Jump to content


Photo

Second Baptism, Is It Scriptural?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 22 September 2005 - 05:40 PM

I’ve moved this from the end of “Should Women Preach” since it is a separate topic.

Admin3:

Matthew 3:
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:


The word "but", makes a separation between the two baptisms. The mention of baptism twice also confirms a second baptism.


You are correct that it makes a separation between the two, but it does not mean we Christians are privy to two separate baptisms as the Word of Faith teachers proclaim. The first type of baptism was symbolism, just as Noah was saved through water baptism (symbolically), we are saved through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Here is a verse that sums this up beautifully:

…by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him. - 1 Peter 3:19-22

Also notice that the first baptizement of water never ends in "ed" Only the spirit baptism does. And they are always mentioned in a certain order. Water first, spirit second.


Another way to look at this that will show why this is incorrect, is to consider the antitype of the slain lamb in Genesis 3:21 (and subsequent slaying of innocent lambs to cover our sin). This antitype is a symbol of the TRUE lamb to come, Jesus Christ. One comes before the other, but it doesn’t mean we must meet these two methods to obtain salvation! It does not mean that in the New Covenant, we must slay a real lamb, then proclaim our faith in Christ. If the Word of Faith teacher were to be consistent with their 2nd baptism claim, they should insist that Christians must first slay a lamb then accept Jesus. :(

And do you speak other languages when filled with the holy ghost? (Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.)


Tongues is really a separate topic so should be started as a separate topic.

And can one enter heaven without both baptisms? (jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.)


Not even the WoF teachers believe both water and spirit baptisms are required for salvation. This places works on salvation (the thief on the cross had no time to be baptized with water). Again, they believe there is a 2nd indwelling of the Holy Spirit that occurs after the first “water & Spirit” baptism when we become saved. According to WoFers, only diligent Christians can receive this 2nd baptism – this is really what is being debated here. The scriptures they present just don't support their belief.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism - Eph 4:4-5

I don't think it could be more clear that we cannot receive a 2nd baptism after salavation and indwelling by the Holy Spirit.

I noticed that there were several verses like this that were omitted from those links. The reason those verses are omitted is because in puts into question the doctrine they wish for us to believe


I re-read the first article posted and it refers to many of the verses above you gave, including the John 3:5 verse.

Preconceived ideas of right and wrong doctrine through the ideas of another, show that a person is willing to believe in the opinions of man over the writings of God… each person needs to be sure they are in the right one. For if they do not, the fault of it will be upon their shoulders for not making sure of it. 


True enough, but as fallen men, we are all susceptible to bias from others, and bias formed in our own mind from our own opinions! :) I’m sure we’ll all find plenty of things we were clinging to but wrong about when we meet our LORD.

In Christ,
Fred

#2 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 September 2005 - 01:40 AM

So we have two verses that seem to contradict.

jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism - Eph 4:4-5

So why do you suppose that Christ separates the two, but Eph. calls them one baptism? Shall one verse be omitted to make the other true? Or is there a condition we are missing?

Added: Since both body and spirit are mentioned. But by the use of the word "one" are made separate. The one baptism just maybe a reference to one baptism for body, and one baptism for the spirit. Why else list both of these as if they are seperate?

1) There is one body
2) And one spirit
So, is this two things, or one?
3) One baptism.

Now here's where it all connects when you look at what Christ said.

1) Born of the water=body baptism
2) Born of the spirit=spirit baptism
3) One baptism=one for the body, and one for the spirit.

So why does this work? Like the question I asked before, if they are together, why are they clearly made seperate in scripture? Even Christ makes them separate by His own words.

[edited...]

#3 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 23 September 2005 - 09:29 PM

3) One baptism=one for the body, and one for the spirit.

View Post


I think you are still misunderstanding what is being debated here. What you just wrote above is really a separate discussion. There are many Christians who accept what you wrote in one form or another (it is usually stated that the body baptism as you put it, is an outward gesture that the Christian takes when he accepts Christ and has received the Holy Spirit). It's a good and fair debate, but it's a whole other matter.

What WoF teaches, is that you can receive a 2nd baptism sometime after, often years or even decades, you receive Christ and become a Christian. This is what I am claiming is not supported in scripture.

In Christ,
Fred

#4 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 September 2005 - 03:15 AM

Acts 19:
2 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.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 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.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Now, did they recieve the holy ghost because they were baptised, or because Paul had laid his hands upon them? Because if they recieved this upon being baptised, Paul would not have had to lay hands on them for the rest. But he did.

