Three, the original hearers interpreted Jesus» use literally and
practiced water baptism as a result.
As a result, it had been a common practice in the movement's initial years to
practice water baptism using either the trinitarian formula found in Matthew or the christological formula noted in Acts.
Not exact matches
Anabaptists rejected the
practice of infant
baptism, for instance, believing that
water baptism should be reserved for believers who confess a faith in Jesus.
Any other
practice breaks the unity of the church, and the lack of
water baptism is actually a tradition of omission, thus not showing a greater understanding of faith, but rather a lack of reverence for the will and intention of Jesus himself.
The N.T.
practice was
water baptism immediately upon profession of faith (whether it was needed or not).
Baptism as a means of being «born again by
water» was a common
practice among Judaism.
Certainly
water baptism was
practiced in Acts.
They may have formal liturgies, may have pastors (sometimes called «released ministers»), and may even recognize and
practice communion and
water baptism.
I will begin writing today about «
Baptism today» and why I think water baptism is a good practice in some situations, but there might be better alternatives in other situ
Baptism today» and why I think
water baptism is a good practice in some situations, but there might be better alternatives in other situ
baptism is a good
practice in some situations, but there might be better alternatives in other situations.
And regarding the fact that other religions
practice forms of
baptism and ritualistic washings muddies the
water even more.
Thanks, Jeremy — I disagree with your first proposition, Why
Water Baptism Can Be
Practiced Today, for precisely the reason you gave in your rebuttal.
What does this mean then for the
water baptisms, and not just in Christianity, but also in Judaism, and in the numerous other religions around the world and throughout time that
practiced some form of
baptism in
water?
In the case of
water baptism, every single instance appears to follow the widely
practiced method of immersion under
water which was
practiced by nearly every religion of that time.
It is possible, of course, that
water baptism continued to be
practiced as frequently as ever, and the writers simply stopped mentioning it, but when we understand the cultural and religious significance of
water baptism in the first century Mediterranean world, and specifically the role of
baptism within the book of Acts, it becomes clear that
water baptism served a special and specific role within the early church which became unnecessary later on.
Would you still require
water baptism as a symbol of burial in these other cultures where such a
practice is completely foreign and meaningless?
For an example, some take Peter's instruction in Acts 2:38 as a prescription for the
practice of
water baptism ignoring other clear teaching that nothing we can do can save us and that
baptism is simply an outward reflection of Christ's saving work in our lives.