Is Baptism a Requirement for Salvation?

[Livelystone]

No. The bronze laver was only for the priests, not the congregation of Israel. And it was only for the hands and feet. It was not related to water baptism at all.

I singled this quote out not for personal reasons but because if we do not see the prophecy within the pattern that God gave to Moses on the Mount that lies within both the tabernacle and the law, we are not going to see much else in the Bible, and as the Bible teaches, God's children perish because of the lack of knowledge being taught.

Yes, the bronze laver was for the priest but we are to become kings and priests unto God that is seen in the pattern of development of the tabernacle in the wilderness got its start in the surrounding curtain, and ends with the Ark of the covenant.

The priest washing his hands symbolize repentance from dead works as does washing of feet prophecy being prepared to walk on the path of righteousness (Jesus washing the feet of the disciples) that we are called to walk. Water is symbolic of the word and the Holy Spirit, therefore as Paul said, we are washed by the pure water of the word that is spirit.

The outside curtains represent the time that the law would be preached seen in the square-foot measurement of 1500 the same as the dimensions of the holy room of 2000 cubits do for the time of the church of Pentecost to rule over God's people prior to the time of the millennium and perfection seen in the room of the holiest where God appeared.

Malachi spoke of us when the Lord told him that he would purify the sons of Levi. We are those sons of Levi and the 1st of our 3 baptisms does start SYMBOLICALLY at the bronze lever. Without being washed in water of the word and learning the obedience needed to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit that takes one out of the outer court and into the first room the christian will always remain carnal.

Doug

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

stay_on_topic_stay_on_topic_The_off_topic_topic_post-s599x450-147644-410.jpg

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[TeeJay]

The United Pentecostal Church International, which is the largest of the oneness denominations, contends that baptism in the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation. From their doctrinal statement: "It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation. " (1) David Bernard, the leading UPCI theologian states "Baptism is important only because God has ordained it to be so. God could have chosen to remit sin without baptism, but in the New Testament church He has chosen to do so at the moment of baptism. Our actions at baptism do not provide salvation or earn it from God; God alone remits sins based on Christ's atoning death. When we submit to water baptism according to God's plan, God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin. " (2) In light of these assertions we must ask ourselves does the word of God agree with Bernard and the UPCI?


Firstly, we must acknowledge that the basis upon which we either agree or disagree whether or not baptism is required must be from the entirety of the scriptures. That is, we cannot isolate passages of scripture from their context to support preconceived doctrines. Nor can we ignore the importance of the epistles at the expense of the narrative passages of scripture. This article is not going to be comprehensive by any means, but it will hit on many of the key texts that deal with the subject of baptism and how or if it relates to salvation.


Bernard's statement that "when we submit to water baptism...God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin" combines the act of baptism with the act of faith. Baptism is an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus (Matt 28:19), and it is therefore a command. A command of God is synonymous with a law of God. Obedience to a law of God cannot under any circumstances cannot save a sinner. Or as the Apostle puts it:


Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.(esv)


Paul places a high priority on faith in the Lord Jesus that is apart from works. This is further emphasized in his discourse on justification in the epistle to the Romans:


Romans 4:4-8 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”


Certainly no one can argue that the high point or pinnacle of teaching on justification is Paul's discourse in Romans chapters 2-5. Yet, he does not touch on the topic of baptism until chapter 6. We see that Paul has concluded his writing on the topic of justification by the phrase "what shall we say then?"(Rom 6:1). The Apostle proceeds to address abstinence from sin and baptism without connecting the doctrine of baptism and to the salvithic process. Rather, he points to baptism as the symbol that demonstrates the reality of union with Christ in death burial, resurrection, and the newness of life. His words regarding baptism relevant to the doctrine of sanctification rather than the remission of sins (Rom 6:1-4). The conclusion that we can draw from Romans is that baptism is the symbolic expression of authentic faith. The demonstration of an individuals allegiance and recognition of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is best seen in baptism. It is in baptism that Christians make look back as a reminder of their union with Christ. It is in baptism that we are reminded of the hope of resurrection (Rom 6:5).


Typically, we see that there are parallels between the institution of circumcision and baptism (Gen 17:10/Matt 28:19). I would not go as far as to suggest that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, as circumcision is the sign of the Old Covenant. When we examine the way in which the ritual of circumcision is treated in light of the doctrine of justification there are certain parallels that can and should be drawn.


Romans 4:9-11 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,


The Apostles point is this; Abraham's obedience to the ordinance of circumcision was representative of an inward reality; Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. The obedience to the ordinance did not effect whether or not Abraham was justified. This principal can and should be rightly applied to our own understanding of how we are seen as righteous before God. It is our faith in Christ alone that is counted to us as righteousness. Baptism is the sign of that reality, but not the means of that reality.


It seems as though Acts 2:38 is the resounding mantra of Oneness Pentecostalism. When we examine that text in isolation as it is often presented, it does seem to mean exactly what our oneness friends contend it to mean.


Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (esv, bold mine)


The word "for" used in this verse is the Greek word "eis." This word can mean “because” or “on behalf of.” In light of that definition, it seems as though this text is a detractor of oneness soteriology. In addition, there is another interesting dynamic in the verse. The verb for "be baptized" in the Greek (baptizo) is in the singular, whereas the word for "repent" (metanoeo) is in the plural. The manor in which the text goes from a plural ("repent") to a singular ("be baptized") to plural ("your") suggests that "the forgiveness of sins" is a result of repentance and not baptism.


The New Testament also provides a number of narratives that are completely at odds with the Oneness doctrine of baptism.


Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.


The Gentiles present in the above text were filled with the Holy Spirit. These people were regenerate before baptism. Note Peter's emphasis on baptism after their own confession of faith.




