"the True Meaning Of Baptism By Water And Fire"

[rittermonster06]

I am just curious as to your response to the following (taken from Abdu'l-Baha's Paris Talks):

In the Gospel according to St John, Christ has said: â??Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.â?? The priests have interpreted this into meaning that baptism is necessary for salvation. In another Gospel it is said: â??He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fireâ??.

Thus the water of baptism and the fire are one! It cannot mean that the â??waterâ?? spoken of is physical water, for it is the direct opposite of â??fireâ??, and one destroys the other. When in the Gospels, Christ speaks of â??waterâ??, He means that which causes life, for without water no worldly creature can liveâ??mineral, vegetable, animal and man, one and all, depend upon water for their very being. Yes, the latest scientific discoveries prove to us that even mineral has some form of life, and that it also needs water for its existence.

Water is the cause of life, and when Christ speaks of water, He is symbolizing that which is the cause of Everlasting Life.

This life-giving water of which He speaks is like unto fire, for it is none other than the Love of God, and this love means life to our souls.

By the fire of the Love of God the veil is burnt which separates us from the Heavenly Realities, and with clear vision we are enabled to struggle onward and upward, ever progressing in the paths of virtue and holiness, and becoming the means of light to the world.

There is nothing greater or more blessed than the Love of God! It gives healing to the sick, balm to the wounded, joy and consolation to the whole world, and through it alone can man attain Life Everlasting. The essence of all religions is the Love of God, and it is the foundation of all the sacred teachings.

It was the Love of God that led Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that strengthened Joseph in Egypt and gave to Moses courage and patience.

Through the Love of God, Christ was sent into the world with His inspiring example of a perfect life of self-sacrifice and devotion, bringing to men the message of Eternal Life. It was the Love of God that gave Muḥammad power to bring the Arabs from a state of animal degradation to a loftier state of existence.

Godâ??s Love it was that sustained the B

[Avatar4321]

seems like a bit of hoop jumping to get from A to B.

[Doctor Steuss]

I think he has too much trouble sticking to either a literal or figurative interpretation. First, it canâ??t mean â??physical waterâ? because they â??destroy the otherâ? (which makes sense if the fire preceded the waterâ?¦ which in this case it doesnâ??t). Then, it must mean water because thatâ??s what gives life (yesâ?¦ certainly Christ was giving a biology lesson here). Also, he seems to negate the potential symbolism of water and fire having cleansing powers.

Edited to add: It also negates the numerous scriptures that speak of an actual water baptism.

[rittermonster06]

Hello Dr. Seuss,

Thank you for the responseâ?¦

I think he has too much trouble sticking to either a literal or figurative interpretation. First, it canâ??t mean â??physical waterâ? because they â??destroy the otherâ? (which makes sense if the fire preceded the waterâ?¦ which in this case it doesnâ??t). Then, it must mean water because thatâ??s what gives life (yesâ?¦ certainly Christ was giving a biology lesson here).

It is my understanding not that he is having a hard time picking a literal or spiritual interpretation, but rather that he is using the symbolism of physical water to demonstrate the life-giving nature of the spiritual water which â??shall be in [us] a well of water springing up into everlasting lifeâ? (John 4:14). In the same way that physical water brings life to all things physicalâ?¦ So too does the spiritual water which God gives bring everlasting life.

Also, he seems to negate the potential symbolism of water and fire having cleansing powers.

You are right on using the word â??cleansingâ? specificallyâ?¦ But what about when he speaks of the Love of God (which, he argues, is the life giving â??waterâ?) as â??the cause of everlasting life,â? â??healing to the sick,â? â??balm to the wounded,â? or â??joy and consolation to the whole world.â? Overall cleansing, no?

It also negates the numerous scriptures that speak of an actual water baptism.

Once again it is my understanding not that he is denying that physical water baptisms took/take place, but rather that he is emphasizing the spiritual significance of â??baptism by waterâ? as the essential aspect rather than the literal act of being submerged in water.

Which leads me into another questionâ?¦ While attending gospel doctrine class one week (or was it gospel principles?) as an investigator (and I still attend Church on a weekly basis although not as a member) the lesson being taught was on baptism. Specifically, the meaning of the word baptism as â??submersionâ? was used as an argument against other extant forms of baptism (i.e. sprinkling, etc). Why the emphasis on a literal translation of baptism for water but not for fire?

I admittedly have a hard time relating to the very stringent LDS interpretation of baptism (i.e. Your knee came out of the waterâ?¦ we have to do it again; Your toe came out this go-aroundâ?¦ one more time); I believe that I have an understanding of the practice in principle, but spiritually speaking I am unable to wrap my mind around it. Any thoughts you can provide to help me understand more about where you are coming from would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again, have a good one!

-Ryan

[Doctor Steuss]

rittermonster06 (aka Ryan),

I've got to jet for the evening. I will try to get to this tomorrow morning (you raise some good thoughts...)

