baptism and the Holy Spirit

[albertx46]

Hi bros and sis,

I am quite new to UR...just wonder...

Is the ritual of baptism necessary for one to receive the Holy Ghost? I know this is a symbol of one's commitment to a Christian life, but how symbolic is it? I've hovered around this site but haven't found an answer.

If so, why were the baptisteries not found in the early churches as Gary wrote in an article?

And, Philosophically thinking, if a person who has not heard the Gospel but has kept a sincere heart toward transcendence (or being a gd person), wouldn't the Holy Spirit help guide the person regardless of her lack of biblical faith?   

blessings.

[Tony N]

Hi bros and sis,

I am quite new to UR...just wonder...

Is the ritual of baptism necessary for one to receive the Holy Ghost? I know this is a symbol of one's commitment to a Christian life, but how symbolic is it? I've hovered around this site but haven't found an answer.

If so, why were the baptisteries not found in the early churches as Gary wrote in an article?

Here is a four-part series On Baptism that should answer your question:

http://www.concordant.iweb.nl/knoch/bapt01.htm

And, Philosophically thinking, if a person who has not heard the Gospel but has kept a sincere heart toward transcendence (or being a gd person), wouldn't the Holy Spirit help guide the person regardless of her lack of biblical faith?   

blessings.

Are they doing the good things as a form of self righteousness? "All our righteousness is as filthy rags." The person needs Christ's righteousness. Of course, any good we do, if not tainted by sinful pride is probably God's work. If the person doing good does not ascribe to God the thanks due Him for any good we do then, again, he sins.

[martincisneros]

Although it was a 1st century preference for Christians to be water baptized before receiving communion, or what some would call the eucharist, there's nothing in Scripture to say that you don't have the Holy Spirit until your water baptism.  I've known of many hundreds who've received the baptism with the Holy Spirit with speaking in other tongues and other New Testament signs of the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit coming upon a life.  But it was more a matter of the act of faith and personal dedication to God from a hungry heart for God that produced a receptivity within the person to receive what God had for them in that regard.  The water baptism wasn't a prerequisite.  It was a testimony of the grace and faith of Jesus Christ being received within an individual life.

Because of the possibility of entering into a deeper experience with the Lord through an act of water baptism from a pure heart, that had been purified by faith and God's grace alone, fasting was often encouraged in the day or two leading up to someone's water baptism.  From an early Christian document that's not in our Bibles it says:

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.


There's nothing in this that's in violation of Scripture, except for, for the people who want to argue about whether it's in the Name of Jesus as they practiced it in the book of Acts or whether it's as Matthew's Gospel says to do it in a similar manner to what's written above.  It says in 1Peter 3:21:

21 Corresponding to that, baptism now delivers you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

And it says in Romans 6:3-14:

3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

 6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

 7for he who has died is freed from sin.

 8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

 9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.

 10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

 11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,

 13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

 14For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

So, according to the above, it's a public testimony that you've put off the old man and have put on the new, that as you're buried (symbolically) with Christ in your water baptism that you believe that you'll also, bodily, share His resurrection life someday.  It's a declaration to the world around you that sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.  It's a beautiful public testimony to your belief in the destruction of sin and death through Jesus Christ.  In the first century, it very likely stood for what's done these days in many revival meetings with "a sinner's prayer" where they have you to publicly affirm your faith in Christ as the ransom for your life, and in His having been raised from the dead for your justification, and that now you're embracing His Lordship over your life and your deliverance by His life, believing that His Blood washes away your sin, and now you're committing yourself to follow His Scriptures and the Holy Spirit that He gives to those who obey Him to the absolute best of your ability that He provides, as you grow in the understanding of all that He's saying to you.

