Water baptism

[Amos]

The following is part of an exchange that took place on page 14 of the Once Saved Always Saved thread. In order to maintain the integrity of that thread, I’m starting a new one about water baptism. Is it essential to salvation (being in a right relationship with God) or not? I believe that it is.

Confession and faith are indeed two different things. However, faith brings about confession, does it not? Surely one would not confess Christ, if they do not believe in Him.

That is correct. And that is the argument I would make regarding Mark 16:16. Surely one would not be baptized if they don’t believe. That’s why Jesus didn’t have to say “he that believeth not and is baptized not shall be damned.� It’s redundant. I’ll discuss this more later.

As for the rulers, this instance in John 12 simply strengthens the non-Calvinists' argument of resistible grace. They had faith, but resisted salvation based on their overruling self-interest. Of course, a Calvinist would contend that anyone who's been "given" faith would naturally confess Christ, since the regenerate person cannot resist grace.

To word it properly, what I should have said, and thank you for correcting this, is that confession cannot occur without faith, but faith can occur without confession. This is simply because grace can be resisted.

So yes, confession can be seen as a separate condition for salvation, but in another sense it isn't separate, because it is intertwined with faith.

This is exactly what I believe about baptism. It can be seen as a separate condition for salvation (1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16) but in another sense it isn’t separate, because it is intertwined with faith. It takes place after faith, just like repentance and confession do, but it is a response by faith to the command of God (Colossians 2:11-14).

In Acts 2:41, those who gladly received Peter’s sermon were baptized. Those who didn’t resisted the grace of God that had appeared to them, instructing them what to do to save themselves from that untoward generation (Acts 2:40, Luke 7:30, Titus 2:11-12a).

If baptism is essential but doesn’t precede salvation, to what is it essential? What is the purpose of baptism (Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38)?

It is essential #1, because it is commanded, not of sinners, but of Christians.

Notice in Mark 16:16 it says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Isn't it interesting that it doesn't say "he that believeth and is not baptized shall be damned? I think the answer is clear. Baptism is not what initially saves us. Ephesians 2 tell us it is by grace through faith.

Again, to what is baptism essential? I agree that it is essential because God commands us to do it. I don’t believe that a person can refuse to be baptized and expect to get into heaven. It is essential, but to what?

What is the purpose of baptism? For the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). For salvation (1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16). To put us in the proper relationship to God (Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:26-27, Ephesians 1:3).

If baptism is a command for those who are already Christians, these Christians have not had their sins washed away, are not yet sons of God by faith and are outside of Christ.

John 3:18 tells us that if you don’t believe in the Son, you are condemned already. Jesus doesn’t have to say, “and is baptized not� in Mark 16:16 because it is redundant.

Absolutely, salvation is by grace through faith. But we have already established that it’s not by grace through faith alone. There are other conditions (repentance and confession) on which we agree. It would be wrong for me to argue that salvation by grace through faith excludes repentance or confession. Even so, it is wrong to argue that salvation by grace through faith excludes water baptism.

We agree that baptism is not to precede faith and repentance. But I would contend that confession and baptism are every bit as essential to salvation as faith and repentance based on the Scriptures I cited.

I agree, but slightly in a different light. Baptism is essential for Christians. Confession is essential, but only after one has exercised faith. I do not believe a sinner can blindly confess Christ, whom they do not believe in.

Why is baptism essential, and where is the command to be baptized issued to those who are already Christians?

Just as confession is essential after we have faith, baptism is essential after we have faith and after we have confessed (Acts 8:26-39). It is interesting in this passage that we are told that Philip “preached Jesus� to the eunuch (v. 35), and the first thing the eunuch wants to know when he comes across water is what hinders him from being baptized (v. 36). Notice also that the eunuch didn’t rejoice until after they had come up out of the water.

Faith and repentance are conditions of salvation. We agree. But since we must DO them, they are works. However, they are not works of merit. They are works of obedience to God, which we agree are essential to salvation. That’s why I cited John 6:29. Faith is a work, but it is a work of God – not that God does for us, but that He decided we had to do – a work commanded by God.

