PDA

View Full Version : At what age should one be baptised?



Pages : [1] 2

1god4me
May 18th 2008, 03:19 PM
I was looking for some clarification on this subject. It is my understanding that children do not need to be baptised at an early age, and that as adults we need to be. So we can be born again and forgive our sins.

Slug1
May 18th 2008, 04:09 PM
Well, since every example that I can recall from the NT has baptism as adults or IMO mature enough to understand what sin is and what the meaning of repentance is. Cornelius, his family and friends received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit prior to their water baptism but this just shows us that its is the saving Grace of Jesus and belief in Jesus that saves us, not the baptism. It's the Gospel that saves us:

Romans 10:13-17

13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2010:13-17&multilayout=cols&version1=31&version2=31#fen-NIV-28187a)]
14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2010:13-17&multilayout=cols&version1=31&version2=31#fen-NIV-28189b)]
16But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2010:13-17&multilayout=cols&version1=31&version2=31#fen-NIV-28190c)] 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Another great example for me was the story of the jailer in Acts 16. In these scriptures we see that Paul and his friend are taken from the jail to this jailers home and the two preach to the family and then they are all baptized after hearing the Word of God. I look at this in black and white and even though the scripture says "family" some may assume infants were involved... I don't assume but take it word for word.

Acts 16:29-34

29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.

In your question you state about being baptized to be born again, it's the other way around. You are born again once you "understand" what faith is, how God's Grace saves you, and you have given yourself to God in your belief of Jesus Christ as your savior...and then in your act of obedience to this... you get baptized.

An infant can't do any of this. At what age can the Gospel be comprehended by a child... I don't know.

Roelof
May 18th 2008, 05:18 PM
Infant baptism—
Groups that practice baptism of infants baptize not only infants but also adults who have come to faith in Christ. One of the arguments proposed in favor of baptizing infants is that entire households were baptized in New Testament times (Acts 16:15, 33). Certainly such households or families must have included children. Consequently, groups who hold this position believe this practice should be extended to the present day.
A second argument cited is Jesus’ treatment of children. Jesus commanded the disciples to bring the children to Him. When they did so, He blessed them (Mark 10:13–16). Because of this example from Jesus, it would seem inconsistent to deny baptism to children today.
A third argument put forth by covenant theologians is that children were participants in the Old Testament covenant: “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7).


Believer’s baptism—
Those who hold to this view believe that baptism should be restricted to those who actually exercise faith. This approach excludes infants, who could not possibly have such faith. The proper candidates for baptism are those who already have experienced the new birth on the basis of their personal faith and who give evidence of this salvation in their lives.
Both positive and negative arguments are advanced in support of this view. The positive approach argues from evidence in the New Testament. In every instance of New Testament baptism in which the specific identity of the persons was known, the persons being baptized were adults. Further, the condition required for baptism was personal, conscious faith. Without this, adherents of believer’s baptism point out, baptism was not administered. This is especially evident in the Book of Acts (2:37–41; 8:12; 10:47; 18:8; 19:4–5), as well as Matthew 3:2–6 and 28:19. In the New Testament, church repentance and faith came first, followed by baptism.

SoldierOfChrist
May 18th 2008, 05:23 PM
I think these scriptures indicate that the baptism of the Holy Spirit can take place at an early age.

Matthew 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.


Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Michael

markedward
May 18th 2008, 06:09 PM
A few churches I have attended, and Christians families I know, hold to infant dedication, and believer baptism, which I agree with.

The infant dedication is not a baptism, but simply the parents bringing their newborn before God to thank Him for the new life, and to pray that He makes Himself known to the newborn when they grow older. Support for this type of idea was drawn from Jesus' own infancy story in the gospels, how He was dedicated to God in the temple.

Baptism, as others have Scripturally pointed out, should be for a person who is mature enough to know of their own sins and their need of repentence to God. John the Baptist is never depicted baptizing infants, only adults who came to him. In Acts, we do see whole families baptized on occasion, but we don't know how old the sons and daughters of the family are, and in context, the baptisms were only performed when people had intentionally come to believe in Christ, not when they were unaware of their sins as an infant would be.

losthorizon
May 18th 2008, 06:24 PM
I was looking for some clarification on this subject. It is my understanding that children do not need to be baptised at an early age, and that as adults we need to be. So we can be born again and forgive our sins.
I would refer you to the example of the first believers who publically were baptized “into Christ” – ie - baptized into the Lord’s church on the first day of Pentecost after our Lord’s resurrection. Those 3000 souls were “of age” – ie – they had the mental maturity to hear and understand the “gospel of Christ” which included the command to repent and be baptized in water “for the remission of sins…”
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:37-38 (KJV)

tgallison
May 18th 2008, 08:03 PM
I think these scriptures indicate that the baptism of the Holy Spirit can take place at an early age.

Matthew 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.


Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.



Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Michael

SoldierOfChrist greetings

Have you noticed the qualification that Jesus put into this verse.

Mark 9:42 "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

Evidently the little ones were old enough to believe in Jesus.

terrell

1god4me
May 18th 2008, 08:48 PM
Thank you everyone for your responses. It is helping me understand.

SoldierOfChrist
May 18th 2008, 09:45 PM
SoldierOfChrist greetings

Have you noticed the qualification that Jesus put into this verse.

Mark 9:42 "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

Evidently the little ones were old enough to believe in Jesus.

terrell

Yes... good point and the context was this:

Mark 9:36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,

Mark 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

I don't see any age restriction here either:

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Michael

RJ Mac
May 19th 2008, 04:15 AM
Baptized at what age? I go by Eph.5:31,32 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

I see baptism as our wedding ceremony to Christ, full commitment. So my criteria for what age, do you believe the person is mature enough to get married then they are mature enough to get baptized. Maturity comes at different ages and the parents are the ones who really know the answer.

Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, Ac..2:38; a person getting baptized needs to be able to confess their sins, most 12 year olds may know the steps to salvation but have no concept of sin in their personal lives. The old man dies, a new creature arises, what will change in the life of a 12 yr. old?

No age can be set, it's a matter of maturity and kids mature at differing ages so it really is up to the parent and the parent should be the one doing the baptism, not the minister or elder or Sunday school teacher, but the parent.

RJ Mac

Steve M
May 19th 2008, 01:46 PM
I was reading last night from Colossians, and I read 2:11-12, which just plain spoke out loud to me on just this issue.

12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

We were buried with Christ in Baptism (pay attention now) and raised from the dead with him THROUGH FAITH.

It is our faith that saves; it is through this baptism that we express our circumcision of the hearts, that we declare "I was buried with Christ and raised up with him."

I say any time any person wants to be buried with Christ and raised with Him, let them be baptized. I can't see doing this for a child; that's just absurd. That steals their chance to express their faith in Him in this most meaningful of ways, chosen by the Lord Jesus who set us an example by being baptized Himself by John the Baptist. When we go down in baptism we know we are following in His footsteps--literally.

Frances
May 19th 2008, 05:28 PM
I was looking for some clarification on this subject. It is my understanding that children do not need to be baptised at an early age, and that as adults we need to be. So we can be born again and forgive our sins.
Baptism can be any age between birth and death - but only when we, personally, submit our lives to Jesus Christ, with full understanding of what His Sacrifice has done for us, and our responsibilities of discipleship.

We are not baptised so that we will be Born Again and our Sins will be Forgiven. We are Baptised to publicly acknowledge that we have submitted our lives to God through Jesus Christ, that we are Born Again our Sins are Forgiven and Jesus is our Lord and Saviour.

RJ Mac
May 19th 2008, 09:15 PM
I would agree that being baptized is not a born again experience but that it is our resurrection.
It represents the death burial and resurrection of our Lord. As we see in Ro.6:1ff.

As for getting our sins forgiven in baptism, the argument is not with men but
with scriptures I guess. But if you don't believe the scriptures are all authoritative
then whatever you want to do goes, but realize its not God's will.

Ac.2:38 - Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of you sins...
Ac.22:16 ...Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.

It is troubling when people will now deny what the scriptures say concerning
the reason for baptism. But then people would rather follow men's teachings
and not the Lord's.

Mt.7:21 Not everyone who says to Me Lord Lord, will enter the kingdom of
heaven but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.


RJ Mac

markedward
May 19th 2008, 09:32 PM
There is an ancient text, dated to sometime between 80 - 160 AD by most scholars.

This text is called "The Didache" for short, but the full title is given as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." The relatively short text concerns itself with various Christians rituals (such as the communion wine and bread) and how they should be performed.

Whether or not this is actually what the twelve apostles taught in the time following Jesus' ascension to heaven is debatable, it does still give us an idea on how the earliest Christians performed these certain rituals.

Part of the text concerns baptism:


And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Note the final part, on fasting. If the earliest Christians believed that a person should fast for "one or two days" before their actual baptism, it would be ludicrous to assume that they would make newborns fast for two whole days before their baptisms. The earliest Christians thought that for a person to be baptized they would need to be able to fast first, which would be any age other than infancy. In my opinion, it's quite obvious that the earliest Christians did not perform infancy baptisms.

Roelof
May 20th 2008, 08:45 AM
Remember, been baptized, at whatever age, will not get you into Heaven, only faith in Jesus will. Batizing is a sign of faith and also has spiritual meaning.

Because if you confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. (Rom 10:9)

Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)

in whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, (Col 2:11)

SemperReformanda
May 20th 2008, 10:38 AM
Baptism, as the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, should be applied to believers and the children of believers.

Buck shot
May 20th 2008, 08:52 PM
Baptism, as the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, should be applied to believers and the children of believers.

Do you have any scriptures for baptizing children of believers? I would like to see where you get that from the Bible. :hmm:

Slug1
May 21st 2008, 12:55 AM
Baptism, as the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, should be applied to believers and the children of believers.Based on what scripture?

Reynolds357
May 21st 2008, 01:04 AM
I was looking for some clarification on this subject. It is my understanding that children do not need to be baptised at an early age, and that as adults we need to be. So we can be born again and forgive our sins.

Baptism in water should occur after salvation. Baptism in Water is not an element of Salvation.

SemperReformanda
May 21st 2008, 01:21 AM
Genesis 17 is the giving of the covenant sign to God's chosen people. It applies to those whose faith has been counted as righteousness (Abraham), and the household of that person. As members of this same covenant (the covenant of grace, or life if you will), we are to apply the same pattern through baptism (Col 2:11-12).

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 01:50 AM
Genesis 17 is the giving of the covenant sign to God's chosen people. It applies to those whose faith has been counted as righteousness (Abraham), and the household of that person. As members of this same covenant (the covenant of grace, or life if you will), we are to apply the same pattern through baptism (Col 2:11-12).
You have not provided any biblical support for baptizing infants. The NT "pattern" for candidates for baptism includes only those “believers” who were mentally mature enough to understand the gospel of Christ and obey that same gospel “from the heart”. An infant does not have the mental maturity to believe or obey. There is not one example in the NT of one infant being baptized because it was never practiced or authorized.
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Romans 6:16-18 (KJV)

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 02:00 AM
Baptism in water should occur after salvation. Baptism in Water is not an element of Salvation.
Does Mark 16:16 in your Bible read – “he that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved" or does it read like my version – “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”?
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 (KJV)

SemperReformanda
May 21st 2008, 02:01 AM
You have not provided any biblical support for baptizing infants. The NT "pattern" for candidates for baptism includes only those “believers” who were mentally mature enough to understand the gospel of Christ and obey that same gospel “from the heart”. An infant does not have the mental maturity to believe or obey. There is not one example in the NT of one infant being baptized because it was never practiced or authorized.
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Romans 6:16-18 (KJV)
Using your own method, could you please illustrate Biblically why women should be allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper?

In the same way you infer from the nature of the Lord's Supper that women can partake, we can also infer from the nature of baptism that it is designed to be applied to the households of believers. The New Testament says clearly that the sign of baptism is a sign and seal of the New Covenant, and a replacement for circumcision:


In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col 2:11-12

The children of believers are holy, in the same sense that the children of Abraham were holy:


For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. -1 Cor 7:14

Who can restrict baptism from people whom the Covenant Lord has declared holy?

MidnightsPaleGlow
May 21st 2008, 02:03 AM
Baptism in water should occur after salvation. Baptism in Water is not an element of Salvation.

Agreed, I strongly oppose infant baptism on the grounds that it's not only unscriptural, but that that infant cannot make a profession of faith. Baptism (in my view) is for those who make a profession of faith, that profession saves them, then they are baptized (full body immersion only) using the Trinitarian formula to show obedience. Baptism itself has no saving merit, it's something we do out of obedience and to show that we're saved, we don't do it to be saved.

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 02:38 AM
The New Testament says clearly that the sign of baptism is a sign and seal of the New Covenant, and a replacement for circumcision:

The NT compares circumcision and baptism in a limited way – ie - when the believer (infants do not have the capacity to believe) is baptized (immersed in water), the one baptized is “putting off” the old man of “flesh” as he becomes a new creation in Christ Jesus but there is no support for the practice of baptizing (sprinkling) infants. It is not a practice one will ever find practiced in the NT.
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Colossians 2:11-12

Who can restrict baptism from people whom the Covenant Lord has declared holy?
You are grasping here – the passage has nothing to do baptism and certainly does not lend support to a practice that has no part in Holy Writ. Only those with the mental capacity to believe and confess Jesus as Lord are candidates for baptism.

SemperReformanda
May 21st 2008, 03:12 AM
The NT compares circumcision and baptism in a limited way – ie - when the believer (infants do not have the capacity to believe) is baptized (immersed in water), the one baptized is “putting off” the old man of “flesh” as he becomes a new creation in Christ Jesus but there is no support for the practice of baptizing (sprinkling) infants. It is not a practice one will ever find practiced in the NT.
The comparison supports what I am saying. I say that baptism is a sign and seal in the same way as circumcision was. It is a sign of God's work in his people. Now, as a response to the "you can't find it in the NT" argument, you have refused to answer my question. Using the same logic, can you find scriptural support for giving the Lord's Supper to women? If you can't, then your argument is void. You infer that women may partake of the Lord's Supper, and I infer that infants of believers should be baptised. You must be consistent.


You are grasping here – the passage has nothing to do baptism and certainly does not lend support to a practice that has no part in Holy Writ.
I wasn't saying that it was about baptism. I was saying that it was about children of believers being holy. Holy means set apart. Holy means part of the covenant. If someone is part of the covenant, they should be baptised.

The plain reading is that children of believers are holy. To restrict baptism from holy people is incorrect, and a violation of scripture.