I personally encourage everyone to be water baptized when you feel you've got a good understanding of Romans 6 and 1Peter 3 and you've got a deep desire to take your relationship with the Lord to the next level.  In Matthew 28 Jesus told His disciples to baptize, which would evidently imply that new disciples should be baptized.  But you're not doing it to be forgiven, but with an understanding that you have been forgiven and you're presenting your body to God as one who is alive from the dead in Christ Jesus, fully believing and expecting that with this act that sin shall not have any more dominion over you because you're under the jurisdiction of the grace of God.  It can be one of the holiest moments of your life when pursued for the right reasons.  It's a public testimony to your confession that Lord Jesus has been raised from the dead, and in the hour that His Father has appointed you'll also put away mortality and enter into immortality with Him because His Crucifixion, Resurrection, and the Application of His Blood to your life that Jesus has done the moment that you believed the Gospel have been more than enough to reclaim your life from the destruction that was brought upon it by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  It's a way of telling both the religious and the secular world "THANK GOD, I'M FREE!!"

[Tony N]

I personally encourage everyone to be water baptized when you feel you've got a good understanding of Romans 6 and 1Peter 3 and you've got a deep desire to take your relationship with the Lord to the next level.

 

Spoken as a true Galatian.

The circumcisionists came into the Galatians churches and told them that what they believed was not good enough. If they wanted to take it to the next level they had to be circumcised and do the law.
Gal 3:3 So foolish are you? Undertaking in spirit, are you now being completed in flesh?

To be baptised in water is to think you need to be completed in flesh.

[martincisneros]

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with using the things that the New Testament prescribes for retraining the flesh and the mind regarding the finished work of Christ, whether it's the marriage ritual with the Lord of water baptism, or whether it's partaking of the Bread and Cup to declare and demonstrate His death until He comes, or whether it's the anointing with oil in James chapter 5 for the sick that have not yet learned how to believe God for their healing and forgiveness without feeling something with their flesh, or whether it's the prayer cloths of St. Paul in Acts 19:11-12 when people obviously felt like they needed something from St. Paul to receive the finished work of the Cross for their healing and deliverance from demonic ailments. 

I suppose Jesus Christ in your estimation, Tony, didn't have enough faith because He used spit to reclaim the eyes of the blind sometimes and at other times told them which body of water to go and wash in so that their healing would be completed.  And at other times, He had to completely run the unbelief out of the room before He could raise someone from the dead.  And He told some lepers to go and show themselves to the priests for the proper Mosaic Law offering to be offered for their cleansing.  I won't argue with you over different dispensations because my argument isn't the least bit hampered by a different dispensation that God does use things to meet each of us at our individual level of faith, as He's used the writings of Knoch in your own life.  It's the same thing, since our sufficiency is Christ Jesus.  You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of doing when you quote extensively from Knoch on these boards.  It's the same thing.  It's a point of contact for releasing faith.  God's given to each of us what we need to get us past the level of relying on the 5 physical senses. 

Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers are no different from water baptism, the Bread and Cup, the anointing with oil, Christ's spit, specially zapped cloths with the anointing, etc.  And rather than to rebuke what God uses with those that aren't as spiritually advanced as you are, you should rather be rejoicing with all of your heart that God works with each and every single one of us on the level that'll draw each of us the closest to Himself.  All of us have had some form of training wheels that God has brought into our lives at different stages of our lives to bring us to where we're at.

[Tony N]

Dear Martin, if anyone brings an evangel other than the one Paul brought, let him be anathema. Did Paul teach that doing fleshly things like baptism or drinking from a cup and eating some bread would take them to the next level? Never. It is not part of Paul's evangel.

Being baptised to get to take a person to the next level is equal to being circumcised to take a person to the next level. It won't work. They need to know the finished work of Christ, begin in spirit and finish in spirit.

[martincisneros]

So, you're saying that the rest of the New Testament outside of St. Paul's writings is anathema?

[Tony N]

So, you're saying that the rest of the New Testament outside of St. Paul's writings is anathema?

No, I'm saying that Paul, who is the apostle of the nations, did not teach as his evangel the other writings such as the four gospels and the threatenings thereof nor "he who endures to the consummation, he shall be saved" as Christ taught in Matthew 24:13.

Paul never taught that we who are complete in Christ need water baptism to "take us to the next level."

Read Galatians if you don't believe me.

[martincisneros]

So, since we have absolutely everything that St. Paul ever conceivably said to anyone anywhere, does this mean that we're obligated to blow off the rest of the New Testament? 