Hmm... I suppose I follow you on this one. Still, I find in scripture that faith is not works at all, but simply a condition, or a lifting of an empty hand towards God to receive the free gift of salvation. Here's a clear distinction made in scripture between faith and works...

Romans 4:4-5 – “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.�

The distinction between faith and works is being made in Romans 4, but between faith and what kind of works? We have established that the Scriptures discuss different kinds of works – works of the law of Moses, meritorious works of man’s devising, works of obedience to God. Which kind of works are under consideration in the passage? Romans 3:28 tells us:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Paul is contrasting the law of Moses with the law of faith, showing that we are all, both Jew and gentile, justified by faith, not the Law of Moses (3:21-31).

Faith does not exclude works of obedience to God. Faith itself is a work of obedience to God (John 6:29). When we have done what God tells us to do, our salvation is not counted as debt owed us. We haven’t earned anything.

Once Saved Always Saved is false and bad (2 Peter 2:20-22).

The same thing is true of repentance. The same thing is true of everything God has commanded us to do, including confession, baptism, living a righteous life, etc.

I don't want you to think I do not believe in holy living and obedience to Christ, after we're saved. I whole-heartedly do. But let's not get off the topic, which is the conditions that must be met to initially receive salvation. To my knowledge, unless our discussion has shifted, we're not talking about the conditions in order to keep salvation.

I believe we must hear God’s word (Romans 10:17), believe that Jesus is the Christ and that God raised Him from the dead (John 8:24, Romans 10:9-10), confess Jesus before men (Matthew 10:32-33, Romans 10:9-10), and be baptized into Christ for the remission of our sins (Galatians 3:26-27, Acts 2:38, 22:16) in order to be in a right relationship with God.

I haven't though much about good works being in two separate categories, as you seem to suggest, but I suppose it makes sense. It's just hard to hear it said in that way, and not hear the Calvinist yelling at you in your head.. lol

Stil, I wouldn't call it good works, I would simply call it obedience.

Obedience is a good enough term, I suppose.

The works of the law of Moses won’t save us (Romans 3,4). Meritorious works won’t save us (Ephesians 2:8-9). But works of obedience to God do save us (James 2:24). That’s what Paul advocates in Philippians 2:12, working out our salvation by being obedient to God.

I agree totally. Still, I think we need to be cautious, when we explain this to others, and tell them that we don't believe good works is what saves us. We must point them to verses such as James 4:17 which tells us we sin if we refuse to do good. Of course this doesn't really mean just doing good, but obeying Christ. This can give others a clear perspective as to why we must obey God's commands. Because, It's sin if we don't. Isaiah 59:2 still says that sin separates us from God. So, and I'm probably repeating myself, but it's not that we keep our salvation by doing good every day, but we keep it by obeying Him, which is not sinning, every day.

Amen. We are back to once saved always saved being false and bad (Luke 9:62, 1 Peter 4:1-5).

[malachi4]

yes it is
but you get the cases wear the person don't get the chance to do it in there life


[37] Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

1st baptised in water(in Jesus name)
2nd baptised with fire
3rd baptised with the holy ghost

1st stage is to accept God
2nd stage is to clean all the sin out of you and to prepare for the most important one
3rd stage is for the holy ghost to enter the cleaned out body prepared for him by stage 2


But it works in that order
Most people think if you accepted God and believe in him you saved
But look at this

2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
So this people already accepted Jesus to be there God but didn't have the holy ghost

[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.

So only after they were baptised in Jesus name they received the Holy Ghost

There was only 3 ordinances left for Christan's to do and Paul sad we must do it till Jesus returns
1st and for me the most important water baptism
2nd communion
3rd foot washing

[Mere_Christian]

This is a prime example of why a "Christian" life is the most exciting adventure to live.

"ALL who call on the Name of the Lord will be saved."

And then the "contradictions."

