The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is water baptism to be practiced today?

a) Christ commands that believers (and their children) be baptized in the name of the Triune God. (Matt 28:19) Surely, Christ wasn't instructing His disciples to baptize them with the Holy Spirit, over whom they had no authority nor ability to control.
b) It was the universal practice in the NT church; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,13,16,36,38; 9:18; 10:47,48; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:3-5; 22:16: Rom 6:3; 1Cor 1:13-16; 12:13 (the Spirit working in and through baptism).
c) The sending of the Spirit by Christ does not annul water baptism. The sending of the Holy Spirit was part of the superior blessings of the new covenant. Water baptism and Spirit baptism are not contrasting elements but are corollary elements belonging to salvation and the Church.

a) The ecstatic gifts of the Spirit were given primarily to unite Jews and Gentiles into the one body of Christ; the Church. Additionally, they were given to show the supernatural character of this "new religion". And, they were given to authenticate the reality of God's messengers and the salvation received. There are other reasons which could be mentioned by this should suffice. Once the foundation of the Church was established, these gifts served no purpose. But the sacraments/ordinances of the Church; baptism and the Lord's Supper were to be perpetual since they served 1) as a sign and seal of the initial admittance of believers into the Church, the body of Christ, and 2) the continued spiritual nourishment of the members of that body.
b) re: "more accurately Acts 18:25,26"... Apollos knew only of "John's Baptism", i.e., the whole of John the Baptist's ministry and teaching. What John taught was preparatory to what was to follow. He pointed to the coming of the Messiah and the identity of that Messiah, Jesus Christ. But what John did not and could not teach is ALL that was to be known of Jesus Christ; His sacrificial death, resurrection and the coming of the Spirit, in other words, fulness of Christ and His atoning work and current reign as King.

That's a question for the credobaptists. Most likely, they include the word "baptism" in naming their churches, to distinguish themselves from???... can't be in regard to those who don't baptize, eh? Unfortunately, this is a rather contentious question which I personally see no value in pursuing further.

Absolutely untrue. The vast majority of references to baptism in the NT and the OT too, are "wet", i.e., with the element of water as agent and in the OT, blood was also used. See one of my previous answers to the many passages which refer to water baptism.

The "types and shadows" pointed to that which was to come in reference to sin, the coming of the Messiah to atone for sin, etc. When Christ came, the types and shadows were fulfilled and thus abrogated. Baptism in the NT has an entirely different significance as it is a sign and seal of that which has been accomplished, i.e., after the fact. And, baptism is the new covenant sign which has replaced the old covenant sign; circumcision (Col 2:11,12).

a) Hermeneutically and grammatically there is no warrant to spiritualize Matt 28:19. If you want to insist that "baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is to be understood 'spiritually', i.e., not physically, then you must consistently take the commands prior to and following it, 'making disciples' and 'teaching' to be spiritual as well. This would make no sense whatsoever; aka: nonsense.
b) Again, I have supplied a respectable list of passages which show that physical, water baptism was practiced throughout the NT period. And, the 2000 years of church history equally testifies to its practice.
c) I fail to see the relevance of Jude 1:23.
d) Those mentioned in Acts 19:3-5 were re-baptized since their knowledge of the Gospel and consequently their faith was inadequate. To repeat, John's Baptism (ministry) was preparatory and anticipatory only. The baptism which Jesus commanded His disciples to administer was of the fulfillment of that which John's baptism pointed. Thus, these individuals had not believed savingly upon Christ but only in His acknowledged coming. By their own admission, they weren't even aware that there was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (v.2), the sure sign that Christ had accomplished all that He promised He would do. Therefore, Paul saw the need for them to be identified with and joined to Christ which Christian baptism signifies.
e) This is the only account of re-baptism in the NT and therefore should not be construed as a principle to be practiced by the Church. Even the disciples of Christ had submitted to John's baptism but were never re-baptized because they were given the full Gospel of Christ thereafter and had wholly embraced it and the Christ of which it testifies.