Only those with the mental capacity to believe and confess Jesus as Lord are candidates for baptism.
Here we see theological presuppositions coming through. Given your Arminian view of salvation, you have no ground to stand on when it comes to the salvation of infants or invalids. I reject your idea of salvation, so it is impossible for me to even think about debating baptism on your terms.

I'll restate my case: Baptism is a sign and seal of the New Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace, which was made with Adam and Eve, confirmed with Abraham and through the prophets, and effectuated by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is a sign of something that happens to God's people, which comes from Him, and therefore is not designed only to "show the faith" of the one baptised.

markedward
May 21st 2008, 03:33 AM
You infer that women may partake of the Lord's Supper, and I infer that infants of believers should be baptised. You must be consistent.Your analogy between the Supper and baptism isn't consistent.

Jesus did not place no limitations upon who could take part in the bread and wine, all He did was show His disciples how to perform the breaking of bread and the passing of the wine. He gave no direction that only men could take part in the event. Jesus placed no limitations on the Supper.

He did place limitations upon those who would be baptized, and that was that they needed to be able to voluntarily repent for their sins. Infants have neither the mental capacity to comprehend "sin" or "repentence," neither do they have the ability to communicate their repentence. Jesus directly stated the limitations of baptism: the ability to repent.

SemperReformanda
May 21st 2008, 03:45 AM
Your analogy between the Supper and baptism isn't consistent.

Jesus did not place no limitations upon who could take part in the bread and wine, all He did was show His disciples how to perform the breaking of bread and the passing of the wine. He gave no direction that only men could take part in the event. Jesus placed no limitations on the Supper.
That is incorrect. Scripture gives many warnings about who may partake of the LS and who may not. Not so with baptism. Again I assert that the pattern we have for baptism is the pattern of circumcision, which is applied by inference to the believers and their households.


He did place limitations upon those who would be baptized, and that was that they needed to be able to voluntarily repent for their sins. Infants have neither the mental capacity to comprehend "sin" or "repentence," neither do they have the ability to communicate their repentence. Jesus directly stated the limitations of baptism: the ability to repent.
Then, to be consistent, you cannot baptise either children or invalids. I do not accept that, and neither should you.

If anybody would like to deal with my assertion before, then go ahead.

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 03:50 AM
The comparison supports what I am saying. I say that baptism is a sign and seal in the same way as circumcision was. It is a sign of God's work in his people. Now, as a response to the "you can't find it in the NT" argument, you have refused to answer my question. Using the same logic, can you find scriptural support for giving the Lord's Supper to women? If you can't, then your argument is void. You infer that women may partake of the Lord's Supper, and I infer that infants of believers should be baptised. You must be consistent.


You continue to grasp in the dark, my friend. Your point is simply a moot point. We need not rely of inferences. The NT plainly teaches that one must believe and confess Jesus as both Lord and Savior – infants do not have the capacity to do this…”He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.”


I wasn't saying that it was about baptism. I was saying that it was about children of believers being holy. Holy means set apart. Holy means part of the covenant. If someone is part of the covenant, they should be baptised.
Are you sure you weren’t “inferring” – I think you were? Again you miss the mark – infants cannot believe Jesus is the Christ (they do not have the capacity); infants cannot repent of their sins (they are not sinners); infants cannot confess Him before men (not capable); therefore infants are not candidates for baptism and your claim to the contrary is just that – contrary to God’ word and is not valid.

Here we see theological presuppositions coming through. Given your Arminian view of salvation, you have no ground to stand on when it comes to the salvation of infants or invalids. I reject your idea of salvation, so it is impossible for me to even think about debating baptism on your terms.
Lol – and you have no presuppositions, my friend? Infants are innocent before God – they have committed no sin that separates them from God – they are innocent until they sin. Remember it is our personal sin that separates us from the Eternal and the blood of Christ that washes away those sins. And you are correct - you cannot debate infant baptism from Scripture because infant baptism is missing in action in the NT.

SemperReformanda
May 21st 2008, 03:57 AM
Well, your problems here are greater than just baptism. To deny original sin is to do horrendous damage to the Scriptures, possibly beyond repair. Paul says that all people everywhere are stained by sin. If you don't believe that he actually means that, then the problem is with you.

I'm not going to interact with your faulty, unbiblical presuppositions about the doctrine of man in this thread. I've made my case, and hopefully people are able to see the truth of Scripture.

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 04:06 AM
Well, your problems here are greater than just baptism. To deny original sin is to do horrendous damage to the Scriptures, possibly beyond repair. Paul says that all people everywhere are stained by sin. If you don't believe that actually means that, then the problem is with you.

I'm not going to interact with your faulty, unbiblical presuppositions about the doctrine of man in this thread. I've made my case, and hopefully people are able to see the truth of Scripture.
Again – you have failed to present a biblical defense of a non-biblical notion. Infant baptism is not to be found in the NT – not by inference; not by example; and not by command. An infant does not have the mental capacity or the need to be baptized. Your "case" has failed.

markedward
May 21st 2008, 04:23 AM
That is incorrect. Scripture gives many warnings about who may partake of the LS and who may not.Paul telling people not to drink or eat in excess, and the implication that it's for followers of Christ only, is not "many warnings."


Not so with baptism.Which means you deny that Jesus stated that a person should "Repent" along with their baptism. Jesus directly stated that a person should "Repent and be baptized." This limits baptism to people who are capable of "repenting." Infants are not capable of comprehending repentence. As losthorizon pointed out, neither do infants have the ability to "believe."


Then, to be consistent, you cannot baptise either children or invalids. I do not accept that, and neither should you.Why can't children or "invalids" be baptized just because infants shouldn't be? Infants aren't capable comprehending "belief" or "repentence" or "sin." Children and "invalids" can comprehend these depending on their age, but despite that, the book of Isaiah heavily implies an age of accountability.

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 04:31 AM
I'm not going to interact with your faulty, unbiblical presuppositions about the doctrine of man in this thread.
The truth of the matter – infant baptism is “the doctrine of man” – not an apostolic ordinance…
“The baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the N.T., is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance, as, indeed, it encountered early and long resistance; but it is an institution of the church, which gradually arose in post-apostolic times in connection with the development of ecclesiastical life and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attended before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and, although defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after the time of Augustine in virtue of that connection...” H.A.W. Meyer (Lutheran), Commentary on Acts

SoldierOfChrist
May 21st 2008, 04:37 AM
Not sure I should start this as I may not have time to finish it.

Here was his question again:


I was looking for some clarification on this subject. It is my understanding that children do not need to be baptised at an early age, and that as adults we need to be. So we can be born again and forgive our sins.

The problem is there are two different baptisms and they are for differing purposes. John's baptism was of repentance and I know someone will jump up and down at what i'm about to say. John's baptism of repentance is NOT being born again.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Many teach that if you are dunked in the water you are born again, not as far as I can see. Some do receive the Spirit at this time but most do NOT.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Our fellowship is with God, the Holy Spirit. How can this happen without being born of Spirit.

Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The Lord is to dwell within us and the Holy Ghost is our teacher and are we not to become like little children?

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

Acts 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

Acts 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

The baptism of John is not for children but the baptism of the Holy Spirit is as far as I'm concerned. It's like saying the children cannot walk with the Lord. Can the deaf, dumb and blind also not know the lord?

Matthew 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus said let them come to him and forbid them NOT. I think babies are probably a different story.

Quench not the Spirit.

I'm sure some will disagree. :o

Michael

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 04:50 AM
The problem is there are two different baptisms and they are for differing purposes. John's baptism was of repentance and I know someone will jump up and down at what i'm about to say. John's baptism of repentance is NOT being born again.


The truth is there is but “one baptism” applicable to Christians today – the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5…”One Lord, one faith, one baptism”. This one baptism is the baptism administered by the hands of men…”go…teach…baptize” per Jesus Christ in the Great Commission. He is speaking about the ordinance of Christian baptism commanded for all believers and administered by the hands of His disciples – “and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38).
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:5

SoldierOfChrist
May 21st 2008, 06:06 AM
The truth is there is but “one baptism” applicable to Christians today – the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5…”One Lord, one faith, one baptism”. This one baptism is the baptism administered by the hands of men…”go…teach…baptize” per Jesus Christ in the Great Commission. He is speaking about the ordinance of Christian baptism commanded for all believers and administered by the hands of His disciples – “and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38).

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:5


The baptism of the Spirit is what we want but many still baptise with water. You might agree with me when I say in John 3:5 we are not talking about John's baptism when it reads "born of water".

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus is not saying get dunked in water like John, it is washing of water with the Word.

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

In Ezekiel we can see it is God that washes with the water... not man. John's Baptism was symbolic of the baptism that should come later.

Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

We know that it is not man that gives the Spirit and it is not man that will "sprinkle clean water upon you" it is God.

John 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

I'm only trying to point out many still follow John's baptism when there is a better way. Anyone can say they are born again and many that do are not.

I'm not sure I disagree with you but you seem to be thinking that "born of water" in John 3:5 is talking about John's baptism? Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

Just how I see it.

Michael

matthew94
May 21st 2008, 06:22 AM
People should be baptized sometime before their first birthday

Of course, I'm talking about their second birth

th1bill
May 21st 2008, 08:04 AM
... Since the water does not save one it is not extremely important. Before I'll put anyone forth for the Baptism I make certain that they, young or old, understand what the act is to them, a public declaration of the faith in and dedication to their LORD. I know of a pastor that was convicted of sin and his need for a savior at the age of six and as a result he was baptized. If a person understands what they are doing and why they are doing it I can see no reason to deny them.

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 11:43 AM
The baptism of the Spirit is what we want but many still baptise with water.


Baptism in water is the one baptism for all believers and it is a new birth “of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5), i.e., one birth - two essentials - water and Spirit - "through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.
John 3:5 (KJV) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Titus 3:5 (KJV) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost...

SoldierOfChrist
May 21st 2008, 02:28 PM
Baptism in water is the one baptism for all believers and it is a new birth “of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5), i.e., one birth - two essentials - water and Spirit - "through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.

John 3:5 (KJV) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Titus 3:5 (KJV) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost...


Well I was baptised in water when I was a child and what did it do? I got wet and nothing else that I know of!

In my mid twenties I was baptised with the Holy Spirit without being dunked or spirinkled with water from any man. When I was baptised with the Holy Spirit it felt like warm water was poured over me and I have experienced this many time since.

I can tell for certain without any question in which baptism I was born again!

Many scriptures tell of the people recieving the Holy Spirit without being baptised in the water... and that is born again (born from above). Yes we have scriptures that tell us this also happened sometimes when baptised in water.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Are you telling me this still doesn't happen today? Sorry I have been to many churches that DO NOT know the Holy Spirit and they all practice John's baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the one baptism and washing of water is by the Word (Ephesians 5:26).

Michael

fewarechosen
May 21st 2008, 02:42 PM
baptism is receiving the holy spirit from god, god chooses when someone is baptised. we can do wahtever baptism ceremony we want but if god doesnt send that person the holy spirit we do grevious error.

when we are baptised we are brought into the body -born a spiritual birth , just like we are born a physical birth.

god can give some the ability to baptize with the holy spirit straight from god. but the problem happens when a man claims to be able to baptise yet really cant, being led astray by pride and false doctrine.

My heart's Desire
May 21st 2008, 03:19 PM
I think if a child has come to believe and wants to be baptised then age has nothing to do with it. Baptize them! Let the child decide. Age is not something that should be decided by us, but by them.

I think the child has to be of an age to where they can understand what they are doing. Would you want to baptize a child who sees people getting into water and thinks it is like swimming or wants to do it because it looks like fun, or because everyone else is doing it etc, etc?
Faith and Baptism by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ is what saves.

Reynolds357
May 21st 2008, 03:43 PM
Does Mark 16:16 in your Bible read – “he that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved" or does it read like my version – “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 (KJV)


Does your Bible say "baptized in water?" No, it says "baptized." Let us revert back to Theology 101 for just a minute. There is more than one baptism. The batism referenced here is to baptism in Christ, not baptism in water. Baptism in water is symbolic of baptism in Christ. Romans 6:3-5 shows you the baptism into Christ. Baptism in water is merely a powerless symbol of that the Blood of Christ and the mighty work of the Cross has already done in your life.

Reynolds357
May 21st 2008, 03:47 PM
Again – you have failed to present a biblical defense of a non-biblical notion. Infant baptism is not to be found in the NT – not by inference; not by example; and not by command. An infant does not have the mental capacity or the need to be baptized. Your "case" has failed.

There is no scriptural support for infant baptism. In my opinion, infant baptism is simply a false teaching of the Catholic Church. There is no scriptural support for it that I have ever found.

Reynolds357
May 21st 2008, 03:52 PM
The truth is there is but “one baptism” applicable to Christians today – the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5…”One Lord, one faith, one baptism”. This one baptism is the baptism administered by the hands of men…”go…teach…baptize” per Jesus Christ in the Great Commission. He is speaking about the ordinance of Christian baptism commanded for all believers and administered by the hands of His disciples – “and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38).

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:5


John 3:5. Born of water and of the spirit. Of the Spirit is self explanitory. Born of water should be also. Born of water means born of the womb of woman.

What does verse 6 go on to say? Born of what? The flesh.

To enter the Kingdom of Heaven, one must be born of woman and born of the Spirit.

Was the thief on the Cross immersed in water? Where did Jesus say he was going at his death?
Something to think about. The salvation of the thef was new covenant salvation. The thief met no elements of old covenant atonement, yet the thief will be with Jesus in paradise? Where is your baptism by water in that equation.?

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 10:47 PM
Well I was baptised in water when I was a child and what did it do? I got wet and nothing else that I know of!

In my mid twenties I was baptised with the Holy Spirit without being dunked or spirinkled with water from any man. When I was baptised with the Holy Spirit it felt like warm water was poured over me and I have experienced this many time since.

I can tell for certain without any question in which baptism I was born again!


I would ask you to look a little closer, Michael. In the NT Jesus plainly commanded those who will be His disciples they must “believe and be baptized” (immersed in water) and then they will be saved (Mark 16:16) just as He told Nicodemus the same thing – for one to enter the kingdom of God (to be saved) a person must be born “of water and Spirit” (John 3:5). I think you are confusing the “baptism” of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 ) and the ordinance of Christian baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38)) where the baptized believer receives the “remission of sins” and the “gift of the Holy Spirit”.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is only recorded twice in the NT – (1) on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:4 (in fulfillment of Acts 1:5-8) and (2) at the conversion of the household of Cornelius (first Gentiles admitted to the Lord’s church) in fulfillment of prophecy recorded in Joel. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not the same as the indwelling “gift of the Holy Spirit” received when the believer is immersed in water – calling on the name of the Lord. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise to specific individuals and not to all Christians for all time and the ordinance of baptism in water is commanded to all Christians until He comes again.