Two men are lost and stranded in the desert, one is a believer in Christ Jesus and the other isn't. The talk for a long time and the non-believer says, "Yeah, I'm convinced." And NO not in the Pascal way. He "accepts" Jesus as his Lord and savior. He "becomes" a believer.

Unfortunately, he had eaten a poisonous plant just an hour before this happened and a few minutes after his "conversion" he starts suffering pain and goes unconscious. And the next day he dies.

No water baptism and no recieving of any supernaturalism.

So?

[malachi4]

please do read the first two sentences of my reply

in that you will find me saying that you get that type of circumstances

[36] And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

This is how it will be when you accepted Jesus Christ
The first water you will find you will want to be baptised

[Mere_Christian]

please do read the first two sentences of my reply

in that you will find me saying that you get that type of circumstances

[36] And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

This is how it will be when you accepted Jesus Christ
The first water you will find you will want to be baptised

I just think that this is where the Gospel gets pharisicalized.

Too many super rules.

How many people accepted Christ as the bomb was falling?

Yes, yes, and yes, baptism is essential, but as with other aspects of a Christian life, there are circumstances to be had that derail the best laid plans of mice and men.

[Amos]

This is a prime example of why a "Christian" life is the most exciting adventure to live.

"ALL who call on the Name of the Lord will be saved."

And then the "contradictions."

Two men are lost and stranded in the desert, one is a believer in Christ Jesus and the other isn't. The talk for a long time and the non-believer says, "Yeah, I'm convinced." And NO not in the Pascal way. He "accepts" Jesus as his Lord and savior. He "becomes" a believer.

Unfortunately, he had eaten a poisonous plant just an hour before this happened and a few minutes after his "conversion" he starts suffering pain and goes unconscious. And the next day he dies.

No water baptism and no recieving of any supernaturalism.

So?

I think it is of some importance to know what “calling on the Name of the Lord� entails.

Peter explains it in Acts 2. He concludes his quotation of Joel in v. 21:
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.

After he told the Jews gathered in Jerusalem that they had killed the Christ (v. 36), they were cut to the heart and asked “what shall we do?� (v. 37)

He told these believers to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (v. 38). Those that gladly received the word did what they had been commanded to do (v. 41), saving themselves from that untoward generation (v. 40), fulfilling the Spirit’s prophecy through Joel quoted back in v. 21.

Penitent, believing Saul was commanded to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord� in Acts 22:16.

Paul quoted Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13 while discussing how Israel had rejected the righteousness of God (faith in Christ) in favor of their own righteousness (the Law of Moses, Romans 10:2-3). He then shows how people come to “call on the name of the Lord� in verses 14 and 15. He says in v. 16 that their problem was that “they have not all obeyed the gospel.�

To call of the name of the Lord is to obey His commands found in the gospel.

Hypothetical situations involving those who hear and believe but do not obey because of some tragic circumstance don’t change what the bible teaches concerning salvation. Those situations could easily be carried a little further back. Say a soldier is lying wounded on the battlefield. The chaplain is in the process of telling him about Jesus. Just before he tells him Jesus died for his sins and was raised from the dead, the soldier dies. Does that mean faith is not necessary because something like this could happen?

God will judge those caught in situations like these (Romans 2:5-6). It is our job as Christians to teach them the truth and let them decide how to respond to it while we have the chance (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, John 12:48).

Holy Spirit baptism occurs twice in the NT, Acts 2 to the apostles and Acts 10 to Cornelius and his household. Acts chapter 2 was fulfillment of Jesus’ promise to the apostles found in John 14-16, Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4-5. Cornelius and his household were baptized in the Spirit to show that God accepts Gentiles just like He does Jews (Acts 11). We do not receive Holy Spirit baptism today.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

Awhile back I wrote a statement/argument of my belief on baptism. This is something I struggled with for quite a long time - I was raised in a Lutheran family. My grandfather being of a different denomination challenged me to find the truth of baptism in Scripture. Over the course of several months study, this is essentially what I came up with...granted this topic is asking a specific question, I bolded the part of my argument that would hopefully fit my response to that on this thread...I felt compelled to share my entire belief on this doctrine for the benefit of all...coincidentally, I emailed this to my former pastor, a Lutheran, for him to review and discuss with me and he never did respond...so I welcome responses and criticisms here.