Consider too the work of the Apostle in the following texts:


Acts 16:29-31 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”(esv, bold mine)


What did Paul say the jailer must do to be saved? His concern wasn't baptism. No, Paul was concerned with faith. And that is why we read this in Acts 16:32:


Acts 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.(esv)


Paul identified did not consider his heavenly commission to be centered around preaching Acts 2:38:


1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (esv, bold mine)


I would like to address a few prooftexts that have been utilized by the Oneness movement to buttress their doctrine of baptism.


John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."


The above text cannot be considered a validation of the necessity of baptism for salvation. This is primarily do to the fact that Christian baptism had not yet been instituted at the time in which Jesus had made this statement. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand that of which He spoke. Hence the phrase, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? (John 3:10)" Therefore, the reference to water correlates to an Old Testament text:


Ezekial 36:25-28 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.(esv)


Therein we find that the water is referring to the cleansing of sin by means of a sovereign work of God. Pastor and theologian Dr. John MacArthur explains the above text in light of John 3:5 in the following terms, " Now notice, He says, 'I will wash you with water, and cleanse you of sin and place my spirit in you.' That’s the water Nicodemus would have understood. It is the water of cleansing that occurs at salvation. If you want to put it in Paul’s term “it is the washing of the water by the Word,” that occurs when you’re saved. It isn’t baptism, it isn’t physical birth, it is simply the concept of cleansing that occurs at the point of regeneration and salvation. You must have that promised cleansing and the implanting of the Spirit, to enter into the Kingdom Of God. That’s what He is saying, so don’t confuse baptism, or the water that we associate with physical birth with the concept that Nicodemus would have understood.(3)" The text of Ezekial 36:25-27 prevents even the most remote possibility of the validity of the Oneness interpretation since the use of prophetic metaphor is employed; "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean..." Note that sprinkling is not the Oneness method, God Himself is said to be the sprinkler, and should verse 25 be taken literally, God would have to follow His sprinkling with an actual heart transplant; "And I will remove the heart of stone."


The impossibility of the utilization of the text of John 3:5 to support Christian baptism as a necessity for salvation is both evident and pronounced. Yet, Oneness theologians like Jason Dulle still suggest it's validity in support of the doctrine(4). Meanwhile, obeying a command or baptismal formula can no more regenerate a dead human spirit (Eph 2:1) than the decision of Lazurus could release him from the grave, or bring life to dry bones (Ezk 37)


1Peter 3:18-21 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,(esv)


Peter is comparing the waters of the flood to Christian baptism. We see in the narrative account of the flood, that it was God Himself that saved Noah and his family from the flood (Gen 7:16). How do the waters of the flood correspond with the water of Christian baptism? The flood waters symbolized the judgment of God upon the world. Baptism symbolizes the judgment of God upon Christ, and it is that judgment that Christians have been sheltered from. Christians are free from the wrath to come not because of baptism, but the person and work baptism represents. Just as Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:8-9 that faith is a gift from God. Faith is the means by which God saves us from judgment (Rom 5:9) and credits us with righteousness (Rom 4:3). Therefore baptism is the expression of the authentic faith possessed by the justified. To suggest that Peter is saying that baptism has a salvithic effect is to deny the obvious. The water of baptism does not cleanse us of sin says Peter; "not as a removal of dirt from the body." It is what baptism evidences; "an appeal to God for a good conscience." Baptism is the representation of union with Christ (Rom 6:1-4), and it only can save so far as it accurately represents an inward reality. Baptism can no more save a person than the flood waters could save Noah. It was the faith Noah had in his God that had a salvithic effect, so too, it is faith in Christ that saves us.


Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.(esv, bold mine)


Acts 22:12-16 “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’


To Oneness Pentecostalism, this text suggests suggests a cause and effect relationship between being baptized and the washing away of sins. But, in reality this text provides no more support for their doctrine than any other. The washing away of sins is not effect of baptism, but the effect of "calling of His name." Theologian and Apologist Dr. James White provides us with the basis of this assertion:


"Verse 16 presents us with a significant construction in the original language. The terms "arise" and "call" (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist participles; "be baptized" and "be cleansed" (baptisai and apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms form two sets--the first, "arise and be baptized," the second, "wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," or more literally, "wash away your sins, having called upon the name of the Lord." The remission of sins is effected by calling upon the name of the Lord in this passage--it is represented, as elsewhere, by baptism."(5)


The notion of calling on the name of the Lord is not one that is foreign in the scriptures (Rom 10:13, 1Cor 1:2, Acts 2:21, Joel 2:32). Again, it is not the act of calling on the name of the Lord, but the underlying cause for one to call upon the Lord. Repentance and faith in our Lord cause a man to call on the name of the Lord (Luke 18:13), and these things are given to men by a gracious God (Eph 2:8-9).


Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.(esv)


The majorative Oneness interpretation understands this text to suggest that baptism is a requirement for salvation. However, this is not the case. Note what is said to be damnable or condemning according to the Lord Jesus. Is it a failure to be baptized? No. It is a failure to believe. The emphasis is on belief (or faith, as the words are synonymous). I will pose a analogy to explain:


"Whoever sings and dances will receive applause, but whoever does not sing will be removed from the theatre."


You see, the emphasis is on singing (belief) and not on dancing (baptism). While baptism has a great importance in the Christian life, as it is emblematic of one's union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, it is not salvithic. Similarly, singing and dancing are related, however they are inextricably distinct from each other in both value and result. So too is belief in Christ and Christian baptism. Our faith in the Savior is of infinite value, for it is faith apart from works that justifies (Rom 4:6). Baptism is a related work of lesser value, but of importance nevertheless. The testimony of Christ as to the importance of belief is clear and emphatic. For example, the Lord Jesus stated in John 3:18, "whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."