Where do you find the command and instructions on how and when one is to be baptized in the Holy Spirit? Remember – there is but one baptism (Eph 4:5) today and that one baptism is the baptism commanded by the Lord to ALL believers and it is to be administered by the hands of His disciples – an immersion in water - into the name of God - "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mat 28:19).

fewarechosen
May 21st 2008, 10:59 PM
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

that is the water one must be baptised with which is very different than h2o

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 11:00 PM
Does your Bible say "baptized in water?"
Well - yes it does. The Lord directed Philip to “go toward the south” and preach the gospel of Christ to “a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians”. “Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus…” Part of that gospel message Philip preached to the eunuch included the “one baptism” in water (Hydrogen2Oxygen) because “when they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (Acts 8)
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 (KJV)

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 11:17 PM
John 3:5. Born of water and of the spirit. Of the Spirit is self explanitory. Born of water should be also. Born of water means born of the womb of woman.


Of course you are quite mistaken – the “water” of the new birth has nothing to do with the amniotic fluid of childbirth because whatever the “new birth” is – the birth of “water and Spirit” – Nicodemus had not yet participated in its cleansing power and even you wouldn’t deny he had experience the birth from his mothers womb many years prior to his meeting the Christ. No, my friend the “water” of the new birth is the water of Christian baptism.
"As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus (120-205 AD)

"Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins..." Tertullian (140-230 AD)

losthorizon
May 21st 2008, 11:26 PM
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

that is the water one must be baptised with which is very different than h2o
Is the "water" used in the ordinance of baptism Hydrogen2Oxygen? Is the ordinance of baptism commanded by Christ to be obeyed by those who call on His name? Is baptism to be taken into all the world? Is baptism optional or essential in God's plan to save mankind through the blood of Christ?
Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.

fewarechosen
May 21st 2008, 11:31 PM
1 old testement yes new testement no
2 yes
3dont fully understand your question but if you mean that baptism is to be carried out all over the world -yes
4 yes

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 12:44 PM
I was looking for some clarification on this subject. It is my understanding that children do not need to be baptised at an early age, and that as adults we need to be. So we can be born again and forgive our sins.

You will debate this question forever and never come to a resolution. Christians have been divided for 500 years on the subject and still have not come to an agreement. So, if you are looking for a definitive answer on the subject you will not find one.

The Bible does not address the issue clearly. One of the first respondents to this thread show you the differing texts from which the various techings are derived relative to baptism age. Those who say that only adults were baptized in the Bible miss an obvious point: the only way a child/infant will be baptized is if his/her parents bring the child to the church for baptism. As there were essentially no Christian adults with children around, then, by definition, no children would be brought to the church for baptism. All of the first converts (and receipients of baptism) were adults as it stands to basic logic that a child would not approach a church or a stranger him/herself without a parent. However, it is interesting to note, that *as soon as* there were Christian adults, they brought their children to the church for baptism. Of course, this stands to reason, and is quite expected, from a group of people used to bringing their infants to their place of worship to enter them into God's covenant. Jews, used to bring their infants into the covenant through circumcision, now, as Christians, brought their infants into the covenant through baptism.

How better to demonstrate God's *meritless* and free gift of grace than to bring yout infant - rife with sin and having done *nothing* - to the Church to receive God's grace through baptism?

Infant baptism is one of the oldest practices in the Church and dates to antiquity. There was *universal* acceptance of infant baptism from antiquity until the Reformation - almost 1500 years. It was only through the introduction of Protestant doctrinal innovation that the practice received opposition. Please note that only a small sliver of Protestants opposed infant baptism.

If you look for guidance among the practices of Christians, the *overwhelming* witness of Christians has been the acceptance of infant baptism. As stated above, you first have the virtual universal practice of infant baptism for the first 1500 years of Christian history. After the Reformation only a small fraction of Protestants opposed the practice. Today, out of the 2 billion Christians in the world, the RCC, which claims 1 billion Christians, practices infant baptism. The EOC, claiming nearly 500 million Christians, practices infant baptism. Anglicanism, claiming nearly 100 million Christians, practies infant baptism. Out of the Protestants, the Reformed, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, and their progeny, all practice infant baptism. The *only* Christian groups which do not are what are known as "sectarian" Protestants like Baptisms, Pentacostals, "nondenominational", and the like. These Christians, all together, comprise something like 100 million believers. Therefore, if you are looking for an answer from the witness of Christians, infant baptism is your answer.

One of the most curious aspects of this debate is that those who argue for adult-only baptism also reject the sacramental nature of baptism. It is curious, to me, why someone would argue so strongly over something when it has no sacramental efficacy and is merely a "symbol" of something.

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 12:51 PM
http://bibleforums.org/customavatars/avatar18284_4.gif (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=18284) losthorizon (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=18284) says: Lol – and you have no presuppositions, my friend? Infants are innocent before God – they have committed no sin that separates them from God – they are innocent until they sin. Remember it is our personal sin that separates us from the Eternal and the blood of Christ that washes away those sins. And you are correct - you cannot debate infant baptism from Scripture because infant baptism is missing in action in the NT.[/quote]

Actually, this is completely contrary to basic orthodox Christianity, the witness of Scripture, and the *universal* teaching of the Church. An infant is *NOT* innocent. An infant is tainted with origional sin and is *IN DIRE NEED* of salvation at the moment of birth! An infant is as seperated from God as any adult due to origional sin. *NO* actual sin is required as their soul is tainted from birth with sin.

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 12:54 PM
Again – you have failed to present a biblical defense of a non-biblical notion. Infant baptism is not to be found in the NT – not by inference; not by example; and not by command. An infant does not have the mental capacity or the need to be baptized. Your "case" has failed.

Infants have as much need as any other person to be baptized. There is no "mental capacity" requirement to receive Christ's baptism and salvation. You have added an extra element which CHrist does not demand.

losthorizon
May 22nd 2008, 01:04 PM
Infants have as much need as any other person to be baptized. There is no "mental capacity" requirement to receive Christ's baptism and salvation. You have added an extra element which CHrist does not demand.
Can you support your position from Scripture? Why do we not see infants "sprinkled" in the NT? How can an infant "believe" and "confess" that Jesus is Lord? What sins must an infant "repent" of?

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 01:07 PM
Lol – and you have no presuppositions, my friend? Infants are innocent before God – they have committed no sin that separates them from God – they are innocent until they sin. Remember it is our personal sin that separates us from the Eternal and the blood of Christ that washes away those sins. And you are correct - you cannot debate infant baptism from Scripture because infant baptism is missing in action in the NT.

As I am sure you assert that candidates for baptism must first "repent" and then be baptized it would seem that an infant is the perfect candidate as they, by your reasoning, have *nothing* of which to repent. Therefore, they can go to baptism straight away.

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 01:19 PM
Can you support your position from Scripture? Why do we not see infants "sprinkled" in the NT? How can an infant "believe" and "confess" that Jesus is Lord? What sins must an infant "repent" of?

At the outset, as you reject one of the most basic Christian tenants (i.e.: original sin) there is not much common ground from which to discuss. YOu removed one of the foundational stones of Christian teaching so not much will stand on it through this discussion. The debate of the age of baptism, whilst important, is not necessarily on the level of a dogmatic teaching. Your rejection of original sin is an abject *heresey* from which you must repent.

I responded to the idea of infants "repent"ing in a post above.

Paul, as recorded in 1 Cor. 1:16 baptized an entire household. It does not say he turned away the children and I doubt he would.

Why no infants in Scripture? I addressed that above (quoted again below) the events of the Bible (with minor exceptions like 1 Cor. 1:16) do not take place where there would be occasion for children to be baptised as there is in the modern era: "the only way a child/infant will be baptized is if his/her parents bring the child to the church for baptism. As there were essentially no Christian adults with children around, then, by definition, no children would be brought to the church for baptism. All of the first converts (and receipients of baptism) were adults as it stands to basic logic that a child would not approach a church or a stranger him/herself without a parent. However, it is interesting to note, that *as soon as* there were Christian adults, they brought their children to the church for baptism. Of course, this stands to reason, and is quite expected, from a group of people used to bringing their infants to their place of worship to enter them into God's covenant. Jews, used to bring their infants into the covenant through circumcision, now, as Christians, brought their infants into the covenant through baptism."

fewarechosen
May 22nd 2008, 01:25 PM
the flesh IS the sin that we are born into -- it is unpure and not godly , it is able to pass away and be corrupted.
it is sin to be born able to sin.

but when one recieves the holy spirit, it is uncorruptable and pure being the true birth.
then the flesh in us still sins, yet our spirit does not.

Romans 3:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&verse=23&version=9&context=verse)
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God



29That no flesh should glory in his presence

fewarechosen
May 22nd 2008, 01:44 PM
god batises when he wants how he wants,
we DONT batise, so we dont have to worry about getting it wrong.
now god may choose to have a person who is able to baptise. like the apostles,but the baptism still comes from god.
that is where the problem lies. there are tons of preachers and preists and all that jazz going through a human cerimony that doesnt matter and in so doing spread false truths ? do you really think all us so called christians are saved ? thats not a narrow gate thats a flood gate.
if you want to be baptized look within and pray - no human needed , god might send you a human, but he might not. if you want your child to be baptised pray for him, remember god will answer your prayers if you believe and its his will.

remember god is all powerfull - he is not held back by a element like water.
god never thinks wow i would really like to save that person but there is no water around ,darnit
he chooses who he wants when he wants why he wants.

fewarechosen
May 22nd 2008, 01:55 PM
what i find interesting are the amount of people who think they are chosen to baptise.

people run around and say look the apostles baptised, so we should baptise.

the apostles cleansed disease and cured leprosy and cast out demons.

when you are sure you can do those things also then go baptise.

otherwise you are doing a hallow act which takes you and everyone else farther away from god - you become the devils tool for you wish to baptise and save, yet the mote is not out of your eye.
when you are chosen you will know it- you will be baptised with HIS baptism. being chosen is different than recieving holy spirit. being chosen is selling your garment and buying a sword. when christ chooses to send you a sheep to the slaughter. like the apostles.

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 02:07 PM
god batises when he wants how he wants,
we DONT batise, so we dont have to worry about getting it wrong.
now god may choose to have a person who is able to baptise. like the apostles,but the baptism still comes from god.
that is where the problem lies. there are tons of preachers and preists and all that jazz going through a human cerimony that doesnt matter and in so doing spread false truths ? do you really think all us so called christians are saved ? thats not a narrow gate thats a flood gate.
if you want to be baptized look within and pray - no human needed , god might send you a human, but he might not. if you want your child to be baptised pray for him, remember god will answer your prayers if you believe and its his will.

remember god is all powerfull - he is not held back by a element like water.
god never thinks wow i would really like to save that person but there is no water around ,darnit
he chooses who he wants when he wants why he wants.


You understand that your beliefs above are far far far left field of any established Christian teaching right?

God's Word says we (believers) should baptize others into the faith. God's Word says that baptism consists of water, words ("I baptize you in the Name of...), and intention.

fewarechosen
May 22nd 2008, 02:17 PM
You understand that your beliefs above are far far far left field of any established Christian teaching right?

God's Word says we (believers) should baptize others into the faith. God's Word says that baptism consists of water, words ("I baptize you in the Name of...), and intention.

by those who are chosen too not just someone who claims to believe, faith without works is dead.

baptism is living water , not h20, and when someone has the words to baptise the WORD is flowing through them.

and yes i know its very far away from what is commanly taught in churches so called.
but that is ok for many go astray.
narrow is the way
there is one baptism and one church - all denominations and such are man made christ never spoke of any denomination so why would anyone choose to join ?

NO man baptises only god

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 03:35 PM
You understand that your beliefs above are far far far left field of any established Christian teaching right?

God's Word says we (believers) should baptize others into the faith. God's Word says that baptism consists of water, words ("I baptize you in the Name of...), and intention.

by those who are chosen too not just someone who claims to believe, faith without works is dead.

baptism is living water , not h20, and when someone has the words to baptise the WORD is flowing through them.

and yes i know its very far away from what is commanly taught in churches so called.
but that is ok for many go astray.
narrow is the way
there is one baptism and one church - all denominations and such are man made christ never spoke of any denomination so why would anyone choose to join ?

NO man baptises only god


To what denomination do you belong?

Buck shot
May 22nd 2008, 03:47 PM
Okay folks, it seems time to clarify. There are two types of baptism

One we are called to perform in water (H20, +many other molecules if you have looked at the rivers :lol:) and this one will not get you into Glory. Remember the guy on the cross beside Jesus that was told by our Savior "today thou shalt be with me in paradise". That guy had no time to be physically baptized.


Act 8:3 6And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
This could have been Philip's first baptism service, now church building, no crowd, no water samples (H20 :rofl:). Just God, a born again brother, and a new born again brother that wanted to follow Jesus example in water baptism.

The main one is the baptism of the spirit when we are born again. This one only God can do and He does not give any man that still walks the Earth today the power to do this one.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

fewarechosen
May 22nd 2008, 03:56 PM
none semus.

I just read the bible.

i go to no church for the church is its members where need i go.

the holy spirit teaches man about god not man.
we may help eachother but the knowledge still comes from the holy spirit.

fewarechosen
May 22nd 2008, 03:57 PM
buck shot

im not saying i disagree but if i may ask.
of what importance is the h20 baptism to the man on the cross next to christ ?
will the fact that he never recieved it hinder him in anyway ?

and buckshot dont assume that no one can baptise now - just assume you havent seen it.
for there was a early rain and now is time for the later.not that im saying that anyone walking the earth rigth now can do it.

but for me personaly i will worry about the mote that is in my eye before i try to see what others are doing.

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 04:12 PM
Okay folks, it seems time to clarify. There are two types of baptism

One we are called to perform in water (H20, +many other molecules if you have looked at the rivers :lol:) and this one will not get you into Glory. Remember the guy on the cross beside Jesus that was told by our Savior "today thou shalt be with me in paradise". That guy had no time to be physically baptized.


Act 8:3 6And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
This could have been Philip's first baptism service, now church building, no crowd, no water samples (H20 :rofl:). Just God, a born again brother, and a new born again brother that wanted to follow Jesus example in water baptism.

The main one is the baptism of the spirit when we are born again. This one only God can do and He does not give any man that still walks the Earth today the power to do this one.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.



It is a mistake to create guidelines/teaching/doctrine/etc from an exception rather than the rule. The *command* of Christ is to receive the baptism of water. This is the sacramental act that all in the Church are *obliged* to participate in. That the Good Thief did not, for obvious reasons, have the opportunity to receive the sacrament does not relieve anyone else's *obligation* to receive it.

