RE: Water baptism is NOT a testimony of your faith
Posted : 20 Apr, 2014 11:41 AM
Continuing this thread, which has now gone from the first page: http://www.christiandatingforfree.com/cdff/CDFF_generic/forum/forum_details.php?topic_id=19615&forum_sub_cat_id=14&page=2
DHTM: "There are many examples there of baptism by spirit and baptism by water, sometimes even spirit first, just like Jesus said: "by water and the spirit". The apostles used the example of the cloud and the sea from Noah's day and during the Exodus as examples of the same thing. There are absolutely no verses condemning water baptism, even in the slightest. The apostles condemned placing the old law on anyone, circumcision and ceremonial laws were roundly condemned, yet they continued baptizing, with absolutely no mention of refraining from baptism. If anyone chooses to believe that water baptism is done away with, then that's fine, but be careful what you teach to others, make sure you're right, because you will be responsible for it. Jesus came to fulfill what the law truly taught, what the jews and pharisees missed/forgot. Jesus came as the truth, to show us what it was like, and called us to follow Him. Where does Jesus condemn water baptism? His apostles? No commands from God/Jesus/Apostles to stop water baptism? Then why are we trying to condemn water baptism?"
Modern water baptism is a result of misunderstanding and legalism. The apostles practised it in Acts because they didn't at that time understand the transition to the New Covenant and the gospel going to the gentiles etc. Remember Peter even had to be told by God to talk to some to people who weren't Jews. Water baptism is an Old Testament practice they continued because they knew no different at the time.
Plus to understand the wider meaning of the word 'baptism' consider what Jesus meant by saying it at Luke 12.50.
Below is an good Q & A I found at http://ichthys.com/mail-water%20baptism.htm which explains it much better than I could:
Question: I am struggling with some matters on baptism and was wondering if you could help me settle some issues in my mind. A very doctrinal friend of mine argues against believer's water baptism being practiced in the church age after the completed canon of Scripture. He has also stated "there is not one command in the New Testament commanding the believer to be baptized". Subsequently, I went home and pulled out a few books to consider his claim. After looking for a while (and developing a headache), I came across several NT passages where the command to be baptized in water is given:
Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized [aorist/passive/imperative] in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38
'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized [aorist/middle/imperative], and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'
Acts 22:16
The first passage (as you are aware) is where Peter is preaching the first message in the church age. The clear command to be baptized is obvious. Does this command still carry weight for the believer today? The second passage is where Paul is recounting his Damascus road experience and where the Lord commands him to be baptized. I think it is strange that the Lord would command him to be baptized before calling on His name. There are other passages to consider too (Acts 10:48; Matt.28:16-20; - where a command seems to be in view, and the latter by our Lord; and 1Cor.1:17; Eph.4:5 - with neither of these last two passages seeming to rule out water baptism). What do you think? Do these commands fall into our own day?
Thank you for your service.
Response: Thank you for your thoughtful e-mail. I well appreciate the godly fear of wanting to do right by scripture in every way, and whether this answer strikes you as right or wrong, I want to commend you for keeping yourself open to what the Bible has to say (whether or not it confirms or confutes previous opinions). The day we lapse into comfortable views and stop listening to the Word itself - really listening - is the day our spiritual decline begins. True spiritual growth is not an easy process, but all those who respond from an open heart to our Lord's words in Matthew 7:24-27, both to listen to Him and to put into practice what He commands, are those who truly "build on the rock".
To begin, I should make it clear that ichthys.com is not connected with any other ministry or any other personality, either officially or unofficially. Nor does the teaching presented here reflect anything but my own individual exposition of the Word of God. Naturally, I have antecedents (see "antecedents of Ichthys"), as we all do, but none of the teaching from this ministry (to include this response) should be construed as anything but my own (i.e., I don't represent anyone else) - although I do hope, and pray, and strive to ensure that they accurately reflect the truth of the Word of God (this is my sole concern).
The above is certainly germane to the topic of baptism. For there are few other subjects in the history of the Church which have been more divisive, and that fact is a reflection of the rapidity with which organizations in particular jump from careful consideration of scripture to defense of tradition (a charge from which few Christian groups are immune, even those whose tradition is very recent).
