Jesus Is My Friend

A Place to Share Our Testimony & Learn About Jesus Christ

Water Baptism is it Necessary?

Information

Water Baptism is it Necessary?

Is Water Baptism Necessary for obedience to the Gospel? What Does the Bible say and what Mode is the Correct Way one Should be baptized?

Members: 5
Latest Activity: Mar 24, 2010

Did The Lord Want Us to be Baptized?

Christian water baptism is an ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ. If it is not important in the plan of God, why did Jesus command it in Matthew 28:19? And why did Peter follow up by saying, "Be baptized every one of you," and by commanding the Gentiles to be baptized (Acts 2:38; 10:48)? We must remember two points about the importance of water baptism. First whatever Christ definitely established and ordained cannot be unimportant, whether we understand its significance or not. Second, Christ and the apostles showed the importance of this ordinance by observing it. Jesus walked may miles to be baptized, though he was without sin, saying, "For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness" (See Matthew 3:13-16).

It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation. Peter explained, "Baptism doth also now save us (not putting away the of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21). According to Luke 7:30, "the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized."
The Mode of Baptism

According to the Scriptures, the proper mode of baptism is immersion. "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water" (Matthew 3:16). "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him' (Acts 8:38). "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death" (Romans 6:4). A corpse is not buried by placing it on top of the ground and sprinkling a little soil on it, but by covering it completely.

According to the World Book Encyclopedia, "At first all baptism was by complete immersion" (vol. 1, p. 651). And the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "In the early centuries, all were baptized by immersion in streams, pools and baptisteries" (vol. 2, p. 263). Immersion was not convenient after the Catholic church instituted infant baptism; thus the mode was changed to sprinkling. (See Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed, vol. 3, pp. 365-66)

Repentance identifies us with the death of Christ, and baptism identifies us with His burial. Coming for from the watery grave of baptism and receiving new life in the Holy Spirit identifies us with His resurrection.
The Formula for Baptism

Jesus commanded His disciples to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19). He did not commend them to use these words as a formula, but He commanded them to baptize in "the name". The word name is used here in the singular, and it is the focal point of the baptismal command. The titles father, Son, and Holy Ghost describe God's relationships to humanity and are not the supreme, saving name described here, which is Jesus. "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Jesus is the name in which the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are revealed. The angel of the Lord instructed Joseph, "She shall bring forth a son and thou shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name," and, "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, . . . the Father will send in my name" (John 5:43; 14:26). Thus by baptizing in the name of Jesus, we honor the Godhead. "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9). Luke 24:45-47 records that just before His ascension Jesus opened the disciples understanding. It was necessary that their understanding be opened, and many today need this same operation in order to understand the scriptures.

Then Jesus said to them, "Thus it is written, and it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day." The disciples had their understanding opened so that they could grasp the vast importance of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Verse 47 describes the commission that Jesus then gave: "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations (Jews and Gentiles), beginning at Jerusalem."

Peter was one of that number to whom Jesus had spoken and whose understanding had been opened. After having listened to these instructions, a few days later he was inspired by the Holy Ghost to preach on the Day of Pentecost. The hearts of the hearers were pierced and feeling condemned, they cried out to Peter and the other apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Peter did not hesitate but boldly answered. "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall received the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).


"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day they were added unto them about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41).

Some say that Peter told them to be baptized in Jesus' name because they were Jews and this baptism was to make them acknowledge Jesus Christ. But let us go with Peter to the house of Cornelius several years later. Cornelius and his household were Gentiles, yet there again Peter "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). (Most translations actually say, "In the name of Jesus Christ.") If Peter was wrong on the Day of Pentecost, he surely had ample time to be corrected before he went to the house of Cornelius. Was Peter wrong on the Day of Pentecost? When the hearers were pricked in their hearts, they spoke to Peter and the rest of the apostles (Acts 2:37). This included Matthew, who wrote Matthew 28:19. Moreover, when Peter preached, he stood up with the eleven (Acts 2:14).

Matthew was there, yet we find no words of correction from him. He surely would have spoken up if Peter had disobeyed the Lord. Bit all the apostles understood and carried out the Lord's commission. As Jesus said in a prayer, "I have manifested thy name unto the men (the apostles) which thou gavest me out of the world . . . and they have kept thy word" (John 17:6). The Samaritans, who were not Jews, were also baptized in the name of Jesus. "Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them . . . .But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. . . .They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:5,12,16).