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 04:13 PM
none semus.

I just read the bible.



All Christians say this. By what authority is your reading (i.e.: interpretation) of the Bible any better or more authoritative than mine or anyone else's?

SoldierOfChrist
May 22nd 2008, 04:36 PM
To what denomination do you belong?Please don't go down that road! You need to back up your argument with scripture and if you can't maybe you should stop and think. Don't resort to that kind of thing. You are saying the Bible says you must be baptised in water... where is that scripture?

What is your interpetation of these scriptures:

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Can it be anymore straight forward?

Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.



baptism is living water , not h20, and when someone has the words to baptise the WORD is flowing through them.He is correct! The washing is done by the Word not h2o.

Our fellowship is with God, the Holy Spirit. How can this happen without being born of Spirit. We need not that any man teach us because the Holy Spirit will teach us all things. How can this happen without him? This is where we get false prophets from... they say I'm inspired by God, by but God does not know them and they do not know God! He has never manifested himself to them and yet they beleive they can do things in his name like baptise without even having his Spirit (but they think they do).

Michael

fewarechosen
May 22nd 2008, 04:49 PM
seamus the holy spirit gives authority

no so called church or denomitation or length of religous teaching.

do i think what i am saying here is gonna change anyones mind ? absolutly not -its not ment to.

i cant change anyones mind, if christ couldnt convince some people who am i to think i can.

but if anyone is to see this god will show them it.
if i am spreading lies and mistruths then the coals are on my head and i will be punished accordingly, of those things we can both be assured.

i am not above correction or error, and i do try to love my neighbor. but you will know a tree by its fruits.

if it puts me at odds with people so be it. peter and paul where at odds over topics.

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 05:45 PM
seamus the holy spirit gives authority
no so called church or denomitation or length of religous teaching. do i think what i am saying here is gonna change anyones mind ? absolutly not -its not ment to. i cant change anyones mind, if christ couldnt convince some people who am i to think i can. but if anyone is to see this god will show them it. if i am spreading lies and mistruths then the coals are on my head and i will be punished accordingly, of those things we can both be assured.
i am not above correction or error, and i do try to love my neighbor. but you will know a tree by its fruits. if it puts me at odds with people so be it. peter and paul where at odds over topics.



Ok, the Holy Spirit gives authority. When you say XYZ and say the Holy Spirit gave you authority to say XYZ and someone else says ABC (directly contradicting XYZ) and says that the Holy Spirit gave him/her the authority to say ABC, how do you determine which is actually from the Holy Spirit?

Why doesn't Christ's Church (his very body and bride) have authority? You'd think Christ himself would have authority.

Peter and Paul, though at odds for a time, came together in the end.

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 05:51 PM
Please don't go down that road! You need to back up your argument with scripture and if you can't maybe you should stop and think. Don't resort to that kind of thing. You are saying the Bible says you must be baptised in water... where is that scripture?

What is your interpetation of these scriptures:

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Can it be anymore straight forward?

Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

He is correct! The washing is done by the Word not h2o.

Our fellowship is with God, the Holy Spirit. How can this happen without being born of Spirit. We need not that any man teach us because the Holy Spirit will teach us all things. How can this happen without him? This is where we get false prophets from... they say I'm inspired by God, by but God does not know them and they do not know God! He has never manifested himself to them and yet they beleive they can do things in his name like baptise without even having his Spirit (but they think they do).

Michael

I am not sure how this passage supports your position at all. These passages show the Bishops of the Church administering the Sacrament of Confirmaiton through the laying on of hands.

Acts 8 and Acts 10 show the Apostles baptizing with water as it was and is what one does when one baptises another. 1 Peter 3 explicitly has Peter describing baptism as being with water and goes as far as equating the flood's water with that of baptism.

There has NEVER been a time in the history of the Church where baptism did not mean a baptism of water. Your suggestion otherwise has no foundation in ANY Christian practice, is NOT found in Apostolic or Partistic teaching and is a doctrinal innovation.

fewarechosen
May 22nd 2008, 06:01 PM
seamus i really liked that last post.

key phrase i thought was in the end they came together.

to people can have the holy spirt but they can both be in error on the same topic or even different ones. which the apostles proved.

now i say take no mans word for anything-for all men are liars.

so pray for the answers for no man can teach you them

now here is the beauty of it -- we can debate in this thread all having really good points or even not, but most of us to me at least seem to care about knowing god better.
so someone is going to get to read this and see the points we brought up see all the this and something might stick in his mind and he might pray about it and be brought closer to god.
and why ? because we disagreed but cared enough to bicker.

so peace be upon you and hopefully we do some good here :)

gods chosen were with him from the foundation. so any error we make will not pry one from his hand. the error will only seperate us

My heart's Desire
May 22nd 2008, 06:42 PM
He is correct! The washing is done by the Word not h2o.

Michael
And to add, Who is the Word? The Lord Jesus is the Word, The washing is done by Jesus.

Reynolds357
May 22nd 2008, 06:55 PM
Well - yes it does. The Lord directed Philip to “go toward the south” and preach the gospel of Christ to “a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians”. “Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus…” Part of that gospel message Philip preached to the eunuch included the “one baptism” in water (Hydrogen2Oxygen) because “when they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (Acts 8)

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 (KJV)


The Eunich was baptized in Water. So were thousands of other. That has absolutely nothing to do with John 3:5. Born of Water means born of Woman. Read on to Verse 6.

Reynolds357
May 22nd 2008, 07:00 PM
Of course you are quite mistaken – the “water” of the new birth has nothing to do with the amniotic fluid of childbirth because whatever the “new birth” is – the birth of “water and Spirit” – Nicodemus had not yet participated in its cleansing power and even you wouldn’t deny he had experience the birth from his mothers womb many years prior to his meeting the Christ. No, my friend the “water” of the new birth is the water of Christian baptism.

"As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus (120-205 AD)

"Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins..." Tertullian (140-230 AD)


He had experienced the birth from His mothers womb. He then had to experience the New Birth in Christ. He was born of woman, he still had to experience the new birth. Immersion in water has absolutely nothing to do with Salvation. Ireaneus and Tertullian wrote what books in the Bible? Their opinion is just that, opinion. It is not inspired. I would say that 95% of theologians today do not believe water baptism is an element of Salvation. Even Southern Baptists official doctrine on Water baptism is that it is a symbol of obedience, not an element of Salvation. The only groups I know that still hold to the teaching of immersion is an essential element of salvation are very small off shoot baptist denominations. Not being rude, but most of these denominations that hold this doctrine also handle snakes.

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 07:06 PM
He had experienced the birth from His mothers womb. He then had to experience the New Birth in Christ. Immersion in water has absolutely nothing to do with Salvation. Ireaneus and Tertullian wrote what books in the Bible? Their opinion is just that, opinion. It is not inspired. I would say that 95% of theologians today do not believe water baptism is an element of Salvation. Even Southern Baptists official doctrine on Water baptism is that it is a symbol of obedience, not an element of Salvation.

These men were Fathers of the CHurch who had insight into how the Christian faith was practiced at its earliest. INdeed, Ireaneus was the disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle himself! I'd rather use Ireaneus as a source than someone in the 16th Century or especially today as to how to read the BIble.

Baptism is a sacrament (outward and physical sign of an inward and spiritual grace) and is, therefore, BOTH physical and spiritual. The physical act has spiritual effect and is, therefore, a means of Christ's grace instituted by Christ himself.

Buck shot
May 22nd 2008, 07:35 PM
buck shot

im not saying i disagree but if i may ask.
of what importance is the h20 baptism to the man on the cross next to christ ?
will the fact that he never recieved it hinder him in anyway ?
He will be in Glory as Jesus said without it

and buckshot dont assume that no one can baptise now - just assume you havent seen it.
for there was a early rain and now is time for the later.not that im saying that anyone walking the earth rigth now can do it.

but for me personaly i will worry about the mote that is in my eye before i try to see what others are doing.
You completely lost me there.

If you do not feel that you should be serving in a local church, I assume you are not understanding what the Bible says about the local church. This is my assumption.:rolleyes:

Buck shot
May 22nd 2008, 07:43 PM
It is a mistake to create guidelines/teaching/doctrine/etc from an exception rather than the rule. The *command* of Christ is to receive the baptism of water. This is the sacramental act that all in the Church are *obliged* to participate in. That the Good Thief did not, for obvious reasons, have the opportunity to receive the sacrament does not relieve anyone else's *obligation* to receive it.
Seamus, are you not doing the same thing?

I agree to these things of water baptism:
we should be baptized.
to join a local church we must be baptized.
to follow Christ example and command we must be baptised.

I do not agree that it is a sacriment, meaning it contains some find of saving merit. For by grace are we saved thru faith...

seamus414
May 22nd 2008, 08:36 PM
Seamus, are you not doing the same thing?

I agree to these things of water baptism:
we should be baptized.
to join a local church we must be baptized.
to follow Christ example and command we must be baptised.

I do not agree that it is a sacriment, meaning it contains some find of saving merit. For by grace are we saved thru faith...

Believing baptism to be a sacrament does not, in any way, diminish the fact that we are saved by grace through faith. Indeed, the very definition of a sacrament is that it is an outward and physical sign of an inward and spiritual *grace*! Baptism *does* confer grace (see: 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38) else Peter (who is speaking in both passages) would not associatte "forgiveness of your sins" and the "baptism that now saves you" with baptism. This *does not* remove Jesus from the equasion, it merely shows the means (the Sacraments) through which Jesus works rather directly and overtly.

SoldierOfChrist
May 22nd 2008, 08:54 PM
I am not sure how this passage supports your position at all. These passages show the Bishops of the Church administering the Sacrament of Confirmaiton through the laying on of hands.

I asked what is your interpetation of these scriptures:

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Then you say "Bishops of the Church administering the Sacrament of Confirmaiton through the laying on of hands." ah... that sounds like tradition blah blah to me! They had already been baptised with John's baptism Acts 19:3 but the Holy Ghost was not upon them until Paul laid his hands upon them.



Acts 8 and Acts 10 show the Apostles baptizing with water as it was and is what one does when one baptises another. 1 Peter 3 explicitly has Peter describing baptism as being with water and goes as far as equating the flood's water with that of baptism.

If water baptism is needed why did they already have Holy Spirit... surely they would not be able to recieve the Spirit without the water baptism as you suggest. However we know that they recieved the Holy Spirit before any baptism in water Acts 10:44.

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.



There has NEVER been a time in the history of the Church where baptism did not mean a baptism of water.

Maybe you can read this below again:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:



Your suggestion otherwise has no foundation in ANY Christian practice, is NOT found in Apostolic or Partistic teaching and is a doctrinal innovation.

This last statment is one of the tradition of man and not of God as we have shown you through the scriptures you are not correct... Mark 7:6-9.

Baptised in water h2o does NOT make you born again.

Michael

fewarechosen
May 22nd 2008, 09:24 PM
i agree soldier well said

losthorizon
May 22nd 2008, 11:03 PM
At the outset, as you reject one of the most basic Christian tenants (i.e.: original sin) there is not much common ground from which to discuss. YOu removed one of the foundational stones of Christian teaching so not much will stand on it through this discussion. The debate of the age of baptism, whilst important, is not necessarily on the level of a dogmatic teaching. Your rejection of original sin is an abject *heresey* from which you must repent.


Okay – as one "heretic" to another – you are again in error. The non-biblical notion that one is a sinner based on the sins of another is just that – non-biblical dogma. And you are wrong - the notion of “original sin” is not a “basic Christian tenant” – the truth is it is not taught in the Bible. It is a dogma originating from the non-inspired writings of the “church fathers” and adapted as one of the many errors of the RCC and passed on to her many step-daughters. It was not even a doctrine of the RCC until the fifth century – far too late in history to be sanctioned by the NT writers. It is the repugnant notion that an innocent baby is born a vile sinner to be damned in Hell if she dies in infancy that one would want to apply the word “heresy”.

We are plainly taught in the Bible that it is one’s *personal sin* that separates that person from his Maker - the son does not bear the sins of the father and the father is not responsible for the sins of the son. Two non-biblical dogmas - infant baptism and original sin – do not make a right doctrine any way you wish to spin it. You have failed to show from the NT that infant baptism was ever practiced or taught – and why is that – because it is not taught in the NT…it is the "doctrine of men…"
(Ezekiel 18:20) The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

fewarechosen
May 22nd 2008, 11:13 PM
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

verse 12 tells why all have sinned
verse 23 clearly says all and not all adults have sinned

the only one with no sin was christ, now to say that a child hasnt sinned is to say that some child died early and did not sin and as such was just as perfect as christ haven been spotless and without blemish

losthorizon
May 22nd 2008, 11:16 PM
He had experienced the birth from His mothers womb. He then had to experience the New Birth in Christ. He was born of woman, he still had to experience the new birth.


Whatever one wants to believe about the “new birth” it is but one birth with two essentials – “water and Spirit”. It is not two births – the first from our mother’s womb separated by decades until the second birth - that is not what Holy Writ teaches. It is in fact – one birth just as there is but one baptism - a birth of “water and Spirit” – and it takes place at the point of immersion in water as we are baptized “into Christ” - "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27) .

Brother Mark
May 23rd 2008, 12:02 AM
Whatever one wants to believe about the “new birth” it is but one birth with two essentials – “water and Spirit”. It is not two births – the first from our mother’s womb separated by decades until the second birth - that is not what Holy Writ teaches. It is in fact – one birth just as there is but one baptism - a birth of “water and Spirit” – and it takes place at the point of immersion in water as we are baptized “into Christ” - "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27) .

It's clearly talking about 2 births. A first birth that people experience and the second birth that only a few experience.


John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
NASB

One of flesh and the second of spirit. The one of flesh is water the one of spirit is Spirit.

losthorizon
May 23rd 2008, 01:11 AM
It's clearly talking about 2 births. A first birth that people experience and the second birth that only a few experience.


Well - according to the English translation of the Holy Bible your notion is incorrect – it reads singular – one birth – ie - a “new birth” not plural “new births”….Jesus saves us “through the washing of regeneration (immersion in water) and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” Please note the connection between the ordinance of baptism in water and receiving “remission of sins” and of the indwelling "gift of the Holy Spirit". It is hard to miss...:)
“…Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Brother Mark
May 23rd 2008, 01:17 AM
Well - according to the English translation of the Holy Bible your notion is incorrect – it reads singular – one birth – ie - a “new birth” not plural “new births”….Jesus saves us “through the washing of regeneration (immersion in water) and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” Please note the connection between the ordinance of baptism in water and receiving “remission of sins” and of the indwelling "gift of the Holy Spirit". It is hard to miss...:)
“…Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Well of course it reads birth. It doesn't fit to say unless one is borns of water and spirit or unless one is births of water and spirit.