Within the text Jesus posits a simple truth; "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." Let us not add to that the notion that baptism and belief are the requirements for that salvation, as He did not make the statement in a vacuum. No, He followed it by stating "but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Just as whoever believes and evangelizes will be saved. Or whoever believes and feeds the poor will be saved. Or whoever believes and takes part in the Lord's Supper will be saved. The belief and the outgrowth of that belief are to be distinguished. The bottom line is, read the text, but don't impose your preconceived doctrinal convictions onto the text.


In closing, here is a quote by the "Prince of Preachers" that I think summates my personal feelings in regards to the Oneness doctrine of baptism. It should be noted that Spurgeon wasn't refuting Oneness Pentecostalism's doctrine of baptism, but the Church of England's.


"If this is your teaching, that regeneration is a result of baptism, I say it looks like the teaching of a false church, which has cleverly invented mechanical salvation to deceive ignorant, carnal minds, rather than the teaching of the most profoundly spiritual of all teachers, who rebuked Scribes and Pharisees for regarding outward rites as more important than inward grace."




C.H. Spurgeon Sunday, June 5th, 1864





--





1. UPCI website, doctrinal statements, "The Importance of Baptism"


2. "The New Birth" by David Bernard 1984 chap. 6 "Water Baptism"


3. "Questions and Answers," a comment by Dr. John MacArthur, available at http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-E-1.htm


4. "First, even if Acts 2:38 does not connect the forgiveness of sins with baptism, other passages do: 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, and Mark 16:16 (John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 also come to mind, but are not as clear as other verses). " Excerpt from "Acts 2:38 and the Purpose of Baptism" by Jason Dulle, http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/Acts238baptism.htm


5. "A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration" by Dr. James R. White

MB,

BAPTISM
“[Jesus speaking] …for John [the Baptist] truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). In fact it was ten days later that the Holy Spirit came upon them. The Holy Spirit was poured out on them on the Day of Pentecost or 50 days after Jesus’ resurrection and ten days after His ascension.
The Doctrine of Baptism
In the Book of Acts, Luke mentions Baptism repeatedly, and if you don’t understand the doctrine of baptism, there are many passages in the New Testament that will confuse you. For example, in Acts 18, we read of Apollos:
“Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man 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 [the Baptist]. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Acts 18:24-26
Notice that this Apollos had repented and been baptized by John and he had most likely had accepted Jesus as his Lord. He was saved under the Gospel of the Kingdom or the Gospel of Circumcision or the Law. Priscilla and Aquila gave him a clearer picture, especially about Paul’s Gospel of Grace. Although Luke was a Circumcision apostle, he too helped Paul.
“And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace [Paul’s Gospel].” (Acts 18:27)
Origin or Baptism
Is Baptism a Jewish or Christian ritual? Before we answer this let’s look at John the Baptist. When the Pharisees came to John the Baptist who was baptizing many Jews, they did not ask what he was doing. Rather they questioned his authority to baptize. They did not question baptism because it was a Jewish ritual or the symbolic cleansing with water. There are many instances in Jewish Scripture of the sprinkling with water. Often, it’s a sprinkling with blood, sometimes mixed with oil or with water. Other times it is a sprinkling with purification water, whereby the priest would symbolically cleanse the people by sprinkling them. And God commanded the priest to also sprinkle the altar, its vessels, the Tabernacle (temporary tent while in the wilderness). Moses even once sprinkled the Book of the Scriptures that he had written. In Mark 7:4, we read that the Jews even baptized their eating utensils and couches—and they did this daily!
“When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.” ( Mark 7:4) Note: In the Greek, “washing” is translated bastismos which means baptize.
In the New King James Bible, some form of the English word sprinkle, sprinkles, sprinkled, sprinkling appears sixty times, almost always referring to this Jewish ritual of baptism. Fifty-three times sprinkling appears in the Hebrew Old Testament and seven times in the New Testament and all seven instances are in the Book of Hebrews. One reason for this is that baptism is a Jewish ritual. And because it was a Jewish ritual, early Christians were confused about baptism. Actually, the early Christians were confused about everything Jewish. How should they transition from Israel’s Covenant of Circumcision (or Law) to the Body of Christ and its Covenant of Grace. It was very confusing!
Israel’s Baptism Was Symbolic
When God cut off Israel and gave Paul a new Covenant of Grace, there was much confusion. God first communicated to the Twelve that He had bypassed Israel and would go directly to the Gentiles when He sent Peter to the Centurion Cornelius. God poured out the Holy Spirit on Cornelius without requiring Cornelius and his family to be circumcised. As the ritual of circumcision is a synonym for law, there was no better way to convey this to Peter. Peter was “astonished.” And to make matters more confusing, this new “Apostle to the Gentiles” was teaching that you don’t have to get circumcised, observe Sabbaths, keep the feasts, or keep the law. Then Peter’s disciples would come behind Paul and teach that they had to be circumcised. But unless we realize that there was a transition from Judaism to Christianity (because God cut off Israel), confusion abounds with us as well.
Israel had many baptisms which is why the Book of Hebrews or the epistle to the Hebrews uses the plural “doctrine of baptisms” (Heb. 6:2). And in Hebrews 9:10, we read, “various washings” or baptisms. The Book of Hebrews describes these baptisms as symbolic.
“It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshy ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.” Heb. 9:9-10
Now Hebrews tells us that these rituals were symbolic. They were not fundamentally moral ordinances such as murder, theft, rape, kidnapping that could not be otherwise. So the writer of Hebrews admonishes the Jews to move beyond the doctrine of baptisms to the deeper truths of God. But even though symbolic, it’s easy to see how the Jews could get stuck in this ritual and not want to move on. But if you get stuck in the symbolic, you will rob yourself of the substance or the reality—which is Jesus Christ. All of the sprinklings or baptisms or cleansings or washings pointed to the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.
“… to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.” Heb. 12:24
“Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Heb. 9:12-14
Let’s look at a typical passage on baptism in the Old Testament:
“[God speaking] Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezek. 36:24-26
This water can’t really cleanse you from all your filthiness. This is a symbol of Jesus Christ.
When we say that baptism was a Jewish ritual, some Christians automatically translate that to mean that with the New Testament, baptism became a new baptism or a Christian ritual. It was no longer the old Jewish ritual; now it was a Christian ritual.
But the New Testament baptism began with John the Baptist and he was a Jew baptizing Jews. And the baptism that John was doing was not Christian but was in accordance with the Mosaic Law. It was recognized by Jews as their traditional baptism. The only questions the Pharisees had for John was by what authority was he baptizing, why was he doing it now, and for what reason? Even those who hated God recognized that John’s baptizing was a traditional Jewish ritual. He was never challenged as to the ritual itself.
“Now this is the testimony of John [the Baptist], when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who are you?’” John 1:19
“And they asked him, saying, ‘Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ…’” John 1:25
Another Form of Baptism
Now when Jesus said, “John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit,” this was another new baptism ritual. They already had many baptism rituals, but this was a new one. Now this baptism was the greatest of their baptisms in that it was the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy.
“And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions, and also My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.” Joel 2:28-29
Baptism Did Not Save
John the Baptist baptized thousands of Jews. And Jesus baptized more Jews than John though Jesus Himself did not baptize (John 4:1). Yet, on the day Jesus was crucified, the majority of Israel shouted, “We have no king but Caesar.” Most of the Jews that were baptized never became believers.