The church I used to go to did the samething. If someone wanted to be baptised in the holy ghost. The preacher and the deacons would lay hands on them and pray. Soon they would speak in tongues. Many of these people have been saved for years and have never spoke in tongues. But they did that night.

#5 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 24 September 2005 - 11:32 AM

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Now, did they recieve the holy ghost because they were baptised, or because Paul had laid his hands upon them? Because if they recieved this upon being baptised, Paul would not have had to lay hands on them for the rest. But he did.

View Post


This is a good question, and a verse that 2nd Baptism proponents hang their hat on. But like the Calvinist proof texts often prove to be their worst enemy, in this case Acts 19 becomes a good proof text against 2nd baptism! First, the passage literally says in the Greek, “The Holy Spirit did you receive, having believed?”, which the New King James accurately translates as “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”. Notice here that the apostle Paul clearly believes that salvation and Spirit-baptism occur at the same time, or else he would not have asked the question the way he did! These guys had not received the Holy Spirit because they were not yet believers! As followers of John the Baptist they were still under the Old Covenant (or some scholars would say were under the kingdom gospel). These followers of John the Baptist did not need a 2nd infilling of the spirit, they weren’t even Christians yet – they needed to believe in Christ! After believing they were baptized and indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

Note that the laying on of hands by Paul was similar to Acts 8:17 and is related to the unique authority of the apostles – it’s as if he were saying it’s time to accept the teaching of the apostles regarding the gospel of grace over the old kingdom gospel.

The church I used to go to did the samething. If someone wanted to be baptised in the holy ghost. The preacher and the deacons would lay hands on them and pray. Soon they would speak in tongues. Many of these people have been saved for years and have never spoke in tongues. But they did that night.


I respectfully submit this church was improperly using tongues, more to edify themselves more than others or God. The apostle Paul gave a very sharp rebuke of this:

1 Cor 14:19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. NKJV

Paul (who had the gift of tongues, BTW) would rather be an average teacher/prophesier, than speak in tongues without an interpreter! Why? Because it is better to save one soul with a few words than to gratify one’s self with words only God understands! Paul was rebuking the Corinthians spiritual pride that had overtaken them by the misuse of this gift. Before the above verse Paul establishes the context to the Corinthians:

1 Cor 14:1-4 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy [emphasis on prophesy]. For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him [ie no one is edified, except one’s self!]; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries [de-emphasizes tongues!]. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. [yahoo for prophesying!] He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself [boo-hoo for tongues, only self is edified!], but he who prophesies edifies the church. [yahoo for prophesying!]

Finally, Paul’s constant, continual theme is these chapters is summed up in v26: Let all things be done for edification.

Just consider the problems with both 2nd baptism and interpret-less tongues – who gets more glory, the person, or God? Another way to ask this question is this – Is spiritual pride more likely to happen if 2nd baptism and speaking in tongues without an interpreter is true? I say it is much more likely to happen, and I’ve experienced it first hand with WoF believers. To quote one WoF person I debated, he said:

“Scripturally I find it difficult to see how you can be genuinely filled with the Spirit according to post-resurrection practice without speaking in tongues!”

As Christians we should all be on guard against the misuse of gifts that can lead to the type of spiritual pride this particular WoFer was steeped in. As Paul summed it up so beautifully, Pursue love... Let all things be done for edification.

In Christ,
Fred

#6 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2005 - 07:07 PM

I would just like to add that water as mentioned in John 3 has nothing to do with water baptism. Taking a look at the passage in context makes it very clear.

JOH 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
JOH 3:4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
JOH 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
JOH 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The Lord was answering Nicodemsu's sarcasm with the truth. Any of us who have learned a little about women and child birth understand that a women "breaks her water" before the child is born. I didn't know this until we prepared for my son's birth. The baby is carried in water for most of its time in the uterus. That's why the Lord said that which is "born of flesh is flesh", after saying that you have to be born of both water(flesh), and spirit(regeneration of the believer's human spirit by by a divine act of God the Holy Spirit).

Water baptism has nothing to do with salvation itself as far as the mechanics of salvation are concerned. Paul stressed this fact in 1st Corinthians:

1CO 1:16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
1CO 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void.
1CO 1:18 ¶ For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

In Christ,

Terry

#7 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2005 - 12:55 AM

Today I was listening to a christian radio talk show called truth talk live. A person who was talking to the host was talking about the second baptism. Now what he said I disagreed with. He believed he did not know Christ, and was not a full fledged Christian because he had not received anything spiritually like a spiritual gift. It is never said that this is required for salvation, but is one thing that will happen after salvation.

Also, I was listening to Joyce, and she was talking about this. And she said it was several years after she accepted Christ that she recieved this. And she said that it was not required for salvation.