Contextually, Jesus was talking about being born of flesh and Spirit. Then he explains even more about water and spirit. Like you said, it's hard to miss.

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast.
NASB

Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
NASB

Baptism saves as when one is baptized into the body of Christ through faith. One is spiritually alive when the Holy Spirit resides in his body at belief. Water baptism comes after these events and is for a man that is already born again.

losthorizon
May 23rd 2008, 02:02 AM
Contextually, Jesus was talking about being born of flesh and Spirit. Then he explains even more about water and spirit. Like you said, it's hard to miss.


No – in context Jesus is telling the Jewish leader he must be born of “water and Spirit” – one birth two elements - as stated it is hard to miss. The new birth is one birth with two essentials per Jesus Christ – (1) water and (2) Spirit…”…be baptized (in water)…receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”


Water baptism comes after these events and is for a man that is already born again.
Not according to Jesus. Does He say as recorded in the NT– “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved” or does He say as you insist – “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized”?
Mar 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."

SoldierOfChrist
May 23rd 2008, 03:22 AM
No – in context Jesus is telling the Jewish leader he must be born of “water and Spirit” – one birth two elements - as stated it is hard to miss. The new birth is one birth with two essentials per Jesus Christ – (1) water and (2) Spirit…”…be baptized (in water)…receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”


Not according to Jesus. Does He say as recorded in the NT– “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved” or does He say as you insist – “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized”?

Mar 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."
In John 3:5 when he speaks of "born of water" he is not talking about being baptised in water... I used to think that and then I started to think it was born of flesh when he he spoke of the "born of water"... but it seems to me that it really refers to the water of the spiritual birth as he spoke of in Ezekiel 36:25-27.

Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Here is a link to a well written article on the subject that examines the differing views and Greek text on the matter:

www.dbts.edu/journals/1999/McCabe.pdf (http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1999/McCabe.pdf)

Regarding Mark 16:16 it's really just saying you must believe and then be baptized... of course being baptized and then believing would not make any sense at all.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Michael

NMKeith
May 23rd 2008, 03:37 AM
There is no age limit, it is based on accountability and accountability is different with each child. Once they understand sin and understand what God did for them on the cross. That is the age where they need to make a decision for Christ and do the Father's will which includes baptism.

losthorizon
May 23rd 2008, 04:15 AM
In John 3:5 when he speaks of "born of water" he is not talking about being baptised in water... I used to think that and then I started to think it was born of flesh when he he spoke of the "born of water"... but it seems to me that it really refers to the water of the spiritual birth as he spoke of in Ezekiel 36:25-27.


Hi – Michael

I appreciate your post and the reference and link to McCabe’s work – while I believe he is an excellent expositor of the OT I would point out he is on faculty at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and he takes the Baptist view of baptism. McCabe does mention in his work the “historical view” of the meaning of “water” in the “new birth” as taught by the church of God for over 2000 years. This view includes the concept that "the Spirit was given to believers" at the point of baptism in water (thus one is born of water & Spirit). He quotes C. H. Dodd in his work as follows….
C. H. Dodd reflects this interpretation when he asserts that “the instructed Christian reader would immediately recognize a reference to Baptism, as the sacrament through which the Spirit was given to believers, and by which they were initiated into that new order of life described as the Kingdom of God, which was historically embodied in the Church. (C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel).The historical view always maintained that “water” of the new birth was a direct reference to the ordinance of baptism. I think the idea below from Albert Barnes would be close to my own thoughts. I will copy it here for your review. Let me know what you think. Thanks.
Joh 3:5 Be born of water - By “water,” here, is evidently signified “baptism.” Thus the word is used in Eph_5:26; Tit_3:5. Baptism was practiced by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practiced by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. So he said Mar_16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” It is clear from these places, and from the example of the apostles Act_2:38, Act_2:41; Act_8:12-13, Act_8:36, Act_8:38; Act_9:18; Act_10:47-48; Act_16:15, Act_16:33; Act_18:8; Act_22:16; Gal_3:27, that they considered this ordinance as binding on all who professed to love the Lord Jesus. And though it cannot be said that none who are not baptized can be saved, yet Jesus meant, undoubtedly, to be understood as affirming that this was to be the regular and uniform way of entering into his church; that it was the appropriate mode of making a profession of religion; and that a man who neglected this, when the duty was made known to him, neglected a plain command of God. It is clear, also, that any other command of God might as well be neglected or violated as this, and that it is the duty of everyone not only to love the Saviour, but to make an acknowledgment of that love by being baptized, and by devoting himself thus to his service. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

seamus414
May 23rd 2008, 12:14 PM
IN RESPONSE TO SOLDIEROFCHRIST:
Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Then you say "Bishops of the Church administering the Sacrament of Confirmaiton through the laying on of hands." ah... that sounds like tradition blah blah to me! They had already been baptised with John's baptism Acts 19:3 but the Holy Ghost was not upon them until Paul laid his hands upon them.

I don't know what "soulds like tradition...to me" means. Firstly of all, the word "tradition" is not an epithet or something that automatically renders something void or false. Secondly, regardless of which, that is what is going on in these passages from their plain language. Thirdly, he said John's baptism was a baptism of repentance - since he does not mention water here, your logic would require that we assume John did not use water with this guy. Fourthly, Acts 19:5 indicates that Paul administered water baptism - there is nothing in the context or in the preponderance of the Bible that would require assuming no water was involved. Acts 19:5 Paul baptised and then, in 19:6, confirmed. It is very clear that there were two actions here not one.

If water baptism is needed why did they already have Holy Spirit... surely they would not be able to recieve the Spirit without the water baptism as you suggest.

IN the passage you quoted above (Acts 19) it is clear that the person DID NOT have the Holy Spirit - indeed he did not even know one existed.

However we know that they recieved the Holy Spirit before any baptism in water Acts 10:44. Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

I think it is a big mistake to draw very broad and definitive assumptions as to how the Spirit works from a vague verse like this. First, it says the Holy Spirit was "on" them not IN them as happens when one believes. This passage appears to indicate that the Holy Spirit imparted the grace of God on these people to give them the ability to turn their hearts toward God and invite the Spirit into their hearts through the Sacrament of Baptism.

Maybe you can read this below again:
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

I have no disagreement with this passage.

This last statment is one of the tradition of man and not of God as we have shown you through the scriptures you are not correct... Mark 7:6-9.

You have not show me that my statement is of men and not God as your very prooftext (Acts 19) demonstrates the Sacrament of COnfirmation directly in God's Word.

Baptised in water h2o does NOT make you born again.

I do not recall anyone in this thread suggesting that one is "born again" upon baptism. I also have not seen any definition of what "born again" means - doing so is significant to ensure that people involved in this coversation have the same idea of what the terms mean so we can be on the same page.

seamus414
May 23rd 2008, 12:23 PM
Okay – as one "heretic" to another – you are again in error. The non-biblical notion that one is a sinner based on the sins of another is just that – non-biblical dogma. And you are wrong - the notion of “original sin” is not a “basic Christian tenant” – the truth is it is not taught in the Bible. It is a dogma originating from the non-inspired writings of the “church fathers” and adapted as one of the many errors of the RCC and passed on to her many step-daughters. It was not even a doctrine of the RCC until the fifth century – far too late in history to be sanctioned by the NT writers. It is the repugnant notion that an innocent baby is born a vile sinner to be damned in Hell if she dies in infancy that one would want to apply the word “heresy”.

We are plainly taught in the Bible that it is one’s *personal sin* that separates that person from his Maker - the son does not bear the sins of the father and the father is not responsible for the sins of the son. Two non-biblical dogmas - infant baptism and original sin – do not make a right doctrine any way you wish to spin it. You have failed to show from the NT that infant baptism was ever practiced or taught – and why is that – because it is not taught in the NT…it is the "doctrine of men…"
(Ezekiel 18:20) The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

You are completely mistaken and have stripped Christ's atoning death of meaning. By your assertions, a human is sinless and eligible for salvation at birth *without* Christ. You have also stripped the fall of its significance if we are born without sin.

No baby is innocent and it is repugnant to God's holiness that you would think of a baby as "innocent".

Original sin can be found in: Romans 5:12-21, 1 Cor. 15:22 and Psalm 51:5 among other places. This is not actual sin, this is inherent sin from the fall. Do you not acknowledged these passages?

You have essentially admitted to being a Pelagian, which is one of the oldest hereseys in the Church. By your logic, if someone can refrain from committing an actual sin they do not need Christ's salvation. You have rejected the fact of the depravity of man's soul and Jesus died in vain.

I do not know to what Church you belong but your teachings are outside that of, obviously, the RCC and EOC, but of also *EVERY* major Protestant Church as well. Your teaching is well outside of the basic Christian teaching of the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christians.

Brother Mark
May 23rd 2008, 12:25 PM
No – in context Jesus is telling the Jewish leader he must be born of “water and Spirit” – one birth two elements - as stated it is hard to miss. The new birth is one birth with two essentials per Jesus Christ – (1) water and (2) Spirit…”…be baptized (in water)…receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

It can be hard to miss. But Jesus said "That which is flesh, is flesh. That which is spirit is spirit". Then he clarified. "One must be born of water" - flesh. In other words, being a Jew isn't enough. And "One must be born of spirit" - through faith.


Not according to Jesus. Does He say as recorded in the NT– “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved” or does He say as you insist – “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized”?
Mar 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."Sure he does. One cool thing about scripture, it will interpret itself. Let's put the last part of that verse up too shall we.

"but he who has not believed will be damned."

And looking at what Jesus said in Matthew.

Matt 28:18-20

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
NKJV

The command is to make disciples and baptize them. In other words, once one becomes a desciple, then baptize them.

Abraham was saved upon belief and repentance. The thief was saved upon belief and repentance. The publican who cried out "God have mercy on me a sinner" was saved by belief and repentance. The pattern has never changed.

BTW, since you hold so strongly to a literal interpretation of mark 16:16, have you handled any snakes lately?

Mark 16:15-18
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
NKJV

fewarechosen
May 23rd 2008, 12:27 PM
what i gather from some here is that they believe in order to be baptised that a crude element of earthly water must be used.

so in order to follow gods rules as intended the crude element of h20 is needed -- so god cannot fully come to someone unless they are dunked in water ?

mind you i dont think thats needed

he baptises who he wants when he wants how he wants

seamus414
May 23rd 2008, 12:36 PM
Whatever one wants to believe about the “new birth” it is but one birth with two essentials – “water and Spirit”. It is not two births – the first from our mother’s womb separated by decades until the second birth - that is not what Holy Writ teaches. It is in fact – one birth just as there is but one baptism - a birth of “water and Spirit” – and it takes place at the point of immersion in water as we are baptized “into Christ” - "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27) .


The suggestion of "one birth" does not make any sense when reading John 3. Indeed, the term "born again" (John 3:3) rather overtly suggests more than "one birth".

In John 3:5-7, Jesus contrasts the two births - one physical (flesh) from your mother and the second one (spiritual) that occurs some time after one's fleshly birth.

Verses 5 and 6 Jesus uses the term "flesh" to correspond to "water". There is no suggestion that Jesus was speaking of baptism here. There mere use of the word "water" does not require an inference of baptism. However, Jesus' words *do* reflect the sacramental system he created. A person's entrance into Christ's Body is through the water of baptism and one's receipt of the Holy Spirit thereafter through Confirmation.

seamus414
May 23rd 2008, 12:42 PM
what i gather from some here is that they believe in order to be baptised that a crude element of earthly water must be used.

so in order to follow gods rules as intended the crude element of h20 is needed -- so god cannot fully come to someone unless they are dunked in water ?

mind you i dont think thats needed

he baptises who he wants when he wants how he wants



You are correct: God can do what he wants how ever he wants. However, you should not create doctrinal teachings based upon the exceptions to the rules. This was my point about the Good Theif. That he was not baptized is not an excuse for anyone here and now not to get baptized; nor does it lessen the efficacy of baptism. Obviously, all rules are out the window when you are literally looking into Jesus' eyes.

That God CAN do what he wants how ever he wants does not mean we are not bound by his command to baptise (with water) and does not lessen the efficacy of the water baptism. The person who, for whatever, does not have access to water but seeks Christ's face is left to the mercy of God in which we trust as God judges a man's heart. However, if/when water becomes available that person is *obliged* through Christ' *command* to be baptized in water.

As a side note: all of Christ's sacaraments involve something earthly and physical when imparting the spiritual grace. This stands to reason as us humans are both physical and spiritual. Consequently, Christ afforded us means of grace that are both physical and spiritual. For example: (1) the sacrament of baptism involves physical water; (2) the sacrament of communion involves bread and wine; (3) the sacrament of annointing involves oil (James 5:14-15); or (4) the sacrament of confirmation involves the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17) et cetera.

I am sure (I hope) no one here would suggest that one can receive communion without bread and wine or receive annointing without oil. In the same way, one cannot be baptised without water.

seamus414
May 23rd 2008, 12:50 PM
By the way, I note that no one has addressed Acts 8:14-17.

It is clear that baptism had not brought the Holy Spirit.

fewarechosen
May 23rd 2008, 01:09 PM
here is an issue i have with some saying "sacrament"

i think this is mostly for you semus

now you give the example of paul laying his hands on the man and you bring up acts 8

now i agree paul and john and pete could do those things-- but remember they also cast out devils and healed the sick and so on.

now i see people in the world baptising others and soing the sacrement-- yet they cast out no devils heal not the sick or none of the other things the apostles did yet they think they can baptise with the holy spirit.

they arent qualified to do such a thing, they do no other works -- so you think they can lay hands on another and give them the holy spirit which is a miracle and a work. yet they cant heal a leper ?

why would i believe such a man ?

so then i also ask who then if water baptism is needed is qualified to give it -- someone who just says hey i can do it

also there is no such thing as communion all christ said was do this in rememberence of me. a simple breaking of bread with fellow companions in rememberence of him.

seamus414
May 23rd 2008, 01:23 PM
here is an issue i have with some saying "sacrament"

i think this is mostly for you semus

now you give the example of paul laying his hands on the man and you bring up acts 8

now i agree paul and john and pete could do those things-- but remember they also cast out devils and healed the sick and so on.

now i see people in the world baptising others and soing the sacrement-- yet they cast out no devils heal not the sick or none of the other things the apostles did yet they think they can baptise with the holy spirit.

they arent qualified to do such a thing, they do no other works -- so you think they can lay hands on another and give them the holy spirit which is a miracle and a work. yet they cant heal a leper ?

why would i believe such a man ?

so then i also ask who then if water baptism is needed is qualified to give it -- someone who just says hey i can do it

also there is no such thing as communion all christ said was do this in rememberence of me. a simple breaking of bread with fellow companions in rememberence of him.