One Baptism for the Body of Christ
While the Jews had many baptisms, we in the Body of Christ have one baptism. Paul wrote to the Ephesians:
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and father of all who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Eph. 4:46
The first covenant that God made with Abraham was the Covenant of Grace (Gen. 15). God put Abraham to sleep so that Abraham could do nothing. The Gospel of Grace that God gave to Paul requires nothing from us. It is faith plus nothing. When you accept Jesus, the Holy Spirit even does the baptizing. Fourteen years later, in Genesis 17, God gave the Covenant of Circumcision (or law) and commanded Abraham to circumcise. Circumcision is a synonym for law. Israel will always be identified as the “people of the circumcision.”
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Cor. 12:13
“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” Rom. 6:3
In First Corinthians, Paul drops a bombshell: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…” (1 Cor. 1:17). Now many interpret this to mean that Paul was just too busy to baptize and that preaching was his priority, but baptism was still required. But baptism for the Body of Christ is not the Jewish fleshy ritual of the cleansing of the flesh by water, but a Spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, into His death. Now let’s say that a man accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior, and the Holy Spirit baptizes him into the Body, should we add a fleshy, symbolic cleansing ritual to this to make it better? I think not! When we do his, we are adding works to grace. And Paul wrote that if we add works to grace, then ”it is no longer grace.” Paul forbid observances of any of the Jewish law: circumcision, Sabbaths, diets, clothing, feasts, meat sacrificed to idols. “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths” (Col. 2:16). Some Christians reason that after the Cross, Peter and his followers had mistakenly put themselves under the law. But God did not give Israel a Gospel of Grace. And laws such as keeping the Sabbath, circumcision, certain feasts, were perpetual ordinances for Israel. While Paul and his followers could eat meat sacrificed to idols, a Jew could not (Rev. 2:14).
Even Paul Was Initially Confused
It must be remembered that Paul was a Jewish Pharisee, marinated in Jewish law. So it is understandable that Paul began his ministry with baptizing people. But, as he received the full revelation of “the grace of God that was given to me [Paul]” became clear, Paul stopped baptizing.
Paul wrote, “Now I say this that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul.’ or ‘I am of Cephas.’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? …for Christ did not send me to baptize.” (1 Cor. 1:12-17). Notice that he includes “I am of Christ.” He left no wiggle room for anyone to use the gospel of Jesus Christ to justify baptism within the Body. Paul even wrote, “I thank God that I baptized none of you” 1 Cor. 1:14). You could not get a Baptist minister to say that even if you held a gun to his head.
The Great Commission
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mat. 28:19). Was Jesus talking to Paul? No! He was talking to the Twelve (Israel) under the Gospel of Circumcision. Paul would not be commissioned for another year.
And, are you ready for a bombshell? Israel never fulfilled the Great Commission. I realize that at first blush, this is astonishing. But it is a major key in unraveling the conundrums of the New Testament. There is no Biblical record of any of the Twelve circumcision apostles preaching to any Gentiles (other than Peter to the Centurion Cornelius). This was after God cut off Israel (as a nation), and commissioned Paul. And what must be pointed out is that Cornelius and members of his household were saved without being circumcised. Peter and “those of the circumcision were astonished” (Acts 10:45-46). Peter would later learn that God had begun accepting Gentiles by grace through faith alone (new Dispensation).
“Now they [Jews] which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but the Jews only” (Acts 11:19). Christians must realize that Jesus’ return to Israel to establish their kingdom was contingent on Israel, as a nation, accepting their risen Christ. Israel rejected their risen Christ. Israel, as a nation, was cut off and as a consequence, their Great Commission was put on hold.
Baptism Disputes Have Fractured the Body of Christ
Let’s think about the doctrine of baptism that has brought division to millions of believers—splitting churches, preventing fellowship, over a ritual that takes about two minutes of a believer’s Christian life time. Millions have lost the opportunity for unity, fellowship, and working together for the advancement of God’s goals because of symbolic ritual. Is there a greater disgrace upon the gospel of Christ?
Baptismal disagreements have divided the worship and ministry of more believers that any other doctrinal debate: Do we baptize infants or adults? In water or in the Spirit? Sprinkled or submerged? By what formula: Do we baptize in the name of Jesus only? Or in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Does your baptism transfer with your membership if you move and go to another church? Someone even posed the question if the water is not deep enough for a full dunking, is the baptism valid?
Would Paul have tolerated this kind of division over baptism? He was disgusted by it. He would point out that to stop the division and in-fighting, he had stopped baptizing altogether. “God did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”
While Israel has a Covenant of Circumcision which is the cutting off of the flesh and works of the flesh under the law (like baptism) the Gospel of Grace is faith plus nothing. We are saved by grace apart from any works of the flesh or keeping of the law. So baptism is neither required nor commanded of Christians today.