Sacrament of Baptism

Definition (Greek/Hebrew):
baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

As defined in Scripture:

Explicit passages:
Matthew 3:16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

(Since Christ “went up out of the water�, the logical conclusion is that He went into the water, was immersed.)

Acts 8: 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

(Philip baptized the eunuch in a manner through which he “went down into the water� and “came up out of the water.�)

Implicit passages:
Romans 6:3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Colossians 2:11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

(The symbolism of baptism indicates immersion as it speaks of being “buried� with Christ and risen into a new life with Him; “sprinkling� does not maintain this significant symbolism)

John 3: 22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.

(Since John the Baptist sought places to baptize where there was “plenty of water�, we may logically conclude that he was immersing people)

Conclusion: Baptism is done by immersion.

Defense for sprinkling and other methods:
Objection: Baptizo used in Mark 7:1-4 – washing hands and dishes.
Response: This is used out of context. There is no place in Scripture where people baptized by sprinkling. All verses that explicitly and implicitly speak of sacrament of baptism contain the unique technique of immersion.

Objection: Incapable of immersion due to illness, disease, etc.
Response: Under such circumstances, flexibility is justified. However we must make every effort possible to keep baptism consistent with Scripture in order to retain its significance to the believer. Churches that teach that the method of baptism is arbitrary, irrelevant, or insignificant undermine what Scripture says on baptism.

Baptism

Infant vs. Adult.

1.) Baptism symbolizes a burial and new life in Christ.
Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 12;
2.) Baptism requires an act of the conscience; a pledge that Christ is your Saviour.
1 Peter 3:20-22
3.) A new life implies we are “born again� (spiritually). Water symbolizes this rebirth.
John 3:5-8
4.) We are born again, adopted into God’s family through faith in Christ; this faith is a result of free will choice to believe in Christ.
Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:13, 16-17;
5.) Baptism comes with repentance; the gift(s) of the Holy Spirit follow.
Acts 2:38
6.) Baptism both symbolically and literally washes away our sins.
Acts 22:15-16
7.) Baptism is complete with the laying on of hands.
Acts 8:15-17

Conclusion: Scriptural baptism should only be done to those that have freely accepted Christ as their Saviour and have repented of their sins. Repentance and baptism then mark the point in our spiritual lives where we are buried with Christ and rise to a new life as a born again son of God. Our baptism is made significant in this very way through immersion. It washes away our sins and buries our “old self� (Romans 6:3-6; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9) and gives us a new life in Christ.

Conclusion 2: Baptism must be done only on mature, repenting believers. Infants and young children cannot pledge their conscience to Christ and His law, nor can they repent – they have not matured to a point where they can understand their sins against God’s Law. In other words, they have not come to an “age of accountability.� They are not only spiritually immature, but also intellectually immature. It is God’s grace that freely saves them. Baptism should be held off until they are mature enough to freely accept Christ as their Saviour – in this respect, baptism retains it’s full significance to the believer. Children are unable to appreciate the significance of their baptism, their burial and new life in Christ.

Infant baptism
Defense 1:
1.) We are commanded to baptize “all nations.� (Matthew 28:19).
2.) All nations mean all people.
3.) Infants are a part of all nations.
4.) Therefore infants ought to be baptized.
Response: This defense for infant baptism fails to incorporate the other characteristics that necessarily accompany the sacrament of baptism (i.e. repentance, pledge of conscience, free will acceptance in Christ)
If this defense is to be valid, then it must be valid with other examples. Muslims are also a part of “all nations.� Do we baptize Muslims though? No. We baptize those that accept Christ as their Saviour and repent of their sins. Matthew 28:19 must be exegetically interpreted together with other passages on baptism. This defense of infant baptism fails.

