone who believes in Jesus - including all believers in past, present and future history

- local churches are supposed to be gatherings of believers who are coming to be taught the Word of God by a gifted, qualified pastor-teacher

- as they grow spiritually, they will in turn help others grow spiritually through the functioning of their personal ministries (which are empowered by God).

- most local churches are not accomplishing solid Bible instruction, and most congregants are not desiring solid Bible instruction, resulting in a lack of spiritual growth. We are not against "church". We do not want to attend a place that is not helping believers grow to maturity in Christ (Ephesians 4:13) or a place that is actively teaching wrong things.

In the Hebrew series, chapter 10, in your list of dangerous trends you have false doctrine and list many of the prominent controversial topics. The church we attend does not teach water baptism for salvation but it does "push" it as a good thing to do. At what point does one draw the line? At what point should I divide over doctrinal differences? If we are called to believe the truth, the whole Bible, then is any compromise good? Of course, humans that we are, we can never completely understand and grasp all of the Bible to perfection. Yet how do you truly fellowship with Christians when you know that you have (major) differences? Do I want to enter into a close friendship with someone who is not on the same page? I also don't want to "part ways" over something that shouldn't be parted ways over (of course, there are obvious places we draw the lines).

If the church is functioning as it should, providing solid Bible teaching for those attending, than it seems like "fellowship" would happen automatically. You would be gathering with those who love the truth and friendships would form, and God would use the different ministries of those individual believers to bless one another. So, "fellowship" should not take place over solid Bible instruction (like, "I have to settle for a lukewarm church since there is nowhere else to get friends") since God will take care of His children and provide for their needs as they seek Him together. God will bring you whoever you need, when you need them, without you having to compromise the truth and your application of the Christian life.

That doesn't address the whole, "what if God wants you in a church to be a light", but I think I'm too tired to tackle that one haha.

Respectfully,
Response #18:
It's my pleasure, my friend.

On the issue of "church", there is a great deal about this subject at Ichthys. In addition to Hebrews chapter 10, you might try some of these links (which will lead to more):
BB 6B:  Ecclesiology
Finding a Church – or Something Better? I
Finding a Church – or Something Better? II
Finding a Church – or Something Better? III
Can you recommend a church?
Dysfunctional Churches
Church: The Biblical Ideal versus the Contemporary Reality
Church:  The Biblical Ideal versus the Contemporary Reality II
Church:  The Biblical Ideal versus the Contemporary Reality III
Church:  The Biblical Ideal versus the Contemporary Reality IV
In essence, this is a matter of personal application. I never tell anyone to quit a church as long as it is Christian entity, and I certainly also never tell anyone they have to find one. We'd all like to have a big group of friends who are not only believers but who are growing in the Word and facing the sorts of tests that are coming our way because we are advancing, handling them in a way that inspires us, and also needing and getting our encouragement in mutual support. That, after all, is what a true Christian fellowship is supposed to do. And that, as you notice, is a pretty rare thing nowadays. 

There are plenty of readers of this ministry who have stuck with their churches in spite of doctrinal disagreements; and there are plenty of others who have separated. Of the latter, some have looked for other things and a few have found "better harbor". But the experience of feeling a bit disconnected from most other Christians one meets is a common one. That is because of the truth. If we love and believe the truth, well, that is very divisive.
"Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."
Matthew 10:32-39 NKJV
Nothing is more important than the truth. So how to apply that principle when it comes to family, friends, and whatever church we were a part of before we warmed up to the truth? I never recommend isolating oneself from one's family. Even if they don't understand us or what we are doing, that is usually no reason we can't continue to love them and have fellowship with them. That is also true of friends, particularly if they are believers. In both cases, there may be opportunities to witness to the truth down the road. When this nexus is interlocked with a church, that can be a bit of a challenge. But that too is a matter of application. We have been given free will, and as long as there is no serious compromise, these sorts of decisions are entirely up to us – as the only ones who can really have a chance of making good ones in this regard. 

Water baptism is a good example. It would be very rare to find a church that doesn't accept this teaching as valid, in spite of the fact that in the all of the gospels John himself says, "I baptize you with water; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Matt.3:11; Mk.1:8; Lk.3:16; Jn.1:32). And of course as we all know the Church Age is the Age and dispensation of the Spirit. But even though there is no water baptism outside of the gospels and the book of Acts (in both of which places the baptism of the Spirit is what is emphasized; except when Paul regrets doing it in 1Cor.1), nevertheless most churches are prone to ignore the Spirit and Spirit baptism (or pervert it as the charismatics do . . . who still use water too!) while either saying or implying that water baptism is needful (even if they leave it vague to what degree). 

As mentioned many times, no two groups seem to do it the exact same way and are even less united and clear about what it means, what it does or just why it is needed. Nevertheless, they keep it up. If one's continued fellowship at some church was dependent upon getting water-baptized and if said person did not believe it was right to do, then that could well be a make or break thing. If there is no pressure and no real push-back for not doing it, not believing it, or letting others know what one thinks on the topic, why not? In that case, the church would seem not to think anything is of very great importance . . . except for their existence (and maybe coffee hour). 