As you know, I disagree with you as your beliefs, as you have described them, have no precedent in Christian teaching. However, I do appreciate your honesty in a previous post when you acknowledged that your beliefs are left field of accepted Christian teaching.

You mistakenly confuse a sacrament of the Church with what appears to be uniquely Apostolic authority. Confirmation is something the Church as *always* done, the Apostolic ministry died out with John.

Acts 13:1-3 demonstrates that the laying on of hands was excersized by non-Apostles. This passages shows ordination but it is the same principle. 1 Tim. 4:14 shows the same thing.

Acts 8:18-21 demonstrates that the authority to Confirm is transferable. Here Simon offers Peter money to receive the authority to confirm and is rebuked by Peter for reducing a sacrament of Christ to money. It is important to notice that Peter does NOT rebuke him for thinking that the authority to confirm can be transfered. As it CAN be transfered, he rebuked him for trying to purchase the authority. Indeed, Peter says it is a gift and that the only reason he is not eligible for the gift is because of the condition of his heart (v21). Transfering this authority is does through the laying on of hands of ordination ad described in Acts 13 and 1 Tim 4 listed above.

fewarechosen
May 23rd 2008, 01:38 PM
ok now you say the ability to "confirm" can be transfered.

so now i would assume you say you know people who have this ability.

how would you know such people have the ability and how would you know if someone just thought they had the ability.

christian teaching is the bible.
things like sacrements, communion and so on are all never spoken of in the bible and are all added onto -they have no real christian backing for that is mans doing.

also you mentioned exception to the rule earlier.
now you admitted that water wasnt needed for the man on the cross next to christ.
the real unbreakable rule is that you must be born of spirit. not that you need h2o.
for if the man next to christ could get into heaven without h2o but he couldnt get into heaven without the spirit.

so the rule is the spirit not the water, real rules of god cant be broken and there are no exceptions.

also remember the catholic church has lots of tradition and traditional teaching.
yet look at the pope and his garb and look at how they like the high seats in the temple.
the pharisees are more numerous now than ever.

seamus414
May 23rd 2008, 01:52 PM
Response to fewarechosen:
ok now you say the ability to "confirm" can be transfered. so now i would assume you say you know people who have this ability. how would you know such people have the ability and how would you know if someone just thought they had the ability.

Yes I know people who have the ability. The CHurch, since the begining, has taken care to specifically authorize people to have authority to administer the sacraments. Transferance of authority is done through the laying on of hands in the Sacrament of Ordination. There are clergy alive today who can trace their Ordination through the laying on of hands to the Apostles.

christian teaching is the bible. things like sacrements, communion and so on are all never spoken of in the bible and are all added onto -they have no real christian backing for that is mans doing.

They are all contained in the Bible. This thread is about where Baptism is in the Bible so I do not have to detail it. I just showed you a place where confirmation is located (Acts 8) , communion is obvious (1 Cor 10 and the Gospels); annointing with oil (James 5), ordination (I have provided some verses in this thread for that); confession (Matt 16 and 18), and marriage (Ephesians). It is all there if you want to see it.

also remember the catholic church has lots of tradition and traditional teaching. yet look at the pope and his garb and look at how they like the high seats in the temple.the pharisees are more numerous now than ever.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, the word "tradition" is not an epithet and does not render something automatically null and void. Indeed, Paul exorts the opposite (2 Thess 2:15). I am certainly no Romanist but I do not find your description above as something "wrong" with the RCC. I also count the RCCs as Christians despte my disagreement with them on a few issues.

fewarechosen
May 23rd 2008, 02:00 PM
Yes I know people who have the ability. The CHurch, since the begining, has taken care to specifically authorize people to have authority to administer the sacraments. Transferance of authority is done through the laying on of hands in the Sacrament of Ordination. There are clergy alive today who can trace their Ordination through the laying on of hands to the Apostles.

this is where me and you differ i think all men are capable of failure so they could have made a mistake in the "ordination" so i put no faith in man - i put my faith in god.

i say that if i am to be saved god can do it - just like the thief on the cross- no man made rule or crude element like water will stop him. for all men are liars but not god.

again my faith is in god -- not people who dress in ungodly costumes and pray in vain repetition

seamus414
May 23rd 2008, 02:06 PM
Yes I know people who have the ability. The CHurch, since the begining, has taken care to specifically authorize people to have authority to administer the sacraments. Transferance of authority is done through the laying on of hands in the Sacrament of Ordination. There are clergy alive today who can trace their Ordination through the laying on of hands to the Apostles.

this is where me and you differ i think all men are capable of failure so they could have made a mistake in the "ordination" so i put no faith in man - i put my faith in god.

i say that if i am to be saved god can do it - just like the thief on the cross- no man made rule or crude element like water will stop him. for all men are liars but not god.

again my faith is in god -- not people who dress in ungodly costumes and pray in vain repetition

We differ not on the power of God relative to man. I think we agree on that. We disagree on the status, authority, existence, of Christ's Church. I believe Christ established a Church on Earth with authority. This Church is real, literal, physical as well as Christ's very own body and bride. As a result, when acting within its scope of authority, it is trustworthy as Christ's own body. I do not trust man I trust God and his own Body and Bride.

Buck shot
May 23rd 2008, 03:26 PM
Whatever one wants to believe about the “new birth” it is but one birth with two essentials – “water and Spirit”. It is not two births – the first from our mother’s womb separated by decades until the second birth - that is not what Holy Writ teaches. It is in fact – one birth just as there is but one baptism - a birth of “water and Spirit” – and it takes place at the point of immersion in water as we are baptized “into Christ” - "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27) .

I was going to repost the scripture but I know you have studied it. In John three Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus that he must be born again. This means that there is truly a second birth. The first was physical and the second spiritual. I won't argue with you as you are firm in your stand. I respect that very much ;)

The only thing I ask that you ponder is that John baptized before the Messiah was known to men. The water baptism is to physically show the world (and ourselves) that we have repented.

Buck shot
May 23rd 2008, 03:45 PM
now i agree paul and john and pete could do those things-- but remember they also cast out devils and healed the sick and so on.

now i see people in the world baptising others and soing the sacrement-- yet they cast out no devils heal not the sick or none of the other things the apostles did yet they think they can baptise with the holy spirit.

they arent qualified to do such a thing, they do no other works -- so you think they can lay hands on another and give them the holy spirit which is a miracle and a work. yet they cant heal a leper ?

why would i believe such a man ?

so then i also ask who then if water baptism is needed is qualified to give it -- someone who just says hey i can do it

also there is no such thing as communion all christ said was do this in rememberence of me. a simple breaking of bread with fellow companions in rememberence of him.

The thing to remember, whatever you want to call water baptism and communion,

Jesus, TOLD us to do them. Folks can twist the wording all they want and self justify not obeying Him because of others faults but when you stand before Him do you think he is going to say, "okay since you were righteous and the others weren't...it's alright that you did not do what I told you to do"

Jesus told us to go forth teaching and baptizing. He does not say to preform miracles as you assume a servant of God should do.
Matt 28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
He commanded them to go and teach us this same command. It is or responsibility to teach and to baptise. It is not a choice of what we think we should do or that we should wait until we KNOW that the leader of a church has been given some great power that others have not, before we step up to serve in church. This is setting yourself up to serve under whoever shows miracles and we need beware Satan can do many miracles.

SoldierOfChrist
May 23rd 2008, 06:34 PM
IN RESPONSE TO SOLDIEROFCHRIST:
Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Thirdly, he said John's baptism was a baptism of repentance - since he does not mention water here, your logic would require that we assume John did not use water with this guy. Fourthly, Acts 19:5 indicates that Paul administered water baptism - there is nothing in the context or in the preponderance of the Bible that would require assuming no water was involved. Acts 19:5 Paul baptised and then, in 19:6, confirmed. It is very clear that there were two actions here not one.


(Acts 19:3-4) My logic assumes they were baptised with water because that is what John's baptism was... not sure why I would need to quote the scripture here as we all know it. How could I assume otherwise as you suggest?

You say "Acts 19:5 indicates that Paul administered water baptism" where does it say that? It is not as you indicate, where does it mention water Acts 19:5-6? It clearly does not!




If water baptism is needed why did they already have Holy Spirit... surely they would not be able to recieve the Spirit without the water baptism as you suggest.

IN the passage you quoted above (Acts 19) it is clear that the person DID NOT have the Holy Spirit - indeed he did not even know one existed.


I was talking about Acts 10:44 here of course if you remove the last part of the paragraph you think the context was for Acts 19 but it was not... so here it is again:

If water baptism is needed why did they already have Holy Spirit... surely they would not be able to recieve the Spirit without the water baptism as you suggest. However we know that they recieved the Holy Spirit before any baptism in water Acts 10:44.

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

However we know that they recieved the Holy Spirit before any baptism in water Acts 10:44. Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.



I think it is a big mistake to draw very broad and definitive assumptions as to how the Spirit works from a vague verse like this. First, it says the Holy Spirit was "on" them not IN them as happens when one believes. This passage appears to indicate that the Holy Spirit imparted the grace of God on these people to give them the ability to turn their hearts toward God and invite the Spirit into their hearts through the Sacrament of Baptism.
I think this thread has gone far enough a drift already and I don't think we should get into the "on vs. in" argument as well... but for the record I see no diffference.



I don't know what "soulds like tradition...to me" means. Firstly of all, the word "tradition" is not an epithet or something that automatically renders something void or false.


Here is what you said:



Your suggestion otherwise has no foundation in ANY Christian practice, is NOT found in Apostolic or Partistic teaching and is a doctrinal innovation.

Your comment was one of tradition and has no scriptural support. Tradition does not make it true either just because it is a tradition!



Baptised in water h2o does NOT make you born again.


I do not recall anyone in this thread suggesting that one is "born again" upon baptism. I also have not seen any definition of what "born again" means - doing so is significant to ensure that people involved in this coversation have the same idea of what the terms mean so we can be on the same page.The OP of this thread inquired of born again.


I was looking for some clarification on this subject. It is my understanding that children do not need to be baptised at an early age, and that as adults we need to be. So we can be born again and forgive our sins.

I will say it again baptised in water h2o does NOT make you born again. Recieving the gift of the Holy Spirit does as you are born of Spirit.

Michael

fewarechosen
May 23rd 2008, 08:20 PM
notice who he is talking to in this thread the ones he already chose and that were apostles not just everyone in the street.
he gathered them to talk to them because they were his chosen and had authority.

he didnt just stand in a crowd of thousands and say ok all go teach

the 11 he chose he gave authority to do such things

not every person he talked to


16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Reynolds357
May 24th 2008, 01:05 AM
Whatever one wants to believe about the “new birth” it is but one birth with two essentials – “water and Spirit”. It is not two births – the first from our mother’s womb separated by decades until the second birth - that is not what Holy Writ teaches. It is in fact – one birth just as there is but one baptism - a birth of “water and Spirit” – and it takes place at the point of immersion in water as we are baptized “into Christ” - "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27) .

The birth of water is the birth of a woman. Galatians 3:37 is not talking about water baptism. It is talking about "baptism into Christ."

Reynolds357
May 24th 2008, 01:08 AM
No – in context Jesus is telling the Jewish leader he must be born of “water and Spirit” – one birth two elements - as stated it is hard to miss. The new birth is one birth with two essentials per Jesus Christ – (1) water and (2) Spirit…”…be baptized (in water)…receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”


Not according to Jesus. Does He say as recorded in the NT– “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved” or does He say as you insist – “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized”?

Mar 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."

You are making a fundamental theological error that you refuse to acknowledge. The are multiple baptisms. Neither scripture you quote above is referring to water baptism.

losthorizon
May 24th 2008, 02:31 AM
I was going to repost the scripture but I know you have studied it. In John three Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus that he must be born again. This means that there is truly a second birth. The first was physical and the second spiritual. I won't argue with you as you are firm in your stand. I respect that very much ;)


All men (saint and sinner) are “born of woman” but Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus that in order for one to enter into the “Kingdom of God” one must first experience something completely new - a “new birth” – ie – a spiritual birth from above (from God). The birth Jesus describes is not two births – ie – one is not to be born of water and then years later be born of the Spirit. The new birth Jesus describes is one birth – ie – the new birth of “water and the Spirit" (one birth to essensials) which takes place simultaneously. And the "water" is exactly that the water of baptism. The church of God has taught this for over 2000 years.

This is plainly illustrated by Peter’s words spoken on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) when he told those who would “put on Christ” that they must...“Repent, and let each of you be baptized (water) in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Spirit) – the new birth is but one birth of “water and the Spirit” not two births. The Spirit of God is given to believers as they are initiated into the faith of Jesus Christ by the God-designed and God-ordained ordinance of baptism in water – “the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit.”
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

losthorizon
May 24th 2008, 02:47 AM
You are making a fundamental theological error that you refuse to acknowledge. The are multiple baptisms. Neither scripture you quote above is referring to water baptism.
Is it your notion that the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission (Mark 16:16) – the one to be taken into all the world and the one that is to be administered by the hands of men is not the ordinance of Christian baptism in water? I don’t think I have heard this one before. If not water then what baptism does Jesus refer to when He commands “belief and baptism” before one is to be saved? Nothing personal but you appear to be the one in error and confusion, my friend. According to Holy Writ Christians today have but "one baptism" (Eph 4:5) and that one baptism is immersion in water - the ordinance of Christian baptism...commanded to all who will be His...
MarK 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."

Brother Mark
May 24th 2008, 02:53 AM
Is it your notion that the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission (Mark 16:16) – the one to be taken into all the world and the one that is to be administered by the hands of men is not the ordinance of Christian baptism in water? I don’t think I have heard this one before. If not water then what baptism does Jesus refer to when He commands “belief and baptism” before one is to be saved? Nothing personal but you appear to be the one in error and confusion, my friend. According to Holy Writ Christians today have but "one baptism" (Eph 4:5) and that one baptism is immersion in water - the ordinance of Christian baptism...commanded to all who will be His...
MarK 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."


I guess if we are going to keep going around that mountain with the same verse, I might as well post the same thing again too. ;)

Sure he does. One cool thing about scripture, it will interpret itself. Let's put the last part of that verse up too shall we.

"but he who has not believed will be damned."

And looking at what Jesus said in Matthew.

Matt 28:18-20

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
NKJV

The command is to make disciples and baptize them. In other words, once one becomes a desciple, then baptize them.