Defense 2:
1.) Infants/children are sinful. (original sin) (Psalm 51:5)
2.) Infants must be baptized and born again to receive forgiveness and be saved. (John 3:5-6)
Response: Infants/children cannot fully understand or repent of their sins, therefore they are not accountable. Scripture marks free acceptance of Christ and repentance as the point where one is “born again� in Christ. However baptizing infants undermines this. Baptism acts as the outward sign for our spiritual transformation. Baptism under this context makes it a work and implies that God’s salvation is by works and not faith in Christ. There is no reason to believe that children that die unbaptized are condemned. If this was the case, where is God’s mercy and justice?

Defense 3:
1.) Infants/children can have faith. (Mark 10:13-16; Matthew 18:6; Luke 18:15-17)
2.) Therefore they can be baptized.
Response:
The faith of a child is different than faith of an adult. Faith for a child requires nothing – repentance, acceptance, and pledge of conscience. Small children have faith as a result of their absolute trust of their parents’ teachings. They have not reached a point where they understand the law and repent (Deut 1:39). Philosophically, we consider infants and children non-moral agents. This means they have no moral responsibility for their acts. One may refer to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics for more. As children develop intellectually, they develop morally. As they develop moral knowledge they develop moral responsibility under the law. We must look to God’s grace, mercy and justice for the salvation of those who are not yet morally responsible for their acts.

It should also be stressed that this does not undermine the doctrine of original sin. Children are born with a sinful nature – they have the capacity to do both good and evil and are naturally inclined toward evil. They require a Saviour as much as adults do and Christ is their Saviour. Christ’s death together with God’s Love and grace are enough to allow children who do not yet know good/evil into His kingdom.

Response to specific Scripture:
Mark 10:13-16 – People brought their children to Christ to have Him touch them so that they would be blessed. Christ subsequently rebukes the disciples for their ignorance. Christ explains that the kingdom of God is meant to those who are like the children – that is, those who have complete trust in Him. In the same way that children absolutely trust their parents, we ought to trust our Father in heaven. Children are trusting almost to a fault. They empty their doubts and trust in certain people wholeheartedly. This is the kind of faith Christ wants us to believe in Him and receive the kingdom of God, not through effort, but through childlike trust and faith. If anything, it is this reason that children need not be baptized. Our trust should not lead us to believe that God’s mercy and grace does not freely extend to children and that it must instead be earned by baptism. This verse is obscure if used for infant baptism because it speaks nothing specifically to baptism or repentance.

Matthew 18:6 – Children are taught right from wrong through socialization. They have a natural knowledge of the law via their God-given conscience, but this conscience can be compromised; tolerance and indifference to God’s moral law can happen. So it is possible for children to be improperly socialized and Christ warns that those who become a stumbling block for children will be held accountable. Again this verse is obscure if used for infant baptism because it does not speak to the subject of baptism. The use of these two verses to justify infant baptism is eisegetical and fails to reconcile with other Scripture that explicitly teaches the necessary conditions for baptism. If anything both Mark 10 and this verse show that children contain one necessary condition required for baptism and that is (rudimentary) faith. But they lack the other necessary conditions.

Defense 4:
1.) An entire household was baptized in Scripture. (Acts 16:29-34).
2.) Infants/children must have been a part of this household.
3.) Therefore, we ought to baptize infants.
Response: This is a dangerous eisegesis of Scripture. It goes beyond what is written by Luke in Acts; in fact, it adds to what is written. We cannot simply assume infants were a part of Cornelius’ household. In those days, a household also included servants/slaves. V. 31 shows that Paul and Silas told them to “Believe…and be saved.� They were requesting that the household should listen to their gospel and accept Christ. That acceptance would lead to repentance. We know from Scripture that repentance is explicitly tied in with baptism.

Defense 5:
1.) Church tradition teaches infant baptism.
2.) Therefore infant baptism is an acceptable doctrine.
Response: Baptism receives its power and significance though the Word of God. Therefore it must be done in accordance with Scriptures. Church tradition does not have implicit authority, but rather the authority that is gained through its teaching of Scripture itself. In other words, a church cannot create authority outside of what is already authorized by Scripture. On what authority can we add teachings outside or beyond God’s Word? Furthermore, if church tradition contradicts clear Scriptural truth, then that tradition is false.