Going to church takes a commitment of time and effort, especially if a person is involved in activities where fellowship might take place. If half of that time and effort were spent on learning, living and sharing the truth, well, let's just say that we are none of us perfect in how we use the resources God has given us and we all could do better, but that is also no reason to continue doing things we are not comfortable with and which are doing us no good (possibly the opposite).

No, these are not easy decisions to make. You mention "light", and, indeed, one rationale for continuing to attend a place which is died in the wool Laodicean is to "let your light shine", sharing what you know of the truth in the hopes that others might respond. In my observation and experience, however, that usually doesn't work. After all, if the attendees were seeking the truth, they probably wouldn't have settled for a place where it is not valued. 

One other thing to say is that it is inadvisable to make hasty decisions in regard to moving on from relationships of long standing. It's always best to consult the Lord through prayer and the scriptures, giving these matters careful thought. It's best to be completely confident in one's mind and heart about staying or going before one commits to either course. 

I'll definitely say a prayer for you on this.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Thank you for taking the time to send this detailed response.

I think I was in error here. I have gotten some truth in "church" over my life, but never to the depth of when I read Ichthys. When I read what you write about going to church, I was getting the sense that church is a gathering of believers coming together to learn what the Bible actually says. Well in all the churches I have been too (granted my church experience is limited having grown up home churching) there hasn't been a whole lot of in-depth teaching and I have several times when things said/done were pretty off. So I think I was carrying it to the extreme and cutting off fellowship with people when it was probably unnecessary.

I thought the goal was to be in a place where one is confident they are being taught the truth, so I am/was a little confused why continuing in spite of doctrinal disagreements is all right so one can fellowship. On the other hand, I am certain that I don't understand everything correctly so a mature believer would have to part fellowship with me then. And if we all parted fellowship with one another we would all be unable to help one another grow. Is this right or am I missing something?

I had a nice chat with the forum group in Monday and they were so kind to help me and set me straight on the whole "we don't have to break fellowship unless it's a huge matter" which I wasn't seeing, I was ready to quit church entirely. And they too mentioned some of the dangers of lukewarm churches, while still allowing that one does need physical contact. All of you told me the same thing pretty much.

So, I do have a good new church with them! Your prayers for friendship with those who love the truth are answered, if not in whole than in part. God does take care of my fellowship/friendship needs....every single time.

As for continuing in these local churches, I am not quite sure exactly what I will do but I don't have to stress, I know God will take care of it if I consult Him.

I hope you have a good week!

Respectfully,
Response #19:
It's my pleasure. And I don't find any error on your part. You're only trying to do what the Lord wants you to do, and in an area of application like this, of course we are going to be mulling over the variables in deciding, e.g., to "stay or go". The right answer today is also not necessarily the right one tomorrow. The main thing about questionable churches is not to let oneself be harmed by them. If we are not having our relationship with the Lord degraded by one, then there is not necessarily a pressing need to get out. And there may be reasons to hang on even if they are not doing us any particular spiritual good. There are plenty of places which ARE harmful. But more often than not the more common experience is a positive believer getting to the point where it becomes just too uncomfortable to stick around. If only one could skip the service and head straight to the coffee hour! Even then, however, people will tend to ask us about the "why?" for our different attitudes, opinions and behaviors. This can be for good – a good witness, a light in the darkness. But usually the individuals we meet in lukewarm churches are not in fact looking for something better, as mentioned, so that they will tend to be set on making us uncomfortable precisely because we make them uncomfortable. If this is not the case, then sticking around might be profitable. Again, only the person in question can even hope to make "the right decision".

And I am delighted to hear that you are hitting it off with the forum group! I know that our friend launched a new venture last Saturday. Were you able to "attend" virtually? If not, maybe next time.

Re: "I don't have to stress, I know God will take care of it if I consult Him." Amen! There's a great deal of wisdom in your email, my friend. I can't help but think that this is not being missed by those in your church and Bible study circles as well.

It's a pleasure to have you as a sister in Christ.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Ok, I think I am understanding it much more now. It's clicking more! Thank you for talking through that with me, I was kinda struggling!

Re: the forum. They are such nice people and they all make me feel so welcome. They told me it was ok to ask questions - they might regret that! :) No, in all seriousness, I can tell they care and want to help one another and it's nice to be around people like that. I was feeling pretty alone in what I believe (although I do have my family), so to have others to talk with and encourage and help one another is so nice. I didn't attend the new study last week but I plan to this week.

It's a blessing to have you as a brother in Christ and as my pastor-teacher.

Respectfully,
Response #20:
Thanks!

I appreciate the update, and I am very glad to hear that you're making some connections. It really is a boon to have people to talk to who "get it".

I appreciate your good words – and your prayers. Keeping you in mine daily as well.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/