A lesson's not a lesson unless you put it into practice somewhere.

On my mother's Spanish side of the family and on my father's German side of the family, they're both at the same time of Jewish descent.  Does this mean that I get to pick which parts of the New Testament I keep and which I dismiss, so that if St. Paul's writings are to the nations and if I were ever the least bit inclined to the Messianic approach to Christianity, then I'm free to dismiss Paul's 13 epistles in favor of the other 14 of the New Testament?  This is a more important question than you might realize because Abraham's descendants have become as numerous as the sand of the sea and the stars of heaven, whether you're talking about [either] natural descendants or spiritual descendants.  Are Christians thrown out of the Vine of Israel and obligated to live as the Nations?  Romans 11 and Ephesians 2 teaches a oneness between Jews and Gentiles in Christ that I see your comments as trying to separate and rebuild the wall that Christ tore down.

The resurrected Christ Jesus taught water baptism in Matthew 28 and the Apostles in Acts practiced it, and although St. Paul said he wasn't sent to baptize, neither did he dismiss as heretics and as "another gospel" those that did.  Like any other minister, he simply focused on what he was doing.  And he did admit to having baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas in 1Corinthians 1:14-16.  So, although he said that baptism wasn't his thing, he saw no conflicts between it and his evangel, otherwise he'd of treated them at Corinth the way that he treated Cephas at Galatia and the way you've treated me today with charges of Galatianism as though answering someone's question about water baptism in a favorable light towards water baptism as a public testimony that he's moving on with God necessitated that the razor was being hidden behind my back, waiting on a more opportune moment. The one doesn't necessitate the other and the one doesn't follow from the other in any Scriptures that you can show me.  It's just personal preference on your part not to, but St. Paul did say not to allow this liberty of yours to become a stumbling block to another if they see you with knowledge...and to not wound the conscience of another, as in asserting that water baptism is the furthest thing from the Gospel WHEN IT ISN'T.

[Tony N]

Dear Martin,
Paul did not teach that water baptism could "take a person to the next level."

Paul baptised some people in his early ministry before Israel was set aside.
For us NOW there is only one baptism (Eph.4:5) not two: baptism in water and baptism in spirit. Now it is just in spirit. Just one baptism.
Me quoting A.E. Knoch is not the same as you saying doing something according to the flesh such as baptism can take a person to the next level.

Paul telling us that God gives to the church pastors, teachers evangelists that this is a thing of the flesh and is like circumcision.

Ephesians 2 teaches a oneness between Jews and Gentiles in Christ that I see your comments as trying to separate and rebuild the wall that Christ tore down.

Paul was teaching that in the churches of the nations comprised of Jews and Gentiles, that in those churches, since they are in Christ, there is no Jew nor Greek, no circumcision or uncircumcision, no slave or free, no male or female and yet in Paul's same epistles he wrote about the circumcision ones and the uncircumcision ones, the Jews and Gentiles, the slaves and the free, about husbands and wives. That was the "in the Lord" position.
For you to state that there is no Jew or Gentile in order to prove we should follow the Circumcision writings just as much as the Uncircumcision writings is incorrect. Paul didn't do it and never would have done it. Do you understand this?

[martincisneros]

For you to state that there is no Jew or Gentile in order to prove we should follow the Circumcision writings just as much as the Uncircumcision writings is incorrect. Paul didn't do it and never would have done it. Do you understand this?

I never stated nor implied that there was no Jew or Gentile.  But I'm glad that you've clarified that we should blow off half of the New Testament.  Anything that's not St. Paul goes right in the dumpster according to your view.

[Tony N]

For you to state that there is no Jew or Gentile in order to prove we should follow the Circumcision writings just as much as the Uncircumcision writings is incorrect. Paul didn't do it and never would have done it. Do you understand this?

I never stated nor implied that there was no Jew or Gentile.  But I'm glad that you've clarified that we should blow off half of the New Testament.  Anything that's not St. Paul goes right in the dumpster according to your view.

Dear friend,
If Peter is our apostle we should follow him. If James is our apostle we should follow him. If John is we should follow him. They are not. Paul is the apostle of the nations, not "to" the nations. He is the nation's apostle.