TeeJay

[arrow1]

Baptism is an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus (Matt 28:19), and it is therefore a command. A command of God is synonymous with a law of God. Obedience to a law of God cannot under any circumstances cannot save a sinner

God commands all men everywhere to repent. Are you saying repentance is not required to be saved?? Jesus said, repentance and forgiveness of
sins will be preached beginning in Jerusalem. Paul said, He became the source of salvation to all who obey him. Are you saying obedience is not
required to be saved?? To the Jews who believed Him, Jesus said, "if you obey my commands, then you really are my disciples."

[arrow1]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."


The above text cannot be considered a validation of the necessity of baptism for salvation. This is primarily do to the fact that Christian baptism had not yet been instituted at the time in which Jesus had made this statement.

Then logically the above text cannot be used to validate the neccessity of the Holy Spirit for salvation. In John it says, by that He meant the Holy
Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were LATER to receive. Up to that time, the Holy Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been
glorified"

[arrow1]

Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.(esv)


Paul places a high priority on faith in the Lord Jesus that is apart from works

NO, Paul is placing a high priority on faith(whatever your defintion of faith is) apart from circmumcision, kosher diet, etc. In context, that is what
he means by "works of the law", the Mosaic law. Look around the book of Romans, he is constantly referring to circumcision, that is what he means
by works of law.
The faith that Abraham had began in Genesis chapter 12, continued on in chapters 13 and 14, finally in chapter 15 God declares him righteous for his
faith. Then in chapter 17 he is again justified when he attempted to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abrahams faith was an ongoing continual process, not
a one time event!!

[TeeJay]

God commands all men everywhere to repent. Are you saying repentance is not required to be saved?? Jesus said, repentance and forgiveness of
sins will be preached beginning in Jerusalem. Paul said, He became the source of salvation to all who obey him. Are you saying obedience is not
required to be saved?? To the Jews who believed Him, Jesus said, "if you obey my commands, then you really are my disciples."

Arrow 1,

Repentance is required for salvation. God does not allow us to forgive each other unless we repent (Luke 17:3). There is a homosexual church near where I live that basically tells God: "God, You will accept me as a Christian homosexual." If we come to God, we must play on His sheet of music and not ours. Paul teaches that the law is not made for the righteous but for sinners and it is our tutor to show us our wickedness and our need for a Savior.

And Jesus said many things TO ISRAEL that do not apply to us as members of the Body of Christ. For example, circumcision, Sabbath keeping, feasts that are "perpetual" covenants for the nation of Israel that is not required for members of the Body of Christ. To unravel the conundrums of Scripture, we must separate Israel from the Body, law from grace, circumcision from no circumcision.

TeeJa

[RBerman]

ugh, Tee-Jay. Don't respond with a cut-and-paste, certainly not such a lengthy one that raises many points of discussion. Choose one point you want to discuss.

[TeeJay]

ugh, Tee-Jay. Don't respond with a cut-and-paste, certainly not such a lengthy one that raises many points of discussion. Choose one point you want to discuss.

RB,

I'm new to this thread. Are you a moderator "commanding" me to post shorter threads" What I posted is a Bible study I use to teach on this subject. Yes, I cut and pasted it, but I wrote it myself. Not to argue with a moderator (if you are one?), but can't you respond to any portion of my post that you disagree with?

TeeJay

[TeeJay]

NO, Paul is placing a high priority on faith (whatever your definition of faith is) apart from circmumcision, kosher diet, etc. In context, that is what
he means by "works of the law", the Mosaic law. Look around the book of Romans, he is constantly referring to circumcision, that is what he means
by works of law.

Arrow, circumcision is a synonym for the whole law, “the weightier matters of the law without leaving the lesser undone,” as Jesus admonished His Jewish followers. Why did God give this strange rite to Israel?

Circumcision is the cutting off of the flesh. Jesus Christ (God the Son) became flesh, and was cut off. God told Abraham: “He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:13). God had also said to Abraham, “in you all” nations will be blessed (Gen. 12:3), and in Abraham, because Jesus came from Abraham’s loins, and from David’s body (2 Sam. 7:12). Thus, the Covenant of Circumcision pointed to Jesus Christ, who “became flesh” (John 1:14) and then the “Messiah” was “cut off” (Dan. 9:26; Mat. 27:46, 50). The Jews, called the Circumcision, the people of the Covenant of Circumcision, were themselves cut off (Rom. 11:20, 22). So, too, Christ, the King of the Jews (Mat. 2:2; 27:11), became flesh and was cut off. Thus the circumcision of Jesus Christ according to the Law on the eighth day (Luke 2:21) foreshadowed the very purpose of His coming. Consider also that God used the Hebrew word silver when He said to Abraham, “he who is bought with your money [silver].” Then recall two things: that the High Priest bought Christ with “thirty pieces of silver” from Judas (Mat. 26:15); and also that Jesus was born a Jew. Thus, throughout all history, He was the One both “born in your house [Israel] and… bought with your silver.” Thus the Covenant of Circumcision uniquely pointed to Christ.
And we must also realize that the Covenant of Circumcision represented the law. Jesus Christ became flesh and voluntarily was circumcised and baptized thus putting Himself under the very covenant that He made with Abraham. While Abraham’s descendants were unable to keep the Covenant of Circumcision (the law), Jesus Christ did keep the law perfectly and fulfilled the covenant which Abraham and the Jews could not keep.