Let us start with some pertinent principles. First, Paul's statement in 1Cor.1:17 that he was sent to preach the gospel not to baptize is very telling. It certainly does not say that water-baptism is wrong, but it is indeed a very strange statement to make if it were, in Paul's view of things, a mandate that all believers must be water-baptized. It is also true as you say in regard to Eph.4:5 that this verse does not rule out water-baptism. It does, however, state (on a par with there being only One Lord Jesus Christ) that there is indeed only "one" baptism. At the very least, this ought to mean that there is only one baptism of any true spiritual consequence, and, if that is true, no serious Christian would venture to place water-baptism in this premier position over and against the baptism of the Spirit.
Clearly, water-baptism is not and could not be any sort of means or requirement for a salvation that is based upon grace through faith (Eph.2:8-9) - which begs the question of why then there should be a mandate to be baptized with water, especially since it is the Spirit baptism to which John and Jesus looked forward and told us to esteem (Mk.1:8; Lk.24:48; Jn.15:26; 16:5-15; Acts 1:4-5; 1:7-8), and since water baptism has been so historically divisive, so prone to the inducement of guilt and fear for the un-baptized, and so engendering of false confidence in works and rituals for the baptized.
In the early church-visible, yes, there is no question that water-baptism was the rule, and that is evident as far back as the apostolic fathers (cf. in particular the "Didache"). But that first Church era, the era of Ephesus, was very clearly one of stagnancy in spiritual growth (they had abandoned this "first love" of the truth), and was truncated after a bare 12 years as a result (see The Coming Tribulation, part 2A: "The Seven Churches of Revelation"). In light of this, to build doctrine on what we know of the practices of this early, transitional era, is a major albeit common fallacy. It is also worth pointing out that for much the greater part of the past two millennia, infant baptism by sprinkling has been by far the dominant form of baptism and was for the most part accepted as valid and the only baptism needed. So that for the perhaps the majority of the Church Age's Christians, the question "should I be water-baptized?" never came up at all. Even in the case of those who now find a need for adult water-baptism by whatever method, I would imagine that even they would be reluctant to cast a universal shroud of doubt over the depth or genuineness of the faith of nearly all the believers who lived from the earliest days down until the fifteenth century (and many since as well, of course).
As to the examples you cite in the book of Acts, it is likewise a major fallacy to build doctrine exclusively upon the historical reports therein. Luke reports the truth through the Spirit - even when it is an accurate account of wrong-headed behavior (cf. the election of Matthias: see Peter #2). This is certainly true in the case of water-baptism. The assumption on the part of even the apostles in the early going that water-baptism is a natural thing to do for those who accept Christ proceeds from an as yet incomplete understanding of the new reality of the cross and resurrection on the one hand, and of the consequent baptism of the Spirit on the other. A good example of this is that fact that even on a subject as critical as bringing salvation to the gentiles - the main point of this current age of the Church - even well after Pentecost Peter still required special instruction, circumstances and help before he realized the truth that this salvation was not only for Jews (and had to defend his actions later against others: Acts 10-11). Paul, too, was at first most solicitous of the elders in Jerusalem, but would come to stand with the truth against all tradition and authority in due time (cf. Gal.1-2; esp.2:11-14). And so it would seem imprudent to conclude that just because believers, even apostles, are occasionally involved in water-baptism, that the practice was necessarily the result of specific instructions as opposed to the continuing of a ritual tradition which had already been superseded by reality (my own view as it is no doubt clear by now).
One of the passages you mention, Acts 22:16, clearly falls into this category, for it is not a quote of the words of our Lord, but of Ananias' conversation with Paul. It therefore reflects Ananias' (as yet not completely enlightened) thinking on these matters.