Let us see how Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, baptized. He went to Ephesus many years after the Day of Pentecost and found some disciples of John the Baptist there. "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 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" (Acts 19:2-5).

Although these disciples had already been baptized, the name of Jesus was so important as to cause them to be rebaptized in His name. We do not believe that Paul changed the formula or mode of baptism when he baptized Lydia and her household (Acts 16:14-15) or the Philippian jailer. The latter came trembling and fell down before Paul and Silas, saying, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And he took them the same hour of the night (shortly after midnight), and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway" (Acts 16:30-33).

How can we doubt that Paul baptized these people using the same mode and formula that he used elsewhere, that is, immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ? Paul was not with the apostles when Jesus gave His final instructions to them in Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47, yet Paul baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. How did he know what to do? He said that his gospel was not a tradition of men but a revelation from God. "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it from of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12). Paul was chosen to bear Jesus' name to the Gentiles, and he wrote many divinely inspired epistles to the church. To this apostle, God revealed the mystery of the church, "which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Ephesians 3:5). Paul claimed to have divine authority: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (I Corinthians 14:37). And Paul wrote, "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him" (Colossians 3:17). Water baptism is done both in word and deed.

We cannot afford to overlook this command to the church. The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (Ephesians 2:20). The apostles not only preached baptism in Jesus' name, but they practiced it. Nowhere can we find that they baptized using the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Instead, we find them baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In baptizing in Jesus' name, they fulfilled the command of the Lord in Matthew 28:19. Paul said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). Let this be a solemn warning to us. Some say that they will accept the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 but not those of Peter in Acts 2:38. But Peter spoke on the Day of Pentecost under the anointing of the Holy Ghost. Peter was one of the apostles, and to him had been given the keys of the kingdom, so we have no right to discredit his words.

In Mark 7:8 Jesus said, "Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." History tells us that it was not until many years after the apostles that the mode and formula of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ were changed. (See Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 241.) Which means more to you, the command of the Lord or the tradition of men?

Where did the trinity
come from? How has it changed God's Word since it started?
Join me for a brief video on Church History.

Find more videos like this on Jesus Loves You!

Discussion Forum

THE PURPOSE OF BAPTISM: 1 Reply

Started by Della Morton. Last reply by Della Morton Aug 25, 2009.

The Trinity is it biblical?

Started by Della Morton Aug 16, 2009.

UNDERSTANDING THE GODHEAD

Started by Della Morton Aug 16, 2009.

WATER BAPTISM IN THE BIBLE

Started by Della Morton Aug 16, 2009.

Give Me Reasons Why I should be baptized ?

Started by Della Morton Aug 15, 2009.

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Water Baptism is it Necessary? to add comments!

Comment by Della Morton on March 24, 2010 at 11:21am
Test Your Knowledge! Did You Know? If not research it for yourself.This video gives scholarly proof that the text of Matthew 28:19 was a later insertion [after 200 AD] by the Catholic church. It provides key eye-witness account of the original reading of the text through early writings of major Christian figures and one who had access to an original copy of Matthew. All sources are listed within the video and there are absolutely countless others that 10 minutes worth of video could not contain. I encourage you to research this on your own. The evidence is so absolutely overwhelming that this text has been corrupted [including admission from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict 16th] that it is undeniable.

Todays Pope Benedict, when he was a cardinal in 1988, actually admitted the Catholic church changed the baptism:

-- The basic form of the (28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19 came from the city of Rome."
Quoted from: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, pp.50-51.


The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:

As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:

"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:

"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:

"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:

"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:

"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:

"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
James Moffett's New Testament Translation:

In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."

Tom Harpur:

Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:

Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Theology of the New Testament:

By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."

How Much more evidence do you need? The Trinity is Man-made!
Comment by Della Morton on August 25, 2009 at 11:43am

Jesus Baptized! So Why Don't We Get Baptized In His Name?
Comment by Della Morton on August 22, 2009 at 1:15pm

Comment by Della Morton on August 19, 2009 at 6:47am
I can't Help but Sing This Song and Rejoice Because JESUS Has Made me Glad!

My Soul Got Happy when I Got Baptized...Just Like The Bible.Just Like The Bible Says...I've been through the water Been Baptized.....nothing could Change me from my journey NOW...I am So Satisfied...Just Like The Bible SAYS...
 

Members (4)

 
 
 

© 2012   Created by WIlliam Michael.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service