So Paul admonishes us in the Body of Christ, that if we get circumcised (as a religious rite), we are obligated to keep the whole law. “Circumcision profited you nothing.”

The faith that Abraham had began in Genesis chapter 12, continued on in chapters 13 and 14, finally in chapter 15 God declares him righteous for his
faith. Then in chapter 17 he is again justified when he attempted to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abrahams faith was an ongoing continual process, not
a one time event!!

Under the covenant of circumcision, the Jews had to have faith and keep the law and do good works. But what we must understand is that God can add grace to works (as Peter said in Acts 15:11). But, and this is a big but, God can’t add works to grace. Grace is a free gift, and if God adds works to a gift, it is no longer free. You then have to earn it.

And when Paul admonished us not to partake of the law (as God admonished Adam not to partake of the Tree), he was not talking about just symbolic law (such as circumcision, baptism, Sabbath keeping); he was talking about the whole law. He referred to the law as a “ministry of death engraved on stone” (2 Cor. 3:7). Last I looked, the Ten Commandments were engraved on stones. No?

TeeJay

[TeeJay]

Then logically the above text cannot be used to validate the neccessity of the Holy Spirit for salvation. In John it says, by that He meant the Holy
Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were LATER to receive. Up to that time, the Holy Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been
glorified"

Jesus said many things to the Jews that He did not say to us. For example, He told His followers, "These signs shall follow you. You will lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. You can step on Diamondbacks and their poison will not hurt you, etc.[paraphrased]." Now for anyone who thinks that what Jesus promised to Israel is for us, they can come to my ranch in Texas and I will let them step on some Rattlers.

TeeJay

[RBerman]

RB,

I'm new to this thread. Are you a moderator "commanding" me to post shorter threads" What I posted is a Bible study I use to teach on this subject. Yes, I cut and pasted it, but I wrote it myself. Not to argue with a moderator (if you are one?), but can't you respond to any portion of my post that you disagree with?

TeeJay

I'm not a moderator, and welcome to the forum. Here is the policy about Post Length from the Campus Decorum, which says:

The maximum post length is 24K characters not including quoted material. Do not use multiple posts to circumvent this restriction. Please keep your points concise and limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy from both a writer's and a reader's perspective when there are too many points to address. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that same person (i.e. back-to-back responses to a single post are not allowed.)

And from the Board Etiquette section just beneath it:

Remember responsive arguments are to be as personal as possible, not "cut and paste" dueling articles. This can be avoided by giving one's personal analysis along with an article, or just quoting the specifically relevant portions and showing relevance. An exception is granted for articles or other larger pieces posted to start a thread which may be posted in accordance with our copyright rules without further commentary from the thread starter.

Copyright isn't a problem in your case, since you're posting your own material. But excessive post length with too many different points is. As to whether I agree or disagree with your post, I haven't even given the content a look yet. All I saw was a wall of unformatted text, lacking even space between paragraphs.

[TeeJay]

I'm not a moderator, and welcome to the forum. Here is the policy about Post Length from the Campus Decorum, which says:

The maximum post length is 24K characters not including quoted material. Do not use multiple posts to circumvent this restriction. Please keep your points concise and limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy from both a writer's and a reader's perspective when there are too many points to address. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that same person (i.e. back-to-back responses to a single post are not allowed.)

And from the Board Etiquette section just beneath it:

Remember responsive arguments are to be as personal as possible, not "cut and paste" dueling articles. This can be avoided by giving one's personal analysis along with an article, or just quoting the specifically relevant portions and showing relevance. An exception is granted for articles or other larger pieces posted to start a thread which may be posted in accordance with our copyright rules without further commentary from the thread starter.

Copyright isn't a problem in your case, since you're posting your own material. But excessive post length with too many different points is. As to whether I agree or disagree with your post, I haven't even given the content a look yet. All I saw was a wall of unformatted text, lacking even space between paragraphs.

RB, Fair enough. I understand.

TeeJay

[One Bad Pig]

MB,

BAPTISM
“[Jesus speaking] …for John [the Baptist] truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). In fact it was ten days later that the Holy Spirit came upon them. The Holy Spirit was poured out on them on the Day of Pentecost or 50 days after Jesus’ resurrection and ten days after His ascension.
The Doctrine of Baptism
In the Book of Acts, Luke mentions Baptism repeatedly, and if you don’t understand the doctrine of baptism, there are many passages in the New Testament that will confuse you. For example, in Acts 18, we read of Apollos:
“Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man 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 [the Baptist]. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Acts 18:24-26
Notice that this Apollos had repented and been baptized by John and he had most likely had accepted Jesus as his Lord. He was saved under the Gospel of the Kingdom or the Gospel of Circumcision or the Law. Priscilla and Aquila gave him a clearer picture, especially about Paul’s Gospel of Grace. Although Luke was a Circumcision apostle, he too helped Paul.
“And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace [Paul’s Gospel].” (Acts 18:27)

Acts 19:1-6 NKJV

¹ And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples ² he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

³ And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”

So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

⁴ Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would 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 hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Note that they were explicitly baptized by Paul or someone with him after hearing about Jesus.