I never implied that whatever is not of St. Paul goes right in the dumpster. Did I say or imply that? Rather than you using fallacies such as "poisoning of the well,"  why not deal with me properly?
We can learn from all other Scriptures but we are not to cut off our hand or pluck out our eye or we are to end up in Gehenna. That is for the Circumcision believers.

But let's face the issue: saying that getting baptised will take a person to the next level is equal to stating that getting circumcised will take a person to the next level. This is expressly what the book of Galatians is against.

[martincisneros]

So, you believe that the book of Galatians is against water and that it's against someone moving on with God?  And you believe that Christ taught the baptism of Jews and not of Gentiles.  Gotcha.

[martincisneros]

saying that getting baptised will take a person to the next level is equal to stating that getting circumcised will take a person to the next level.

Also, where did I say that getting baptized would take a person to the next level?  You keep throwing that phrase around as if it were what I said, and I haven't been able to find anywhere that I said that above.  I said this:

I personally encourage everyone to be water baptized when you feel you've got a good understanding of Romans 6 and 1Peter 3 and you've got a deep desire to take your relationship with the Lord to the next level.  In Matthew 28 Jesus told His disciples to baptize, which would evidently imply that new disciples should be baptized.  But you're not doing it to be forgiven, but with an understanding that you have been forgiven and you're presenting your body to God as one who is alive from the dead in Christ Jesus, fully believing and expecting that with this act that sin shall not have any more dominion over you because you're under the jurisdiction of the grace of God.  It can be one of the holiest moments of your life when pursued for the right reasons.  It's a public testimony to your confession that Lord Jesus has been raised from the dead, and in the hour that His Father has appointed you'll also put away mortality and enter into immortality with Him because His Crucifixion, Resurrection, and the Application of His Blood to your life that Jesus has done the moment that you believed the Gospel have been more than enough to reclaim your life from the destruction that was brought upon it by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  It's a way of telling both the religious and the secular world "THANK GOD, I'M FREE!!"

But I never said what you've been throwing around.

saying that getting baptised will take a person to the next level...

Big, big difference!

12For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. 2Corinthians 8:12

[martincisneros]

Dear friend,
If Peter is our apostle we should follow him. If James is our apostle we should follow him. If John is we should follow him. They are not. Paul is the apostle of the nations, not "to" the nations. He is the nation's apostle.

Didn't Paul write the first 3 chapters of 1Corinthians expressly condemning this behaviour of holding one of the Apostles of Christ as more important than all of the others where speaking to the Church was concerned?  Paul said that to hold one of the early Apostles as more important than all of the others was to divide Christ.

[bobf]

No, I'm saying that Paul, who is the apostle of the nations, did not teach as his evangel the other writings such as the four gospels and the threatenings thereof nor "he who endures to the consummation, he shall be saved" as Christ taught in Matthew 24:13.

Whoever sows to the flesh will reap corruption. That is a threat.  Therefore if your eye offends you, pluck it out.
Whoever sows to the spirit will reap aionion life, reap that is if he faint's not in well doing.  He who endures to the end will be saved.

• Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

If Mark contains the gospel of Jesus Christ and Paul preached the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that gospel is salvation to Jew first and also to the Gentile, what does that tell me?

• Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
• Romans 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers.
• Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
• Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
• Romans 15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.

BTW how does a person determine whether he is under the gospel of the circumcision or uncircumcision?

[Tony N]

Hi Bob,
The passage below (which you quoted) is concerning contributing (sowing) to him who is instructing.
Gal 6:6-10  Now let him who is being instructed in the word be contributing to him who is instructing, in all good things."  (7)  Be not decived, God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall he be reaping also,  (8)  for he who is sowing for his own flesh, from the flesh shall be reaping corruption, yet he who is sowing for the spirit, from the spirit shall be reaping life eonian."  (9)  Now we may not be despondent in ideal doing, for in due season we shall be reaping, if we do not faint."  (10)  Consequently, then, as we have occasion, we are working for the good of all, yet specially for the family of faith."