Response 2: Infant baptism is found nowhere in Scripture. It first arises somewhere around 200 A.D. with Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Origen. This doctrine arose in the midst of Gnosticism and intense Christian persecution. The early church recognized the doctrine of original sin and found that the idea that baptism was necessary for salvation needed to be reconciled with original sin. Since children are sinful, the belief was that they must be baptized to be “born again� and saved. This belief implies that there is no salvation apart from baptism is not Scriptural. Tertullian actually speaks out against it, but ambiguously. Gnosticism attached itself to the teachings of baptism by means of teaching the magic efficacy of the water removing sins. Of course these teachings completely undermine salvation by grace alone, and trust in God’s mercy upon those who have not reached an age of accountability. This lack of trust in God, coupled with Gnostic and pagan influences led to a necessary eisegesis of infant baptism.
////////////////////////
Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that saving faith in Christ will drive a person to want to be baptize, simply out of obedience to Christ and His Word. Baptism is explicitly taught in Scripture as a significant act by believers; showing both literally and symbolically that they are born again. It is a work in the sense that it justifies our faith before men because it is an outward sign of repentance and acceptance in the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Any person with true faith in Christ will want to be baptized. In that sense, a so-called Christian that rejects baptism, also by implication rejects Christ.
Baptism is not necessary for salvation in the sense that salvation is based on works and there exists no salvation apart from baptism. Mark 16:16 positively affirms that anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved, but does not positively affirm that anyone who is not baptized will be condemned, but rather limits that affirmation to those that do not believe. This seems to imply that there will be some unbaptized believers that are saved. It is safe to assume (albeit guardedly) that the thief on the cross (Luke 23) is an example of such a believer. He accepted Christ and repented of his sins, but had no opportunity for baptism. There is never a conscious moment in our lifetimes when we cannot accept Christ as our Saviour and repent. Countless people have been said to do this on their deathbeds. So baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation, but it is extremely important that we realize that with faith in Christ comes obedience and baptism is one doctrine that was very significant to Christ and the apostles, therefore it should be significant to us as Christ’s followers.

///////////////////////////
There are several different forms of baptism in Scripture, yet Ephesians 4:5 tells us there is only “one� baptism. How do we reconcile this?

Scripture explicitly speaks of four different baptisms, but only one that ties in with Ephesians 4:5.
1.) Baptism of Moses and Israel (1 Cor. 10:1-3)
2.) Baptism of the cup (Mat. 26:39; Jn. 18:11; Mk. 10:38; Lk. 12:50 (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24); cf. Romans 6:3-4)
3.) Baptism of fire (Luke 3:16-17)
4.) Baptism of Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13; cf. John 3:3,5)

Only baptism of the Holy Spirit corresponds to the sacrament of Holy Baptism. #1-3 baptisms are figurative baptisms that speak of events that are unrelated to the sacrament of baptism that Christians are told to conduct.

First, the baptism into Moses is not directly related to holy baptism, but rather a figurative baptism. Holy baptism is the baptism into Christ through the Holy Spirit. This comes after repentance depicts the believer’s submission to Christ and obedience to His law. The Israelites were baptized into Moses by repentance and submission to Mosaic law in the same way Christians are baptized into Christ. The Red Sea that saved the Israelites serves as a strong parallel to the water that saves us in holy baptism.

Second, the baptism of the cup is actually the heart of what baptism is. It serves as a parallel between Christ’s actually suffering and death, in which the Father poured out the cup of suffering (the sins of the world) upon Christ on the cross. Here Christ was literally baptized/buried into death and sin. Holy baptism symbolizes our burial with Christ. (Romans 6:3-4)

Third, the baptism of fire is also a figurative baptism and fire is consistently associated in Scripture with judgement. The context of the baptism of fire in Luke 3:16-17) is also consistent with the idea of judgement. 1 Cor 3:13 indicates that on Judgement Day, a believer’s work will be revealed and tested with fire. This baptism serves as a figurative look at God’s judgment and is not directly related to the sacrament of baptism.