Abraham was saved upon belief and repentance. The thief was saved upon belief and repentance. The publican who cried out "God have mercy on me a sinner" was saved by belief and repentance. The pattern has never changed.

BTW, since you hold so strongly to a literal interpretation of mark 16:16, have you handled any snakes lately?

Mark 16:15-18
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
NKJV

losthorizon
May 24th 2008, 03:33 AM
I guess if we are going to keep going around that mountain with the same verse, I might as well post the same thing again too. ;)

Sure he does. One cool thing about scripture, it will interpret itself. Let's put the last part of that verse up too shall we.

"but he who has not believed will be damned."


Well, BM we have gone around this mountain before as you say but I will be more than happy to go over it one more time just for you. Like all passages in the NT – Mark 16:16 is true as a whole – listen closely this time, please – according to Jesus Christ who designed and instituted baptism - the one who believes and is baptized (immersed in water) “shall be saved” – the one who refuses to believe whether baptized or not baptized "shall be damned". It can’t be any more plain, can it? ;) Let me know if you remain confused and remember this truth – the second clause does not negate the first clause that commands baptism for all believers. It is not a suggestion - it is not optional - it is plainly commanded. The NT does not know of an un-baptized believer.

Btw – the first clause contradicts the non-biblical notion that “faith alone” without the “fruit of faith” is all that is needed for one to be saved. :)
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary

"...in the latter clause baptism is omitted, because it is not simply the want of baptism, but the contemptuous neglect of it, which makes men guilty of damnation..." ~ Matthew Henry Btw – you never answered my question: does your Bible read – (1) “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized”; (2) “he who believes and is not baptized shall be saved”; or (3) “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved”? I will bet your Bible reads the same as mine - #3 - “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved”. Check you version and let me know. Thanks. :)

Brother Mark
May 24th 2008, 03:37 AM
Well, BM we have gone around this mountain before as you say but I will be more than happy to go over it one more time just for you. Like all passages in the NT – Mark 16:16 is true as a whole – listen closely this time, please – according to Jesus Christ who designed and instituted baptism - the one who believes and is baptized (immersed in water) “shall be saved” – the one who refuses to believe whether baptized or not baptized "shall be damned". It can’t be any more plain, can it? ;) Let me know if you remain confused and remember this truth – the second clause does not negate the first clause that commands baptism for all believers. It is not a suggestion - it is not optional - it is plainly commanded. The NT does not know of an un-baptized believer.

Btw – the first clause contradicts the non-biblical notion that “faith alone” without the “fruit of faith” is all that is needed for one to be saved. :)
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary

"...in the latter clause baptism is omitted, because it is not simply the want of baptism, but the contemptuous neglect of it, which makes men guilty of damnation..." ~ Matthew Henry Btw – you never answered my question: does your Bible read – (1) “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized”; (2) “he who believes and is not baptized shall be saved”; or (3) “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved”? I will bet your Bible reads the same as mine - #3 - “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved”. Check you version and let me know. Thanks. :)

So how's your snake handling coming? That next verse in Mark also says that those that believe will handle snakes. You gonna take that as literal as you do your baptism stuff?

The other gospel explains even better the part on baptism. Once one becomes a disciple, then they are baptized.

Ephesians teaches salvation by faith. Romans does as well. I could go on and on. Baptism is after salvation. Not during nor before.

But again, you gonna stop at vs 16?

Mark 16:17-18
17 "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. "
NASB

But as for the answer to your question, all who believe and are baptized are saved. All who believe and are baptized and have red hair are saved too and those that don't believe, are not saved. But baptism and red hair don't have anything to do with the saving part.

losthorizon
May 24th 2008, 04:11 AM
So how's your snake handling coming? That next verse in Mark also says that those that believe will handle snakes. You gonna take that as literal as you do your baptism stuff?


It is all to be taken literally my friend – do you not believe baptism in water is to be taken literally? Paul fulfilled the snake reference when he shook the venomous snake from his hand (Acts 28:5-6). What you remain confused about is the fact that the command to be baptized was to be taken to “all the world” - to all who believe and want to put on Christ but not everyone was commanded to play with snakes – this is really not hard to understand. Do you believe baptism is commanded by Jesus Christ to be obeyed by all Christians? Do you believe all Christians are commanded by the Lord to handle vipers? You don't belong to one of those snake handling sects do you?;)


The other gospel explains even better the part on baptism. Once one becomes a disciple, then they are baptized.
Then your Bible reads – “he who is saved shall be baptized at some time much later”? What version is that, btw – I just checked 14 versions and none render that verse as you insist it must be rendered?


But as for the answer to your question, all who believe and are baptized are saved. All who believe and are baptized and have red hair are saved too and those that don't believe, are not saved. But baptism and red hair don't have anything to do with the saving part.
Then we are in agreement “belief and baptism” come before “shall be saved” per Mark 16:16 regardless of one’s hair color?
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,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21)

Brother Mark
May 24th 2008, 04:17 AM
It is all to be taken literally my friend – do you not believe baptism in water is to be taken literally? Paul fulfilled the snake reference when he shook the venomous snake from his hand (Acts 28:5-6). What you remain confused about is the fact that the command to be baptized was to be taken to “all the world” but not everyone was commanded to play with snakes – this is really not hard to understand. Do you believe baptism is commanded by Jesus Christ to be obeyed by all Christians? Do you believe all Christians are commanded by the Lord to handle vipers? You don't belong to one of those snake handling sects do you?;)

So the snake handling was for one person. :hmm: Yet scripture says they.

Mark 16:18
18 they will pick up serpents
NASB

I think you are being inconsistent. Why take the passage as baptism by water being necessary but not the snake handling?


Then your Bible reads – “he who is saved shall be baptized at some time much later”? What version is that, btw – I just checked 14 versions and none render that verse as you insist it must be rendered?

I didn't say much later. Just after. Salvation = baptism into the body of Christ spiritually. Baptism by water is something that occurs later.


Then we are in agreement “belief and baptism” come before “shall be saved” per Mark 16:16 regardless of one’s hair color?
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,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21)

Nope. We're not in agreement. It's a misunderstanding of the entire book. Matthew explains it as afterwards. Paul takes great pains to show salvation comes through faith.


As I said, those who believe and are baptized and have red hair are saved. Shoot, those who believe and are baptized and jump on one foot are saved too. But the baptizing, red hair and jumping on one foot have nothing to do with salvation. That's why the verse ends "but he that believeth not shall be condemned".

As for the verse in Peter, it explains itself. It's about a good conscience towards God. The flood didn't save Noah. The ark did.

BibleGirl02
May 24th 2008, 04:30 AM
It's not about what age one should be baptized at. The age that one should be baptized at is the age that they come to believe in Jesus Christ.

losthorizon
May 24th 2008, 04:58 AM
So the snake handling was for one person. :hmm: Yet scripture says they.

Mark 16:18
18 they will pick up serpents
NASB

I think you are being inconsistent. Why take the passage as baptism by water being necessary but not the snake handling?



No inconsistency. Is snake handling commanded? Is baptism commanded? If you correctly answer those two questions you will have your consistency. And your answer is...? The Bible is clear – baptism in water is commanded by Jesus Christ and was practiced by His disciples – every conversion in the NT records the believer being baptized in water. No one in the NT was ever commanded to take up serpents – right?;)


I didn't say much later. Just after. Salvation = baptism into the body of Christ spiritually. Baptism by water is something that occurs later.Again – what version are you using that contradicts His plain command – “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved”? Please note again – both belief and baptism precede “shall be saved.


Nope. We're not in agreement. It's a misunderstanding of the entire book. Matthew explains it as afterwards. Paul takes great pains to show salvation comes through faith.
Salvation comes through obedient faith – he who believes and is baptized…Abraham by faith...obeyed...


As for the verse in Peter, it explains itself. It's about a good conscience towards God. The flood didn't save Noah. The ark did.
Wrong - Peter plainly states..."eight souls were saved by water"...no mention of ark here, mate. The water of the flood separated Noah from the wicked world just as baptism – the answer of a good conscience to God – separates the believer from the non-believer when the believer “calls on the name of the Lord” as he is immersed “into Christ Jesus” – “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). And this all happens only because of “the resurrection of Christ” salvation comes only through His blood. Baptism simply points one to the burial and resurrection of the Lord…to His death where He shed His blood…we are to be baptized “into His death” as we are buried in water…and then we rise up out of the water a new creation in Christ (the new birth)…
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (Rom 6:3-5)

losthorizon
May 24th 2008, 05:01 AM
It's not about what age one should be baptized at. The age that one should be baptized at is the age that they come to believe in Jesus Christ.
I think you are stating something the Bible teaches. God bless.

Reynolds357
May 24th 2008, 03:50 PM
Is it your notion that the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission (Mark 16:16) – the one to be taken into all the world and the one that is to be administered by the hands of men is not the ordinance of Christian baptism in water? I don’t think I have heard this one before. If not water then what baptism does Jesus refer to when He commands “belief and baptism” before one is to be saved? Nothing personal but you appear to be the one in error and confusion, my friend. According to Holy Writ Christians today have but "one baptism" (Eph 4:5) and that one baptism is immersion in water - the ordinance of Christian baptism...commanded to all who will be His...
MarK 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."

If I am in error and confusion, I stand in good company. It would be safe to say that 95% of protestant scholars hold my view. I think you would be hard pressed to find one theology textbook used in seminary today that agrees with you opinion. You my friend, are the one who is confused.

Reynolds357
May 24th 2008, 03:56 PM
It is all to be taken literally my friend – do you not believe baptism in water is to be taken literally? Paul fulfilled the snake reference when he shook the venomous snake from his hand (Acts 28:5-6). What you remain confused about is the fact that the command to be baptized was to be taken to “all the world” - to all who believe and want to put on Christ but not everyone was commanded to play with snakes – this is really not hard to understand. Do you believe baptism is commanded by Jesus Christ to be obeyed by all Christians? Do you believe all Christians are commanded by the Lord to handle vipers? You don't belong to one of those snake handling sects do you?;)


Then your Bible reads – “he who is saved shall be baptized at some time much later”? What version is that, btw – I just checked 14 versions and none render that verse as you insist it must be rendered?


Then we are in agreement “belief and baptism” come before “shall be saved” per Mark 16:16 regardless of one’s hair color?
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,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21)

I think you could go back to my earlier post and find some wisdom useful to this argument. Did I not say that most denominations I knew of today that believed water baptism was necessary for salvation also handled snakes? I did make that statement. The people who share your belief, as a whole, also contextually murder the passage on drinking poison and handling snakes. If my doctrine harmonized with that of a snakehandler, and disharmonized with 99% of the church, I think I would reevaluate my doctrine.

Brother Mark
May 24th 2008, 05:02 PM
I think you could go back to my earlier post and find some wisdom useful to this argument. Did I not say that most denominations I knew of today that believed water baptism was necessary for salvation also handled snakes? I did make that statement. The people who share your belief, as a whole, also contextually murder the passage on drinking poison and handling snakes. If my doctrine harmonized with that of a snakehandler, and disharmonized with 99% of the church, I think I would reevaluate my doctrine.

Yea. It's amazing some camp out on vs 16 and completely ignore vs 17-18. Baptism applies to the whole world but snake handling doesn't. I wonder if Paul being baptized means that vs 16 was fulfilled as well. ;)

You make some good points.

losthorizon
May 24th 2008, 06:57 PM
If I am in error and confusion, I stand in good company. It would be safe to say that 95% of protestant scholars hold my view. I think you would be hard pressed to find one theology textbook used in seminary today that agrees with you opinion. You my friend, are the one who is confused.
There is no “if” involved here my friend – anyone who insists that the ordinance of baptism commanded by Jesus in the Great Commission is not water baptism remains in complete confusion. Those 3000 penitent believers on the day of Pentecost asked the most important question we can ask – “What shall we do to be saved?” Peter didn’t say there is nothing we can DO to be saved. No, Peter proclaimed the full gospel of Christ…those who are to be Christ’s disciples MUST DO SOMETHING they must BELIEVE, they must REPENT and they must be BAPTIZED and then their sins will be remitted and they will receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

It can’t be any plainer – “then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” Those 3000 souls obeyed through faith the gospel of Christ and that gospel includes the command to be baptized in water for the remission of sins - sins are not remitted until one (through faith) obeys his Lord in baptism.
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:37-38 (KJV) You are also making two critical errors in judgment – one historical and one logical. You are in error with your knee-jerk (unsubstantiated) assertion that “95% of protestant scholars” agree with your silly notion that Jesus did not command baptism in water. As they say – talk is cheap and as of now you have provided no evidence to support your notion. Do you have any? You also commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to majority). If we are to follow your logic we should all become non-Christians because the majority of the world population is non-Christian. If you can muster up any real support for your position then post it for review. :)

losthorizon
May 24th 2008, 07:06 PM
Yea. It's amazing some camp out on vs 16 and completely ignore vs 17-18. Baptism applies to the whole world but snake handling doesn't.


I think what is even more amazing are those (you) who insist that we ignore the clear command of Jesus Christ to “believe and be baptized” and then one will be saved. And the only “argument” you can give to ignore His words is your silly notion that we must handle vipers if we must be baptized – something foreign to Holy Writ. You must be out of ammunition for your weak position as you have not addressed my earlier questions:

Is snake handling commanded by God? Is baptism commanded by God? The Bible is clear – baptism in water is commanded by Jesus Christ and was practiced by His disciples – every conversion in the NT records the believer being baptized in water. No one in the NT was ever commanded to take up serpents – right...;)

Brother Mark
May 24th 2008, 07:10 PM
I think what is even more amazing is those (you) who insist that we ignore the clear command of Jesus Christ to “believe and be baptized” and then one will be saved. And the only “argument” you can give to ignore His words is that we must handle vipers if we must be baptized – something foreign to Holy Writ. You must be out of ammunition for your weak position as you have not addressed my earlier questions:

Is snake handling commanded by God? Is baptism commanded by God? The Bible is clear – baptism in water is commanded by Jesus Christ and was practiced by His disciples – every conversion in the NT records the believer being baptized in water. No one in the NT was ever commanded to take up serpents – right...;)

Nah. I just poke my head in enough to show others the inconsistency of your arguments. There are plenty of scriptures that show baptism isn't necessary. No need to go round that mountain with you over and over again. For those seeking with an honest heart, they've already seen the inconsistencies and can read for themselves Matthew, Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, and many other books.

The thief was saved without baptism. Abraham was saved without baptism. The publican was saved without baptism. Salvation has always been the same as Paul showed us in Galatians.