The reaping "in due season" is in this life. Fainting has nothing to do with "he who endures to the end, the same shall be saved." This has nothing to do with salvation or loss thereof but of reaping the benefits in this life of (figuratively) sowing in this life, or being corrupted by false teaching.

Also, friend, in the phrase: "if we do not faint" the words "if we do" are not in the Greek and are just supplied for an idiomatic translation. It might be good to read it thusly: "Now we may not be despondent in ideal doing, for in due season we shall be reaping, [while] not faint[ing]," Also, the word "not" (there the "t" is in lightface in the CLNT) is not the absolute "not" but the conditional, relative.

Now then if we recast the declaration in the indicative we get this: "Now we shall not be despondent in ideal doing, for in due season we shall be reaping, [while] not faint[ing]." So you see, Bob, the Galatian passage is not in any way equivalent to "Therefore if your eye offends you, pluck it out" which you posted.

Eonian life is a gratuitous gift. It was not earned and cannot be lost for those of us under grace and not under law. So how is one "reaping life eonian"? The word "reaping" has to do with fruit. Paul is not saying that if you don't give to him who is instructing you that you will miss out on life eonian. That is just not possible. But it is possible to miss out on reaping the benefits of life eonian in this present life as we travel through this life.
Also "reaping corruption" has to do with the Galatians sowing to the flesh (which is what the book is about) rather than spirit. They begain in spirit and were trying to complete themselves in flesh, hence were sowing to the flesh and were being corrupted. They were being corrupted by the bad influence of the circumcisers and were cutting off (no pun intended) their support for the teachers of grace.  So Paul asked the Galatians: Where is your happiness? (Gal.4:15). They were not reaping the fruit of happiness.

"The literal, future allotment of eonian life is our expectation in grace (cp Titus 3:7; Eph.2:5-7), and will be granted even where there is persistence in sin (cf Rom.5:20-6:1). Therefore, the "reaping" of "life eonian," here in Galatians 6:8, which speaks of an attainment as the result of works, must be identified not with future, life eonian itself, but, through the figure of metonymy, with that which is associated with it even now. It is one's faithful relationship to the only true God, as well as with His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: "Now it is eonian life that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Him Whom Thou dost commission, Jesus Christ" (John 17:3). In this same sense, Paul sought to be attaining to the resurrection that is out from among the dead" (Phil.3:11), entreating Timothy similarly to "get hold of eonian life" (1 Tim.6:12). " (James Coram, Unsearchable Riches, vol.88, p.209).

BTW how does a person determine whether he is under the gospel of the circumcision or uncircumcision?

If you circumcise to maintain righteousness and the law, that would put you in the circumcision camp. However, under today's administration of grace with Israel set aside, it is impossible (I think) to be in the circumcision camp, though to be sure, one can enter into the error the Galatians did and think one needs circumcision to perfect oneself in the flesh.

Being under the evangel of the Uncircumcision means one is not under the law or under law mixed with grace. Therefore one is under the evangel brought by Paul to the nations (that's us).
Here is a handy dandy chart by Jeff Priddy:
http://www.weltmanager.de/worldmanager/TheTwoEvangels.html

[Nathan]

Actually, for me, circumcision is the cutting away of the flesh from the spirit.  And it's not something we do, it's what transpires upon our invitation for Christ to come into our hearts.

Uncirumcised people are those still reproducing fleshly desires and activity.  The foreskin is connected to the seed of the man. 

Colossians 2
10 So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.

 11 When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature.[a] 12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.

[Tony N]

Yes Nathan, we should recognize we have already been circumcised in the cutting off of Christ's flesh. That happened about 2000 years ago, not when someone improperly asks Christ into their hearts. But we are still called the Uncircumcision.

Col 2:11 in Whom you were circumcised also with a circumcision not made by hands, in the stripping off of the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ."

[Nathan]

That's not making any sense to me . . .I am called the uncircumcision, and you quote a Scripture that says I "am" circumcised . . .I don't get it.

[bobf]

If you circumcise to maintain righteousness and the law, that would put you in the circumcision camp.