This brings us to the consideration of Matthew 28:19-20, which is really the crux of the entire issue. For, no matter what we might feel about it, even if water-baptism does not seem to make theological sense, if our Lord were really commanding us to be water-baptized, that would certainly settle the issue. In fact, that is not at all what this passage, an admittedly difficult one to interpret, really relates. What this passage actually commands is for us to "make disciples" (the only imperative in the Greek), that is, to teach mankind about Jesus Christ, how to come to Him and how to follow Him. The two participles ("baptizing" and "teaching") are clearly instrumental in nature (i.e., they show the method of carrying out the order: "by baptizing" and "by teaching"). "Baptizing" and "teaching" therefore reflect the means to these two parts of the process, namely 1) entering into Christ, and 2) properly following Him thereafter. "Baptizing them into the Name of ..." thus must refer to the mediation of the gospel message by which we all are baptized by the Spirit through faith into all three Persons of the Trinity (Rom.6:3; cf. Is.30:27), while "teaching them" clearly concerns the post-salvation process of growth and discipleship which is equally essential. Beyond all question, it is the baptism of the Spirit which places us into union with God, union with Christ - and it is the indwelling Holy Spirit which is the pledge of this (2Cor.1:21-22; Eph.1:13-14; 4:30). Water-baptism has nothing to do with either. Therefore, in my view, the main point behind the baptism referred to in Matthew 28:19 is the same as the one made in 1st Corinthians 12:13 where we are all "baptized into one Body (of Christ, His Person, His Name)".
It is well to note here that Matthew 28:19-20 is not our Lord Jesus Christ's last communication with His disciples. For that mandate was given in Galilee. But we know that Jesus ascended into heaven from Jerusalem, from the Mount of Olives, the very place to which He will return at the end of this Age at the conclusion of the Tribulation (Lk.24:48; Acts 1:4-5; 1:7-8). Here are Christ's final words to them and to us before He returned to the Father:
And He said to them, "It was written for the Messiah [the Christ] to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day in just this way [that it has happened], and for repentance [leading] to the forgiveness of sins on the basis of [faith in] His Name to be preached to all the nations. Once you have begun [to do so] at Jerusalem, you are [My] witnesses to [all] these things. And behold, it is even I Myself who is about to send the promise of My Father upon you (i.e., the Holy Spirit). So stay in the city [of Jerusalem] until you are endued with power from above (i.e., the baptism of the Holy Spirit).
Luke 24:46-49
And gathering them together [Jesus] commanded [the disciples] not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father (i.e., the Holy Spirit) "which you heard about from Me. For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Spirit not many days from now".
Acts 1:4-5
And He said to them, "It is not for you to decide the times and occasions which the Father has ordained on His own authority (i.e., the Second Advent et al. will happen on His time-table, not yours). But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth".
Acts 1:7-8
The significance of the symbolism of water-baptism (excluding the unique case of the water-baptism of Christ which portrays His death for our sins) is essentially two-fold: 1) it portrays the individual's repentance, turning away from sin and death and toward God instead (cf. Acts 22:16); and 2) the pouring out of the Spirit which "baptizes us" into Christ (cf. Acts 19:5). But in the passages above our Lord is talking about actual repentance and the actual pouring out of the Spirit � the reality in each case clearly being the only really important thing (not the ritual which represents them). In Acts chapter 10, the gentiles who were listening to Peter repented and believed just as soon as the gospel message passed his lips, and the Spirit fell upon them in dramatic fashion (Acts 10:39-46). To which Peter remarks "can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water now? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." To which we may well ask, what was the added benefit of water-baptism now that these gentiles had 1) repented and believed and been saved, and 2) been baptized with the Spirit, baptized into the Person of Jesus Christ? Certainly in this case (and in every subsequent case I might add), it was a matter of mere ritual following powerful reality, and while a consideration of this passage does not necessarily mark out water-baptism as improper, it certainly does at least suggest that it was an after-thought that could in no way compare with the baptism they had already undergone.
Taking all this into consideration in light of our Lord's final words in the Luke and Acts passages quoted above where He stresses the reality of repentance-faith and the reality of Spirit-baptism (with no mention of water-baptism), I believe we would be in great and dangerous error to take the clearly parallel Matthew 28:19-20 passage "baptizing them into the Name" as purely or even predominantly concerned with water-baptism (and should instead see it, as explained above, as mediating the baptism of the Spirit by proclamation of the gospel). All indications are that this passage is referring to the reality of our union with Him and with the Father and with the Spirit through faith and through the baptism that really makes a difference to our Christian lives and eternal futures, the baptism of the Spirit. This, after all, is exactly what John had predicted: "I baptize you with water for repentance .... He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit - and with fire" (Matt.3:11).