Origin or Baptism
Is Baptism a Jewish or Christian ritual? Before we answer this let’s look at John the Baptist. When the Pharisees came to John the Baptist who was baptizing many Jews, they did not ask what he was doing. Rather they questioned his authority to baptize. They did not question baptism because it was a Jewish ritual or the symbolic cleansing with water. There are many instances in Jewish Scripture of the sprinkling with water. Often, it’s a sprinkling with blood, sometimes mixed with oil or with water. Other times it is a sprinkling with purification water, whereby the priest would symbolically cleanse the people by sprinkling them. And God commanded the priest to also sprinkle the altar, its vessels, the Tabernacle (temporary tent while in the wilderness). Moses even once sprinkled the Book of the Scriptures that he had written. In Mark 7:4, we read that the Jews even baptized their eating utensils and couches—and they did this daily!
“When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.” ( Mark 7:4) Note: In the Greek, “washing” is translated bastismos which means baptize.
In the New King James Bible, some form of the English word sprinkle, sprinkles, sprinkled, sprinkling appears sixty times, almost always referring to this Jewish ritual of baptism. Fifty-three times sprinkling appears in the Hebrew Old Testament and seven times in the New Testament and all seven instances are in the Book of Hebrews. One reason for this is that baptism is a Jewish ritual. And because it was a Jewish ritual, early Christians were confused about baptism. Actually, the early Christians were confused about everything Jewish. How should they transition from Israel’s Covenant of Circumcision (or Law) to the Body of Christ and its Covenant of Grace. It was very confusing!

It is you that seems to be confused. The baptism of the Jews was fundamentally different from the baptism of John, which in turn was different from Christian baptism. The first was a self-washing for ritual purity, and was done repeatedly by at least some Jewish sects of the first century; the second was a once-done baptism by immersion for the forgiveness of sins; the third is similar to the second, with the additional purpose of marking the entrance into the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

Israel’s Baptism Was Symbolic
When God cut off Israel and gave Paul a new Covenant of Grace, there was much confusion. God first communicated to the Twelve that He had bypassed Israel and would go directly to the Gentiles when He sent Peter to the Centurion Cornelius.

Nope. That was an explicit extension of the New Covenant to Gentiles, not a rejection of all Jews.

God poured out the Holy Spirit on Cornelius without requiring Cornelius and his family to be circumcised. As the ritual of circumcision is a synonym for law, there was no better way to convey this to Peter. Peter was “astonished.” And to make matters more confusing, this new “Apostle to the Gentiles” was teaching that you don’t have to get circumcised, observe Sabbaths, keep the feasts, or keep the law. Then Peter’s disciples would come behind Paul and teach that they had to be circumcised. But unless we realize that there was a transition from Judaism to Christianity (because God cut off Israel), confusion abounds with us as well.

You are indeed confused here. Christian baptism has nothing to do with the Mosaic Law. And since when did Peter's disciples come behind Paul and teach circumcision?

Israel had many baptisms which is why the Book of Hebrews or the epistle to the Hebrews uses the plural “doctrine of baptisms” (Heb. 6:2). And in Hebrews 9:10, we read, “various washings” or baptisms. The Book of Hebrews describes these baptisms as symbolic.
“It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshy ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.” Heb. 9:9-10
Now Hebrews tells us that these rituals were symbolic. They were not fundamentally moral ordinances such as murder, theft, rape, kidnapping that could not be otherwise. So the writer of Hebrews admonishes the Jews to move beyond the doctrine of baptisms to the deeper truths of God. But even though symbolic, it’s easy to see how the Jews could get stuck in this ritual and not want to move on. But if you get stuck in the symbolic, you will rob yourself of the substance or the reality—which is Jesus Christ. All of the sprinklings or baptisms or cleansings or washings pointed to the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.

And none of the Jewish baptisms were analogous to Christian baptism. In Heb 6:1-3, baptism is is described as part of the foundation of Christianity along with repentance from dead works, resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgment (among other things).

“… to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.” Heb. 12:24
“Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Heb. 9:12-14
Let’s look at a typical passage on baptism in the Old Testament:
“[God speaking] Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezek. 36:24-26
This water can’t really cleanse you from all your filthiness. This is a symbol of Jesus Christ.

It is symbolic of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, and it can indeed cleanse you from all your filthiness.

When we say that baptism was a Jewish ritual, some Christians automatically translate that to mean that with the New Testament, baptism became a new baptism or a Christian ritual. It was no longer the old Jewish ritual; now it was a Christian ritual.
But the New Testament baptism began with John the Baptist and he was a Jew baptizing Jews. And the baptism that John was doing was not Christian but was in accordance with the Mosaic Law. It was recognized by Jews as their traditional baptism. The only questions the Pharisees had for John was by what authority was he baptizing, why was he doing it now, and for what reason? Even those who hated God recognized that John’s baptizing was a traditional Jewish ritual. He was never challenged as to the ritual itself.
“Now this is the testimony of John [the Baptist], when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who are you?’” John 1:19
“And they asked him, saying, ‘Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ…’” John 1:25

This is actually a big honking clue that John's baptism was different than the Jewish norm. It was something they expected the Messiah to do!

Another Form of Baptism
Now when Jesus said, “John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit,” this was another new baptism ritual. They already had many baptism rituals, but this was a new one. Now this baptism was the greatest of their baptisms in that it was the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy.
“And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions, and also My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.” Joel 2:28-29

Er, that was Pentecost, not a baptism by water.

Baptism Did Not Save
John the Baptist baptized thousands of Jews. And Jesus baptized more Jews than John though Jesus Himself did not baptize (John 4:1). Yet, on the day Jesus was crucified, the majority of Israel shouted, “We have no king but Caesar.” Most of the Jews that were baptized never became believers.

You're making several unsupported assertions here. The first is probably true if John was doing it for any length of time. The second is possibly true; all we know is that, at some point, more people were being baptized by Jesus' disciples than John. The third is manifestly false. The last we really have no way of knowing.

One Baptism for the Body of Christ
While the Jews had many baptisms, we in the Body of Christ have one baptism. Paul wrote to the Ephesians:
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and father of all who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Eph. 4:46
The first covenant that God made with Abraham was the Covenant of Grace (Gen. 15). God put Abraham to sleep so that Abraham could do nothing. The Gospel of Grace that God gave to Paul requires nothing from us. It is faith plus nothing. When you accept Jesus, the Holy Spirit even does the baptizing.