-Stu

[rittermonster06]

rittermonster06 (aka Ryan),

I've got to jet for the evening. I will try to get to this tomorrow morning (you raise some good thoughts...)

-Stu

Sounds good... Anybody else?

-Ryan

[JacobsDominion]

I would like to add a few thoughts, which might generate some discussion and raise some questions as well.

I think Peter best describes the New Testament teaching on baptism - "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:20-21)." He says that by this baptism we are saved.

Here are a few other cases from the New Testament were this definition of baptism is validated "Jesus said to the woman, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace.' (Luke 7:50)." "Jesus answered him, 'I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.' (Luke 23:43)." Both the woman and the thief believed and were saved, yet neither of them were baptized. This is proof that belief is what is important not being dipped in water.

This passage is also interesting: "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division (Luke 12:49-51)." Jesus said He "had a baptism to undergoâ? after He had already been dipped in water by John.

There are dozens of passages like these which seem to suggest that the spiritual interpretation is the one preferred by Jesus and His disciples. The following is my current understanding of the meaning and historical developement of the idea of Baptism and the problems it created along the way:

The Greek word from which baptism is derived means both â??to dipâ?? and â??to purifyâ??. The former is but the symbol which conveys the inward truth of the latter. Unfortunately, the outward symbol has been given such importance in itself that a great many people have completely forgotten the inward reality which it represents. They have lost sight of the sincere belief and inner decision which gives baptism its original meaning and life. Gradually every form of baptism imaginable developed: â??private baptismâ??; â??baptism by desireâ?? which requires nothing more than the dying wish; â??baptism for the dead,â?? so that the living might be baptized on behalf on non-Christians no longer living; â??baptism by proxyâ?? in which, in singular cases, one person can be baptized for as many as fifty other souls who have died in original sin.

When the church (Catholic) adopted the doctrine of original sin it became necessary to baptize infants as well. In both the Greek and Roman churches the idea of belief in Christ before baptism was gradually lost. Godparents assumed the â??thinkingâ?? and â??believingâ?? role for the infants. As the true meaning of the practice was gradually lost, many problems arose. People thought that being dipped in water was the cause of their salvation and not repenting, believing and putting and end to sin. Moreover, baptism removed all past sins, but made no provision for future sins which gave rise to the practice of postponing ones baptism until his time of death. At length, one sin after baptism was permitted. This opened the door and gradually more sins were permitted. A Christian clergyman writes, â??â?¦in the end the ecclesiastical discipline of confession and absolution became standardized.â?

Anyone who believes in Christ must be fair under all circumstances and uphold justice at all times. Don't Christians accuse Jews of interpreting literally what was only meant to have a spiritual significance? Read the following passage and tell me what the differrence is between those who insist on a literal baptism and those who insisted on a literal circumcision: "Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved' (Acts 15:1)."

I will conclude with the following passages: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love (Galatians 5:6)." "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation (Galatians 6:15)."

Peace!

[Doctor Steuss]

Hello Dr. Seuss,

Thank you for the responseâ?¦

It is my understanding not that he is having a hard time picking a literal or spiritual interpretation, but rather that he is using the symbolism of physical water to demonstrate the life-giving nature of the spiritual water which â??shall be in [us] a well of water springing up into everlasting lifeâ? (John 4:14). In the same way that physical water brings life to all things physicalâ?¦ So too does the spiritual water which God gives bring everlasting life.

Upon re-reading the passage, I think this might be a viable interpretation of his words. However, it still does not account for the actual meaning behind the word baptismo, nor the numerous passages that specifically denote that it is a physical act done with physical water. I do like the symbolism promoted here though. It does give a deeper meaning to some of the verses (which is always a groovy thing).

You are right on using the word â??cleansingâ? specificallyâ?¦ But what about when he speaks of the Love of God (which, he argues, is the life giving â??waterâ?) as â??the cause of everlasting life,â? â??healing to the sick,â? â??balm to the wounded,â? or â??joy and consolation to the whole world.â? Overall cleansing, no?

It is the Love of G-d which cleanses us. It is the outward confession through the act of baptism that symbolizes our willingness to bury our old sinful selves and thus accept G-d grace which activates said cleansing (or â??sanctification.â?)

Once again it is my understanding not that he is denying that physical water baptisms took/take place, but rather that he is emphasizing the spiritual significance of â??baptism by waterâ? as the essential aspect rather than the literal act of being submerged in water.

The thing is, there needs be a physical confession and proclamation that one has accepted the grace of G-d and is now willing to be an obedient disciple. The way this is done is through the physical act of being submerged in water. Why this is the act that G-d has requested of us is beyond me (probably because Jews were already familiar with it to an extent through mikvahs). The actual act has no efficacy, and it is indeed the spiritual aspect that is the true source of power; however, the physical act is what more-or-less â??triggersâ? the spiritual aspect (much like how fasting is a physical act with spiritual benefits [if oneâ??s heart is in the right place]).