Last, the baptism of the Holy Spirit signifies the regeneration of the spirit, to be born again into a new life with Christ. This baptism is directly related to the Scriptural practice of water baptism by immersion. The baptism of the Holy Spirit does not occur simultaneously with water baptism, but will actually occur prior to water baptism. Water baptism is the symbolic and outward sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is also the literal burial and rebirth into a life with Christ. The spiritual rebirth had already literally occurred prior to the water baptism; at the time when the believer freely choose to accept Jesus Christ as His Lord and Saviour and repented of his sins. Our new life with Christ is led by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
1.) Belief (free will choice to believe/trust God)
2.) Gift of faith (free gift from God; confesses Christ is Lord by Holy Spirit)
3.) Repentance
4.) Baptism of Holy Spirit
A. Sacrament of baptism
5.) Works of Saving Faith - Born again – New life in the body and mind of Christ.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Question: What is baptism for the dead?
Answer: We are not sure. 1 Cor 15:29 is the only time it is spoke of, and this passage is obscure at best. There are various interpretations of this verse, but no doctrine should ever be based solely off obscure passages. It is contradictory to other Scripture however to interpret this verse as if living believers are to be baptized for the benefit of believers who died without baptism. It would be wrong if I was baptized for a dead relative. This is a positive eisegetical doctrine, which by its very nature is dangerous. Two safe, possible interpretations are either Christians are baptized in anticipation for the resurrection of the dead or being baptized to fill the ranks of baptized Christians who have died with the same faith and hope baptism symbolizes.

///////////////////////////////////////////////
Conclusion: There is only one actual and literal “baptism� taught for us to do in Scripture and this is the sacrament of Holy Baptism by water immersion. The baptism of Moses, the cup, and fire all speak of separate events that are represented as figurative baptisms due to their close parallels with holy baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is our literal spiritual baptism and water baptism is our literal physical baptism.

Infant baptism is a false teaching because it does not fulfill the necessary conditions that must be present for baptism (acceptance, repentance, and pledge of conscience).

Denominations that practice correct teaching of the sacrament of baptism (baptism only):
1.) Assemblies of God – Pentecostal
2.) AWANA
3.) Baptists – Reformed; BBFI; Free Will; Southern; American
4.) 7th Day Adventists
5.) Church of God – 7th Day; International; Philadelphia; WorldWide; United
6.) 4-Square Gospel Church
7.) Mennonite Brethren
8.) United Pentecostal Church International
9.) Associated Gospel Churches


Denominations that practice false teaching of baptism (infant/other).
1.) Lutheran – WELS; MELS; ELCA
2.) Catholicism
3.) Mormon
4.) Presbyterian
5.) Vineyard
6.) Wesleyan? – doesn’t specify immersion
7.) Anglican/Episcopal
8.) Independent Fundamental
9.) Methodist
10.) Church of Nazarene

[Heterodoxus]

..... Is it essential to salvation ... or not?

It might be helpful to ask "What would Jesus do?" and consider the Greek text of JN 3:22-23 in the KJV:

22. After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
23. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

It isn't clear from v.22 if Jesus personally performed water baptism. If he did, as did John the Baptizer in v.23 (a customary act for converts into Judaism and the worship of the God of Israel [YeHoVaH, later Christianized to Jehovah]), that would make the act equally important within Judeo-Christianity. And, yes, some scholars argue that both Jesus and John baptized their converts in water.

However, as an alternate reading of v.22 and a passage in Acts both suggest, water baptism may just as likely have been unimportant to Jesus. Why? Because the entity referred to by Christians as the "Holy Spirit" might be conveyed merely by a simple handshake, or by the "laying on of hands," by a person in whom that entity is available and willing to be to shared.

Acts 8:14-15 and 17 describe that the Apostles apparently emulated Jesus' manner of baptism:

14. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16. (omitted as parenthetical and of questionable origin)
17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost [emphasis is mine].