1st Peter 3:21 is also pertinent here, a passage which indicates exactly what we have been discussing above. Later in his life, Peter came to understand this issue very clearly (as Paul had: 1Cor.1:17), and was prompted to discuss the matter, possibly also as Paul had from personal observation of the questionable influence that the continued use of this ritual was having in the Church:
And it is this true baptism [of the Spirit] which saves you (lit. as an "antitype" or analogy to the ark's bringing of "salvation through water"). Not any [literal] washing away of filth from your flesh, but an appeal to God for a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (i.e., repentance and faith result in Spirit baptism).
1st Peter 3:21
We may compare Paul's injunctions against the continued participation in Jewish temple ritual which is the whole theme of the book of Hebrews. No true restoration is possible for those who "continue to crucify the Son of God afresh, exposing Him to open shame" (Heb.6:6). This is a change for him, of course, with Hebrews having been written after the incidents in Jerusalem which led to Paul's captivity. He may not have fully understood that sponsoring those young men and their vows and making sacrifice was wrong at that time, but he certainly proclaims it as wrong in Hebrews. There is a parallel here to baptism, for just as continuing with animal sacrifices has the effect of saying Jesus' death was of no effect, so there is a sense in which water-baptism seems to be saying that the baptism of the Spirit never happened (in both cases the ritual looked forward to a far greater reality). Once this principle is understood (as it was not at first in the earliest days of the Church), are we to operate as if we did not in fact understand?
Therefore there is a sense in which water-baptism may indeed be an offense for those with knowledge (e.g., Paul and Peter after the early days: 1Cor.1:17; 1Pet.3:21). It can also be dangerous for those without it. For the early Church may be forgiven for failing to understand that this was a ritual now replaced by reality, a shadow of the true pouring out of the Spirit (cf. Heb.10:1). But for us, how can it be justified, especially if all we are really operating on is fear? The fear of the Lord is indeed healthily (Ps.19:9; Prov.1:7; Eccl.5:7; Is.11:2-3), but our faith in Him and His Word must be strong enough to give us the courage to triumph over all other fears (Rom.8:28-39). Nearly two millennia of tradition across the board can still be wrong (and, sadly, that is more often the fact than not). This, then, is my main objection to a point of view that water-baptism is something we ought to indulge in as Christians. For, whether overtly expressed or not, it is essentially a means of providing a "feeling" of security in salvation. That is a terribly dangerous proposition in and of itself, and is especially so when one considers that this "security blanket" is always administered by an organization (a fact which has the effect of shifting loyalty and confidence away from Christ and to that organization instead; see Peter #27, "Three Doctrines which Threaten Faith"). Indeed, over the course of history the controversy and the false teachings revolving around water-baptism have led many astray from the faith.
Walking in the Spirit with whom we have been baptized is not always easy. Jesus, after all, told us to count the cost before making the commitment to follow Him (Matt.7:14) - there would be costs. To submit to water-baptism in order to fit into a particular organization is easy enough, for it is always easy to rely on some ritual well within one's own control. What is often not so easy, however, is following the Lamb wherever He leads, even when this takes us as it took Him outside the camp to suffer at the hands of those who place false traditions in the place of truth.