That would be putting yourself under that law.  I was asking how one determines who is rightully under each gospel.

However, under today's administration of grace with Israel set aside, it is impossible (I think) to be in the circumcision camp

When did that administration start?

[rosered]

Hi bros and sis,

I am quite new to UR...just wonder...

Is the ritual of baptism necessary for one to receive the Holy Ghost? I know this is a symbol of one's commitment to a Christian life, but how symbolic is it? I've hovered around this site but haven't found an answer.

If so, why were the baptisteries not found in the early churches as Gary wrote in an article?

And, Philosophically thinking, if a person who has not heard the Gospel but has kept a sincere heart toward transcendence (or being a gd person), wouldn't the Holy Spirit help guide the person regardless of her lack of biblical faith?   

blessings.

  Hi Albert  ,
  thats a great question bro 
  and I am not sure how to answer it exactly   
  but I know the true baptism is being conformed/ be similar/agree  into Christs death  making us dead to the world and Alive to God , 
 that is what it means to me  on a spiritual concept so I do believe the Holy Ghost/Spirit  dwells teaches and comforts us from that point on
 
 to go through the  outward  appearance  and show of it  to the world , like to be dipped in a  big ol vat of water  not as nessesary to me as having a clean and pure heart about  wanting/Praying   Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit   within you and helping you overcome all things this world offers   in place of His  Spirit
  True Baptism  is change for the better 
 a better hope within you
 
  I found this helpful  here hope it may help you as well ............) 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

"Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.). John's was a baptism of repentance (xiii. 24; xix. 4), as was also Christian baptism (ii. 38), but as John's pointed forward to Jesus (xix. 4), it became obsolete when He came.

 
Christian baptism followed faith in the Lord Jesus (xvi. 31 ff.); it was associated with His name (ii. 38; viii. 16, etc.), which was invoked by the person baptized (xxii. 16); it signified the remission (ii. 38) or washing away of sins (xxii. 16); sometimes it preceded (ii. 38; viii. 15 ff.; xix. 5), sometimes followed (x. 47 f.) the receiving of the Spirit." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 98, n. 1.)

 
This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander,

  who lived about 200 B.C.

 
It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change

[martincisneros]

When did that administration start?

There's no telling with religious ideas like that.  Paul said that blindness had come upon "part of" Israel.  It's never been upon all of Israel.  There's never been universal blindness on the part of Israel from day 1.  Today there's as many believing Jews as there is unbelieving Jews, and I know that the unbelieving Jews number into the millions with the nation of Israel as a prime example.  But between half and most Jews are Christians.  Jews in Israel, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, China, Egypt, Turkey, and Russia typically aren't Christians, for the most part though there are exceptions among them, but with the Jews in the rest of the world it's about 50/50.  And I know that it gets sticky on what's a Jew with whether you're looking at the father's or mother's geneology.  When you look at the ones with a Jewish mother, that might possibly be where people get the impression of 90%+ unbelief, but if you follow the Bible about it being through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then that's when you start bumping into 40/60, 50/50, 60/40 numbers.  I know folks that give more radical numbers on this than I do, of those who've embraced His Lordship.

[Tony N]

Bob, Martin is correct that not all of Israel was cast aside. There was a remnant of which Paul says he was of.

Rom 11:13 Now to you am I saying, to the nations, in as much as, indeed, then, I am the apostle of the nations, I am glorifying my dispensation,
Rom 11:14 if somehow I should be provoking those of my flesh to jealousy and should be saving some of them.
Rom 11:15 For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will the taking back be if not life from among the dead?

Israel, as a whole was cast away leaving just a small remnant of believers. Israel as a whole will be taken back. When? . . .

Rom 11:25 For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering."
Rom 11:26 And thus all Israel shall be saved, according as it is written, Arriving out of Zion shall be the Rescuer. He will be turning away irreverence from Jacob."

So when Christ comes back and sets foot on Zion all Israel will be taken back.

But again, this is going away from the main point of what started this thread.

There are not two baptisms. There is not water baptism and spirit baptism. For NOW there is only one baptism (Eph.4:5) and that baptism is in spirit, not in water.