This is nonsense. In Acts 8:5-17, as also in the account of the conversion of Cornelius, baptism is explicitly separate from receiving the Holy Spirit. It is also explicitly separate in the next chapter's account of Paul's conversion. It is also explicitly separate in Acts 19, in Ephesus, the same place where Paul writes of "one baptism" - so that probably doesn't mean what you think it means. Paul was not in the habit of saying one thing and writing another.

Fourteen years later, in Genesis 17, God gave the Covenant of Circumcision (or law) and commanded Abraham to circumcise. Circumcision is a synonym for law. Israel will always be identified as the “people of the circumcision.”
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Cor. 12:13
“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” Rom. 6:3
In First Corinthians, Paul drops a bombshell: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…” (1 Cor. 1:17). Now many interpret this to mean that Paul was just too busy to baptize and that preaching was his priority, but baptism was still required. But baptism for the Body of Christ is not the Jewish fleshy ritual of the cleansing of the flesh by water, but a Spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, into His death. Now let’s say that a man accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior, and the Holy Spirit baptizes him into the Body, should we add a fleshy, symbolic cleansing ritual to this to make it better? I think not! When we do his, we are adding works to grace. And Paul wrote that if we add works to grace, then ”it is no longer grace.” Paul forbid observances of any of the Jewish law: circumcision, Sabbaths, diets, clothing, feasts, meat sacrificed to idols. “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths” (Col. 2:16). Some Christians reason that after the Cross, Peter and his followers had mistakenly put themselves under the law. But God did not give Israel a Gospel of Grace. And laws such as keeping the Sabbath, circumcision, certain feasts, were perpetual ordinances for Israel. While Paul and his followers could eat meat sacrificed to idols, a Jew could not (Rev. 2:14).

Christian baptism is not a part of the law. You're not even making the argument that it is, merely assuming so.

Even Paul Was Initially Confused
It must be remembered that Paul was a Jewish Pharisee, marinated in Jewish law. So it is understandable that Paul began his ministry with baptizing people. But, as he received the full revelation of “the grace of God that was given to me [Paul]” became clear, Paul stopped baptizing.
Paul wrote, “Now I say this that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul.’ or ‘I am of Cephas.’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? …for Christ did not send me to baptize.” (1 Cor. 1:12-17). Notice that he includes “I am of Christ.” He left no wiggle room for anyone to use the gospel of Jesus Christ to justify baptism within the Body. Paul even wrote, “I thank God that I baptized none of you” 1 Cor. 1:14). You could not get a Baptist minister to say that even if you held a gun to his head.

You deceitfully quoted 1 Cor 1:14 out of context, for Paul clearly baptized some people in Corinth. You also completely missed the point Paul was making. He wasn't disparaging baptism, but sectarianism based on who had baptized who.

The Great Commission
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mat. 28:19). Was Jesus talking to Paul? No! He was talking to the Twelve (Israel) under the Gospel of Circumcision. Paul would not be commissioned for another year.
And, are you ready for a bombshell? Israel never fulfilled the Great Commission. I realize that at first blush, this is astonishing. But it is a major key in unraveling the conundrums of the New Testament. There is no Biblical record of any of the Twelve circumcision apostles preaching to any Gentiles (other than Peter to the Centurion Cornelius). This was after God cut off Israel (as a nation), and commissioned Paul. And what must be pointed out is that Cornelius and members of his household were saved without being circumcised. Peter and “those of the circumcision were astonished” (Acts 10:45-46). Peter would later learn that God had begun accepting Gentiles by grace through faith alone (new Dispensation).
“Now they [Jews] which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but the Jews only” (Acts 11:19). Christians must realize that Jesus’ return to Israel to establish their kingdom was contingent on Israel, as a nation, accepting their risen Christ. Israel rejected their risen Christ. Israel, as a nation, was cut off and as a consequence, their Great Commission was put on hold.

*yawn* Nice argument from silence. Tradition says the Twelve (and the Seventy) went all sorts of places and preached the Gospel to Gentiles. The Jews needed to be reached first, however, since AD 70 was coming, when Jesus came in judgment on Jerusalem by means of the Romans (just like God visited judgment earlier on Israel through the Assyrians and Judah through the Babylonians).

Baptism Disputes Have Fractured the Body of Christ
Let’s think about the doctrine of baptism that has brought division to millions of believers—splitting churches, preventing fellowship, over a ritual that takes about two minutes of a believer’s Christian life time.

For a Protestant, 2 minutes is a little short for the entire service. A Roman Catholic baptism almost certainly takes longer, and an Orthodox baptism takes about an hour.

Millions have lost the opportunity for unity, fellowship, and working together for the advancement of God’s goals because of symbolic ritual. Is there a greater disgrace upon the gospel of Christ?
Baptismal disagreements have divided the worship and ministry of more believers that any other doctrinal debate: Do we baptize infants or adults? In water or in the Spirit? Sprinkled or submerged? By what formula: Do we baptize in the name of Jesus only? Or in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Does your baptism transfer with your membership if you move and go to another church? Someone even posed the question if the water is not deep enough for a full dunking, is the baptism valid?
Would Paul have tolerated this kind of division over baptism? He was disgusted by it. He would point out that to stop the division and in-fighting, he had stopped baptizing altogether. “God did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”

Paul did no such thing, and this whole line of argument is rather inane. Should we drop any doctrine or practice that causes division?

To gain a little perspective on how Jewish and Christian baptism differed, check out Everett Ferguson's Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries, particularly the first 11 chapters (covering material up through the New Testament).

[RBerman]

Yeah. I don't buy the idea that Paul only baptized people initially, then decided it was wrong/unnecessary and stopped.