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

However, as an alternate reading of v.22 and a passage in Acts both suggest, water baptism may just as likely have been unimportant to Jesus. Why? Because the entity referred to by Christians as the "Holy Spirit" might be conveyed merely by a simple handshake, or by the "laying on of hands," by a person in whom that entity is available and willing to be to shared.

Acts 8:14-15 and 17 describe that the Apostles apparently emulated Jesus' manner of baptism:

14. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16. (omitted as parenthetical and of questionable origin)
17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost [emphasis is mine].

I think in order to stretch that argument to any sort of validity, you'd have to throw out all the other passages in Scripture that speak of baptism in a specific type of sacrament done with water, including Jesus' own baptism. The very definition of baptizo seems to contradict that idea. Understand too that the baptism of the Holy Spirit in converts and believers did not and does not occur at the same time as water baptism.

I think the question here is ultimately, based on how it is taught in the Bible and practiced, why wouldn't a believer want to be baptized in the same way as Jesus or others in Scripture? The significance of water baptism through the symbolism it represents to a believer becomes so clear when you study the doctrine. It's God's Word that gives such things power, I honestly just can't see why any believer would want to do it differently.

[Heterodoxus]

However, as an alternate reading of v.22 and a passage in Acts both suggest, water baptism may just as likely have been unimportant to Jesus. Why? Because the entity referred to by Christians as the "Holy Spirit" might be conveyed merely by a simple handshake, or by the "laying on of hands," by a person in whom that entity is available and willing to be to shared.

Acts 8:14-15 and 17 describe that the Apostles apparently emulated Jesus' manner of baptism:

14. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16. (omitted as parenthetical and of questionable origin)
17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost [emphasis is mine].

I think in order to stretch that argument to any sort of validity, you'd have to throw out all the other passages in Scripture that speak of baptism in a specific type of sacrament done with water, including Jesus' own baptism.

Agreed. IMO, they can be thrown out on the basis that baptism by immersion, despite its Greek definition, emulates the ritual baths in Judaism. Jesus, as a practicing Jew, and converts from Judaism into very early Judeo-Christianity who worshiped to the God of the Abrahamic faiths, would have understood and participated in that Jewish custom. This knowledge apparently renders the practice of water baptism valid for Jewish Christians, both ancient and modern, but not for Gentile Christians either then or now.

I think the question here is ultimately, based on how it is taught in the Bible and practiced, why wouldn't a believer want to be baptized in the same way as Jesus or others in Scripture?

As to why they'd want to be baptized in that manner, especially since the belief that Jesus did it is conjectural at best; well, why indeed? I see it as significant that Luke 8:17, if indeed based on the writings of Mark, Q, and/or Proto-Luke, makes no reference to water baptism.
Speaking of Q, a translation of the Aramaic version of John 3:22 reads, in part:

... Jesus ... came to Judea, ... where he visited ... and baptized.

While this does seem to indicate that Jesus personally performed baptisms, the method or type of baptism is not indicated and, therefore, assumed or presupposed by practicing Christians to be baptism in water. I don't have a Coptic version, but I'd be curious to read JN 3:22 and ACTS 8:17 in that language, which I haven't studied.
Also, Acts 8:17 in the Aramaic reads:

Then they consecrated the hand over them, and they received the holy Spirit [emp. mine].

Again, no mention of water baptism.

The significance of water baptism through the symbolism it represents to a believer becomes so clear when you study the doctrine.

I've studied it many times. I also, for many years, preached and performed what is sequaciously regarded as "Jesus-style" baptism by full immersion. So, please, don't presume that I'm ignorant on the subject.

It's God's Word that gives such things power, I honestly just can't see why any believer would want to do it differently.

Actually, albeit they don't practice full immersion in the tradition of the Jewish ritual baths, it was--as both Bible and Church histories confirm--the Catholic Church's word as to what they said "God's Word" was that made this and other Christian beliefs seem powerful in the minds of the uninformed Catholic and Protestant masses.