Let me close by returning to the words of that most famous "baptist", John, in Matthew 3:11: "I baptize you with water ... He [the Messiah] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit". For, indeed, it is exactly this ministry of the Spirit which is so important in Jesus' life and ministry, and it is not water baptism, but the baptism of the Spirit which Jesus emphasizes over and over (e.g., Lk.4:18; 11:13; 12:12; 24:48; Jn.7:39; 14:15-26; 15:26; 16:5-15; 20:22; Acts 1:4-8, etc.). The emphasis in the epistles is also consistently focused upon Spirit baptism rather than water baptism (which is hardly even mentioned). Even in our famous passage on Paul's regrets about water-baptism, we find in 1st Corinthians 2:4 a clear contrasting of the power of the Spirit on the one hand with earthly wisdom as demonstrated by earthly proofs such as water baptism on the other (cf. with 1Cor.1:17). Against this universal emphasis and testimony (once we take the examples in Acts as historical rather than dispositive), there is really only Matt.28:19, the meaning of which we have discussed at length above. All things considered, it would seem prudent for us as followers of Christ to place the emphasis where He placed it, where the Word of God places it, namely, on the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
I apologize for the fact that this is not an exhaustive exposition of the topic. Eventually, that will be available in part 6 of the Bible Basics series (a long time in the future at this point, I fear). However, you may also find the following e-mail responses helpful to supplement the details:
RE: Water baptism is NOT a testimony of your faith
Posted : 20 Apr, 2014 04:19 PM
1 Corinthians 1
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Paul did baptize. Peter baptized. Phillip baptized. All at the command of Jesus. To my knowledge, Jesus was the only one who did not baptize(John 4), but He commanded His disciples to do it, and they did. Even after His death. If you go just by the bible, water baptism is perfectly fine. You can't find one condemnation of it anywhere, and not one claim that it's "legalism". You can, however, find all kinds of commands to do it, and many examples of biblical figures baptizing or being baptized, even those that weren't Jewish. I would say that the story of Naaman is a good one to show how non-legalistic it is. It's really easy, nobody can boast about it because everyone can do it. Naaman was insulted because it was so simple and humbling.
2 Kings 5
11But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. 12Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage. 13And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? 14Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
RE: Water baptism is NOT a testimony of your faith
Posted : 21 Apr, 2014 10:40 AM
There is no dispute that that the early church did water baptism. What is needed is the understanding of WHY they did it. This is where modern legalism arises, just copying what was done in the Bible without any understanding of the reasons behind anything. I don't see any clamour for 'Christian' circumcision even though there is the example of Paul doing it in the New Testament...maybe it wouldn't be so popular for some reason!
Like circumcision, water baptism was part of the Old Testament but the apostles didn't at first have a full understanding of the nature of the New Covenant and the gospel going to the gentiles.
Furthermore, in Acts 1.5 Jesus made the clear distinction between the baptism of John, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit - as in fact John had himself said in Matthew 3.11. This is why Jesus didn't baptize with water
...And furthermore, if anyone REALLY thinks that Matthew 28.19 is talking about water baptism, which apparasntly many do, then they need to consider why those that did the water baptism later, did not do follow that 'command' but baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus.
RE: Water baptism is NOT a testimony of your faith
Posted : 22 Apr, 2014 06:41 AM
So, the people who were closest to Jesus, who had visible and powerful outpourings of the holy spirit, and who God trusted with building the early church, had a lesser understanding than we do? At what point did they learn this new truth? If they did learn it, they forgot to write about it. At what point did Christianity become enlightened on this point and what defense is there? The defense is absolutely not in the bible, I would like to know where it is coming from and why. I agree that someone could be baptized in a legalistic way, but legalism is not limited to baptism or circumcision. It's an attitude that can pervert EVERY action. That doesn't make the action bad. Feeding the poor could be deemed legalistic. Are we going to have posts about how we can't feed the poor anymore? Probably not. It's the attitude behind what we do that makes something legalistic or not. So this is why I don't understand this drive to put water baptism in a negative light. If someone thought that water baptism was some valuable action that they could do to gain favor from God and earn their salvation in some way, then yes, of course it's legalistic. If someone says that we must be circumcised before we can be children of God, then yes, obviously that is legalistic.
"What is needed is the understanding of WHY they did it."
I agree totally here, it is definitely more of a "why" question and not a "what" or "how" question, but that still doesn't defend the idea that water baptism is negative or obsolete or wrong.
"Furthermore, in Acts 1.5 Jesus made the clear distinction between the baptism of John, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit - as in fact John had himself said in Matthew 3.11. This is why Jesus didn't baptize with water"
But he did command his disciples to baptize with water. All that does is fulfill Jesus's words. Baptized with water and spirit. And that is exactly what they did. People would believe, and either be baptized with water and then spirit, or spirit and then water. Humans baptized with water, God baptized with spirit. Does that mean humans shouldn't baptize? Even though God commanded them to?