Which leads me into another questionâ?¦ While attending gospel doctrine class one week (or was it gospel principles?) as an investigator (and I still attend Church on a weekly basis although not as a member) the lesson being taught was on baptism. Specifically, the meaning of the word baptism as â??submersionâ? was used as an argument against other extant forms of baptism (i.e. sprinkling, etc). Why the emphasis on a literal translation of baptism for water but not for fire?

Because there is a clarification in scripture as to what is meant by baptism by fire. It is by the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit. Baptism by water is clarified in scripture as beingâ?¦ wellâ?¦ baptism by water. I admit that if we take the word in and of itself, it doesnâ??t make sense that you would take such a literal translation for baptism by water, but not for fire. But, not only do we have scriptures clarifying what is meant by each, we also have the examples of Christ, his apostles, and early Christians to help clarify what the terms meant to those who were in the best position to interpret them. Also, if the baptism by fire (i.e. the Holy Ghost) is supposed to consume us completely (and not just â??sprinkleâ? us), would not the same be required for baptism by water?

I admittedly have a hard time relating to the very stringent LDS interpretation of baptism (i.e. Your knee came out of the waterâ?¦ we have to do it again; Your toe came out this go-aroundâ?¦ one more time); I believe that I have an understanding of the practice in principle, but spiritually speaking I am unable to wrap my mind around it. Any thoughts you can provide to help me understand more about where you are coming from would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again, have a good one!

-Ryan

I admittedly think itâ??s a little strange myself. The only thing I can think of is that it is in order to prevent â??backsliding.â? If you donâ??t care if a knee is up, then what difference does it make if half the body is up? And before you know it, all we need to do is have someone spit on us (I know, I just used the â??slippery slopeâ? logical fallacyâ?¦ but itâ??s the only thing I can seem to find that justifies the stringent practice).

[Doctor Steuss]

I would like to add a few thoughts, which might generate some discussion and raise some questions as well.

I think Peter best describes the New Testament teaching on baptism - "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:20-21)." He says that by this baptism we are saved.

Indeed he does, and these passages (and the ones preceding it) are truly rich. Peter knew that the baptism he was speaking of was associated with being submerged in water. So, he clarifies that this submersion is different. It is not for â??removing dirt,â? but for removing sin (or â??pledge of a good conscience toward G-dâ?). The fact that he mentions Moses being â??savedâ? by water in a previous verse solidifies that the baptism he is referring to is indeed by physical water.

Here are a few other cases from the New Testament were this definition of baptism is validated "Jesus said to the woman, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace.' (Luke 7:50)." "Jesus answered him, 'I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.' (Luke 23:43)." Both the woman and the thief believed and were saved, yet neither of them were baptized. This is proof that belief is what is important not being dipped in water.

I think your exegesis is wanting. You have misread the meaning of the passage in Peter. Also, these verses are speaking of Justification, not Sanctification. Justification is by faith alone, but Sanctification requires becoming a disciple of Christ and following His example (and obeying Him). Part of this obedience and following of His example is being baptized by water. Also, the thief on the cross wasnâ??t â??savedâ? in the fullest sense of the word which is evidenced by the fact that the â??paradiseâ? spoken of is not where G-d dwells.

This passage is also interesting: "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division (Luke 12:49-51)." Jesus said He "had a baptism to undergoâ? after He had already been dipped in water by John.

Indeed He had already undergone His water baptism. The question is, had Pentecost occurred yet? It is quite evident from these verses that Christ is not referring to water baptism. Luckily for us, we know that there are two types of baptism spoken of in scripture (and which are required).

There are dozens of passages like these which seem to suggest that the spiritual interpretation is the one preferred by Jesus and His disciples.

The spiritual interpretation is preferred when referring to baptism by fire. One must do a painful exegesis to overlook the abundance of passages that reference an actual water baptism and the necessity thereof.

[â?¦]

Anyone who believes in Christ must be fair under all circumstances and uphold justice at all times. Don't Christians accuse Jews of interpreting literally what was only meant to have a spiritual significance? Read the following passage and tell me what the differrence is between those who insist on a literal baptism and those who insisted on a literal circumcision: "Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved' (Acts 15:1)."

I will conclude with the following passages: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love (Galatians 5:6)." "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation (Galatians 6:15)."

Peace!

And this shows the unreliability and potential corruption of scripture. Circumcision was an everlasting covenant. What doesnâ??t matter to Christ specifically is the symbolism. What does matter is what the symbolism represents. There are many instances of G-d (and/or YHWH) chastising Israel because they became too caught up in the law and forgot what the law was meant to teach. This is indeed a dangerous path, and one that is still repeated today. However, an equally (or perhaps even more) dangerous path is to take the lazy route and say that only â??beliefâ? or â??faithâ? is required. We need to be careful to not become Phariseesâ?¦ but we also need to avoid the heresy of antinomianism.

[Doctor Steuss]

JacobsDominion,

Here's a thread that takes a closer look at 1 Peter 20-21: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=25386