So what can we get from this? Some beliefs are twisting what is there. And this has allowed a catagorizing of all who belief in this gift. This shows there are two beliefs here.

1) The belief your not fully a Christian until you recieve this gift.

2) That is just a gift recieved after salvation, but is not required for salvation.

And those who allow it to exalt themselves above others are actually mocking God through His own Gift.

#8 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 13 March 2006 - 01:36 PM

So what can we get from this? Some beliefs are twisting what is there. And this has allowed a catagorizing of all who belief in this gift. This shows there are two beliefs here.

1) The belief your not fully a Christian until you recieve this gift.

2) That is just a gift recieved after salvation, but is not required for salvation.

And those who allow it to exalt themselves above others are actually mocking God through His own Gift.

View Post



I find it quite ironic that I was having a discussion with a couple of friends about baptism not too long ago.

When I was an infant I was baptized in the Catholic church but as I grew up I never really went too far with the church other than 1st and 2nd communion. I drifted completely away from the church as an adolescent and ultimately became a near atheist or at least an agnostic.

When finally making friends with someone who is an evangelical baptist, I asked him if they baptized at his church and he said yes, so again knowing that originally he was also born and baptized at birth as a catholic I asked him why he chose to get baptized a second time. He then went on to explain to me that it was just an act of obedience to God and that when one becomes "reborn" they are baptized in the Holy Spirit and the ceremony of baptism wasn't necessary because when one truly has been reborn in the name of Christ they are cleansed of sin by the Holy Spirit during their re-birth through repentance.

The way I see the baptismal ceremony, it is a way of professing ones obedience to God before their congregation a confession so to speak.

For myself, when everything finally became clear and I accepted Jesus Christ as my saviour and spiritualy I truly felt that indeed had opened my heart to Jesus Christ, I was reborn and now understood what Jesus meant in John 3:3

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John baptized in water but as he also said one will come who will Baptize in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit washes us and cleanses us of sin like water through the blood of Christ

Mathew 3:11
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

From what I read and understand in Mathew 3:11 once Christ begins to Baptize in the Holy Spirit water will no longer be rquired for Baptism because Christ Baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Prior to Christs arrival baptism through water was a symbolic gesture of repentance for ones sins.

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance."

Having been Baptized through Catholicism as a child and turned to God as an adult exclusively through studying the Bible without the influence of the Church. I now truly believe that if I had not studied the Bible, I may have very well not become reborn in the Biblical sense and that Catholicism could have actually hindered my chances of becoming saved because I always thought that those which were "reborn" were the radicals that never believed in God in the first place....man was I wrong about that.

In order to be truly Baptized one must repent and pray for forgiveness, how can an infant be in repentance when the child is not even concious of sin? Repentance is an emotional state when one is concious of sin and truly is in a state of mourning for their sins.

Baptism is always an interesting topic and is one that I need to study more but where do we draw the line in the physical (ceremonial) sense?

Where does the physical ceremony of baptism cross paths with the spiritual, spirituality cannot be forced through a physical action but yet how are they interconnected to being "reborn" clearly one can only be reborn after baptism because one comes through baptism cleansed no?.

This being said I am somewhat confused on the whole issue of baptism...no doubt.

Peace

CJ

#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 March 2006 - 02:33 PM

Question for anyone. After reading this topic I’m a little confused and a bit of clarification is requested.

Do different denominations hold different views about baptism specifically is the physical act of baptism held to be anything other than symbolic?

E.g. I was under the impression that a ‘Catholic’ baptism is required for the new born so that in the unfortunate circumstance of premature death they go to heaven (this I grant you is over simplistic, and I may be way out of date on this).

However the position here seems to indicate that all baptism is symbolic, and what is really important is a free will decision to accept Christ, (after which you may or may not receive a spiritual gift, which importantly has no baring on your salvation).

#10 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 13 March 2006 - 09:49 PM

However the position here seems to indicate that all baptism is symbolic, and what is really important is a free will decision to accept Christ, (after which you may or may not receive a spiritual gift, which importantly has no baring on your salvation).

View Post


This is the typical mainstream belief within Christianity, but there are denominations that claim Baptism is absolutely essential to salvation, such as Catholicism.

It is amazing to me just how many false doctrines the story of the thief on the cross refutes, such as the idea that water Baptism is required.

Fred

#11 ChristianIssues

ChristianIssues

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 August 2010 - 10:28 PM

The following video is very helpful in understanding the gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge and why they ceased.

Speaking In Tongues Part A


God bless,
Mick




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users