"And furthermore, if anyone REALLY thinks that Matthew 28.19 is talking about water baptism, which apparasntly many do, then they need to consider why those that did the water baptism later, did not do follow that 'command' but baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus."
I'm not sure what you mean here. The only baptizing that humans are qualified to do is water baptism. As far as I know, there are no examples of a human baptizing another human with the spirit. God does that.
RE: Water baptism is NOT a testimony of your faith
Posted : 23 Apr, 2014 02:46 PM
"So, the people who were closest to Jesus, who had visible and powerful outpourings of the holy spirit, and who God trusted with building the early church, had a lesser understanding than we do? At what point did they learn this new truth? If they did learn it, they forgot to write about it."
Yes, it took some time before they fully understood the nature of the New Covenant. There should be no controversy about that, as it is plain in the Bible. eg. Peter, well after the day of Pentecost, in Acts ch. 10 telling God that he wouldn't break the Old Testament dietary law. They did not have the advantage of any New Testamant Bible writings to consult like we do! Concerning water baptism, it is clear their understaning moved on, with Paul declaring 'Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel' (1. Cor.) and Peter likening it to taking a bath! (1Pete 3.21)
>"Furthermore, in Acts 1.5 Jesus made the clear distinction between the baptism of John, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit - as in fact John had himself said in Matthew 3.11. This is why Jesus didn't baptize with water"
"But he did command his disciples to baptize with water."
? No he didn't.
>"And furthermore, if anyone REALLY thinks that Matthew 28.19 is talking about water baptism, which apparasntly many do, then they need to consider why those that did the water baptism later, did not do follow that 'command' but baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus."
"I'm not sure what you mean here."
I mean no-one in the Bible baptized anyone with water using the words 'in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit', they only baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'. The baptizing into the name of th Father, Son and Holy Spirit is spitual. That's the 'doctrine of the trinity' right there, not a water ritual.
RE: Water baptism is NOT a testimony of your faith
Posted : 24 Apr, 2014 06:37 AM
Yes, it took some time before they fully understood the nature of the New Covenant. There should be no controversy about that, as it is plain in the Bible. eg. Peter, well after the day of Pentecost, in Acts ch. 10 telling God that he wouldn't break the Old Testament dietary law. They did not have the advantage of any New Testamant Bible writings to consult like we do! Concerning water baptism, it is clear their understaning moved on, with Paul declaring 'Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel' (1. Cor.) and Peter likening it to taking a bath! (1Pete 3.21)
Again, Paul, who makes the statement that he was not sent to baptize in 1 Corinthians, is taken out of context. He did baptize, and he stated that.
Peter did not liken baptism to taking a bath, he contrasted it. He stated that baptism is NOT about washing away the filth of the flesh, it's an answer toward God concerning the change that the spirit has wrought.
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"
Jesus did promote baptism, and while he did not do it, his disciples did with him.
John 3
22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23And John also was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. 24For John was not yet cast into prison.
John 4
1When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
The only baptizing that humans are qualified to do is water baptism. As far as I know, there are no examples of a human baptizing another human with the spirit. God does that. Jesus did not baptize with water, He is God, and God baptizes with the spirit. He commanded humans to baptize with water as a testimony, as a public response to the death and new birth in the spirit. A human cannot baptize with the spirit, so how did Jesus expect humans to baptize when He commanded them to do so? He expected them to baptize with water as an example of the spiritual change.
John 13
6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? 7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. 8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. 10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. 11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. 12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? 13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
Jesus also promoted the idea of washing each other's feet, much like He promoted water baptism. And He literally washed their feet with water, as an symbol of a spiritual change.
For the record, I do not believe water baptism saves a person, it is something a saved person does as an expression of their desire to follow Jesus, as an "answer of a good conscience toward God".
Romans 6:4
"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
Here, baptism is compared to being buried into death, and the symbolism of water baptism fits that perfectly. Submerged(buried) in water, brought out of the water(resurrected) in newness of life.