So, go ahead and play with those serpents. For God said that sign would follow those that believe. So I suppose those that take vs 16 literally will play with serpents because Jesus said they would. Unless of course, that is a sign that won't follow and Jesus is lying. Perhaps he means something else.

losthorizon
May 24th 2008, 07:23 PM
Nah. I just poke my head in enough to show others the inconsistency of your arguments. There are plenty of scriptures that show baptism isn't necessary. No need to go round that mountain with you over and over again. For those seeking with an honest heart, they've already seen the inconsistencies and can read for themselves Matthew, Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, and many other books.

The thief was saved without baptism. Abraham was saved without baptism. The publican was saved without baptism. Salvation has always been the same as Paul showed us in Galatians.

So, go ahead and play with those serpents. For God said that sign would follow those that believe. So I suppose those that take vs 16 literally will play with serpents because Jesus said they would. Unless of course, that is a sign that won't follow and Jesus is lying. Perhaps he means something else.
You can't answer those questions can you? As stated - you must be out of ammunition for your weak position. The thief and the publican lived and died under the Old Testament. Christians live under the New Testament and the NT includes the clear command given by the Lord AFTER His resurrection (after the death of the Testator) – to go…preach…baptize …”he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” You are free to ignore His words but you do so at your own risk. Btw those words of Jesus are not contradictory to any other passage in the NT – "For God is not the author of confusion..."

Reynolds357
May 25th 2008, 01:37 PM
There is no “if” involved here my friend – anyone who insists that the ordinance of baptism commanded by Jesus in the Great Commission is not water baptism remains in complete confusion. Those 3000 penitent believers on the day of Pentecost asked the most important question we can ask – “What shall we do to be saved?” Peter didn’t say there is nothing we can DO to be saved. No, Peter proclaimed the full gospel of Christ…those who are to be Christ’s disciples MUST DO SOMETHING they must BELIEVE, they must REPENT and they must be BAPTIZED and then their sins will be remitted and they will receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

It can’t be any plainer – “then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” Those 3000 souls obeyed through faith the gospel of Christ and that gospel includes the command to be baptized in water for the remission of sins - sins are not remitted until one (through faith) obeys his Lord in baptism.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:37-38 (KJV)
You are also making two critical errors in judgment – one historical and one logical. You are in error with your knee-jerk (unsubstantiated) assertion that “95% of protestant scholars” agree with your silly notion that Jesus did not command baptism in water. As they say – talk is cheap and as of now you have provided no evidence to support your notion. Do you have any? You also commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to majority). If we are to follow your logic we should all become non-Christians because the majority of the world population is non-Christian. If you can muster up any real support for your position then post it for review. :)

You have a style of debate that is to be polite, deceptive. I Never said "Jeus did not command water baptism." What I said was that water baptism was not a necessary element of Salvation. I would politely request that you quote me accurately. Please refrain from twisting my words. My statements are clear. They need no change. I do not think you will find one major seminary or theological institution that agrees with your notion of water baptism being necessary to salvation. The Word is also clear on this subject. The problem lies in the fact that you have never leared the most basic theological concept that there are multiple "baptisms" mentioned in the Word of God. Water baptism is merely one of them. Every time you see baptism, you error in your assumption that it is in reference to water baptism. Theology 101.

Reynolds357
May 25th 2008, 01:39 PM
I think what is even more amazing are those (you) who insist that we ignore the clear command of Jesus Christ to “believe and be baptized” and then one will be saved. And the only “argument” you can give to ignore His words is your silly notion that we must handle vipers if we must be baptized – something foreign to Holy Writ. You must be out of ammunition for your weak position as you have not addressed my earlier questions:

Is snake handling commanded by God? Is baptism commanded by God? The Bible is clear – baptism in water is commanded by Jesus Christ and was practiced by His disciples – every conversion in the NT records the believer being baptized in water. No one in the NT was ever commanded to take up serpents – right...;)

Both myself and Mark have given you clear answers as to what "baptism" is referenced in the verses you quote. You choose to ignore the answers. We have both given them.

Reynolds357
May 25th 2008, 01:42 PM
Yea. It's amazing some camp out on vs 16 and completely ignore vs 17-18. Baptism applies to the whole world but snake handling doesn't. I wonder if Paul being baptized means that vs 16 was fulfilled as well. ;)

You make some good points.

You have also made excellent points in the discussion. It is amazing to me that some make the basic error assuming "baptism" always references immersion.
:D

losthorizon
May 25th 2008, 07:30 PM
You have a style of debate that is to be polite, deceptive. I Never said "Jeus did not command water baptism." What I said was that water baptism was not a necessary element of Salvation. I would politely request that you quote me accurately. Please refrain from twisting my words.

Are you sure - look at your post #43 - is the baptism commanded by Jesus immersion in water - is there a difference between baptism in water and the baptism that puts one "into Christ"? The truth is Jesus – the one who designed and instituted the ordinance of baptism – clearly says that baptism in water (just like belief) is an essential and necessary part of the gospel of grace and both belief and baptism are to take place BEFORE one “shall be saved”. Peter reinforces this same truth when he delivers the first gospel message on the first Pentecost after the Lord’s resurrection - telling those 3000 believing Jews what they must do to be saved - they must “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. Here we see belief, repentance and baptism as requirements BEFORE one’s sins are remitted.


I do not think you will find one major seminary or theological institution that agrees with your notion of water baptism being necessary to salvation. The Word is also clear on this subject. The problem lies in the fact that you have never leared the most basic theological concept that there are multiple "baptisms" mentioned in the Word of God. Water baptism is merely one of them. Every time you see baptism, you error in your assumption that it is in reference to water baptism. Theology 101.
Okay – let’s do a little Theology 101. I'll present my scholars - you present yours. Let me take you back to your post #43 where you were responding to my reference to Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” Regarding that command made by the Lord you posted:
Originally Posted by Reynolds357
Does your Bible say "baptized in water?" No, it says "baptized." Let us revert back to Theology 101 for just a minute. There is more than one baptism. The batism referenced here is to baptism in Christ, not baptism in water. Baptism in water is symbolic of baptism in Christ. Romans 6:3-5 shows you the baptism into Christ. Baptism in water is merely a powerless symbol of that the Blood of Christ and the mighty work of the Cross has already done in your life.
Now I don’t want to be accused of misquoting you or misrepresenting your words so please keep me honest. I understand your post to say that the command given by Jesus Christ to “go…’preach…and baptize” is not a reference to *water baptism*. Is that correct? You also appear to be suggesting that Paul’s’ reference to the baptism that puts one “into Christ Jesus” in Romans 6:3-5 also has nothing to do with *immersion in water*. Is that correct? You also accuse me of seeing “water” in every reference to baptism in the NT? Is that correct? You also make the silly (and incorrect) assertion that 95% of biblical scholars agree with your notions as stated above. Is that correct? I don't want to misrepresent your words. :)

Now for a little Baptism 101 –

Regarding Mark:16:16 and its parallel passage in Mat. 28: 19,20 - I do not know of a NT scholar who denies the baptism commanded by Christ in the Great Commission is anything but a reference to baptism in water. I would ask that you supply even one reputable scholar who teaches otherwise. Baptism in water has always been the initiatory rite that puts one “into Christ” – into the Lord’s church and it signifies the work done by the Holy Spirit to remit the sins of believers by the blood of Christ as one is immersed (buried) in the water (into His death) - baptized “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. Have you been baptized into the death of Jesus Christ? If you have, please show by scripture when and how this took place.
Baptism, Christian

An ordinance immediately instituted by Christ (Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20), and designed to be observed in the church, like that of the Supper, "till he come." The words "baptize" and "baptism" are simply Greek words transferred into English. It means to dip a thing into an element or liquid...Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the two symbolical ordinances of the New Testament. The Supper represents the work of Christ, and Baptism the work of the Spirit. As in the Supper a small amount of bread and wine used in this ordinance exhibits in symbol the great work of Christ, so in Baptism the work of the Holy Spirit is fully seen in the water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. ~ Easton's Bible Dictionary
Regarding your reference to baptism in Romans 6 not being immersion in water again, I would ask that you submit any scholar who teaches that this baptism in not an immersion in water - ie - the ordinace of Christian baptism. The truth of the matter is the baptism of Romans 6 is a direct refernce to the believer being *baptized in water* – baptized into His death where He shed His blood - the very blood that remits our sins. When one is immersed in water he/she is ingrafted into the death of Christ and at the same time one is ingrafted into the body of Christ – the Lord’s church. There is no other way to be added to the body of Christ except through obedience to the command of the Lord to be immersed in water – “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved”. We must do as Paul was commanded to do – “…arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” Act 22:16 .

When one goes under the watery grave of baptism he dies to the corruption of his past sins and comes up out of the water a new man “in Christ Jesus” – “Born of water" (John 3:5)….Planted together in the likeness of his death" (Romans 6:5)…"Ye were also raised with him." (Col. 2:12)…"Raised to walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:4). Have you been "raised to walk in newness of life"?
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" (Rom 6:3)

“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col 2:12)

"Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life" ~ J. B. Lightfoot, Commentary on Col. 2:12).

"When ye were immersed into the water of baptism, ye were ingrafted into the death of Christ; that is the immersion of your body into water was a sign that ye ought to be ingrafted into Christ" ~ Ulrich Zwingle on Romans 6:3

"Are ye ignorant that we were baptized into his death? To those who are not ignorant the sign of baptism speaks of death. To be baptised means to be immersed, to be sunk in a foreign element, to be covered by a tide of purification. The man who emerges from the water is not the same man who entered it. One man dies and another is born. The baptised person is to not be identified with the man who died." ~ Karl Barth, "Commentary on Romans"

"For this cause the Lord, who is the Dispenser of our life, gave us the covenant of baptism, containing a type of life and death, for the water fulfils the image of death, and the Spirit gives us the earnest of life." ~ Basil on Baptism

Reynolds357
May 26th 2008, 02:20 PM
Are you sure - look at your post #43 - is the baptism commanded by Jesus immersion in water - is there a difference between baptism in water and the baptism that puts one "into Christ"? The truth is Jesus – the one who designed and instituted the ordinance of baptism – clearly says that baptism in water (just like belief) is an essential and necessary part of the gospel of grace and both belief and baptism are to take place BEFORE one “shall be saved”. Peter reinforces this same truth when he delivers the first gospel message on the first Pentecost after the Lord’s resurrection - telling those 3000 believing Jews what they must do to be saved - they must “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. Here we see belief, repentance and baptism as requirements BEFORE one’s sins are remitted.



Post #43. This baptism is referring to baptism into the body of Christ.

Reynolds357
May 26th 2008, 02:33 PM
Baptism, Christian


An ordinance immediately instituted by Christ (Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20), and designed to be observed in the church, like that of the Supper, "till he come." The words "baptize" and "baptism" are simply Greek words transferred into English. It means to dip a thing into an element or liquid...Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the two symbolical ordinances of the New Testament. The Supper represents the work of Christ, and Baptism the work of the Spirit. As in the Supper a small amount of bread and wine used in this ordinance exhibits in symbol the great work of Christ, so in Baptism the work of the Holy Spirit is fully seen in the water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. ~ Easton's Bible Dictionary


This definition is not an incorrect definition, but it is an incomplete definition. It is simply impossible for this definition to fit Matther 20:22-23, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Hebrews 6:2 (note the word baptisms), Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16, I cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27.
These verses can not be explained by the definition you post. You have posted the definition of water baptism, not baptism.

As to protestant scholars who hold that Water Baptism is not necessary element of Salvation the list is long. Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Haggin, Oral Roberts, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, Hal Lindsey, Dave Breese, Ed Hindson, D. James Kennedy, Bruce Metzer, Lewis Sperry, Bob Wilkin, Matthew Henry, Jimmy Swaggart, E. Calvin Beisner, O. Wilburn Swaim, and James Patrick Holding are all scholars I can quickly think of that hold water baptism is not necessary to salvation. All hold it is a symbol of the work that was already done within. I am away from home at the moment, but have extensive reference material in my library from which I can provide numerous scholars who hold this same view.

losthorizon
May 26th 2008, 02:37 PM
Post #43. This baptism is referring to baptism into the body of Christ.
And the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 is the rite of baptism that puts one into Christ. It is administered by the hands of men…”go…teach…baptize” per Jesus Christ in the Great Commission. He is clearly speaking about the ordinance of Christian baptism commanded for ALL believers and administered by the hands of His disciples – “and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38).



"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" ~ Jesus Christ

"The rite of baptism in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water, and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ." ~ A. S. Peake, The Expositor's Greek Testament, on Col. 2:12

losthorizon
May 26th 2008, 02:42 PM
...You have posted the definition of water baptism, not baptism.
Huh - isn't immersion in water by definition - "baptism"? I don't think your "95% of the scholars" would disagree with the definition I provided - it is pretty much a standard meaning. BAPTIZO: to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge...Please elaborate a bit to clarify what appears to be confusion on your part. Thanks. :)

losthorizon
May 26th 2008, 03:00 PM
Post #43. This baptism is referring to baptism into the body of Christ.
Is it your notion that the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission (Mark 16; Mat 28) is not baptism in water? Do you have any of your "95% of the scholars" who agree with your notion? Do you believe that baptism in water is commanded by God? If it is commanded by Him is it an option at our convenience that maybe we should obey if we feel like it or must that command be obeyed? Must we obey from the heart the doctrine delivered by the Holy Spirit through God’s inspired writers of the NT? Doesn't the doctrine once delivered to the saints include the command to be immersed in water - "he that beleives and is baptized shall be saved"?
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Rom 6:1618 )

losthorizon
May 26th 2008, 05:34 PM
...As to protestant scholars who hold that Water Baptism is not necessary element of Salvation the list is long. Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Haggin, Oral Roberts, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, Hal Lindsey, Dave Breese, Ed Hindson, D. James Kennedy, Bruce Metzer, Lewis Sperry, Bob Wilkin, Matthew Henry, Jimmy Swaggart, E. Calvin Beisner, O. Wilburn Swaim, and James Patrick Holding are all scholars I can quickly think of that hold water baptism is not necessary to salvation. All hold it is a symbol of the work that was already done within. I am away from home at the moment, but have extensive reference material in my library from which I can provide numerous scholars who hold this same view.
Are the likes of Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Haggin, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, etc ,etc really qualified scholars or are they merely “little gods” out to get your grandma's money and only pretend to be disciples of Christ- ie- are they not simply "wolves in sheep’s clothing"? Whatever they are - scholars they are not.
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15).When you have time to go through you references at your home please provide even one legitimate scholar who interprets the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission to by anything but immersion in water - the ordinance of Christian baptism.

Reynolds357
May 26th 2008, 08:05 PM
Are the likes of Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Haggin, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, etc ,etc really qualified scholars or are they merely “little gods” out to get your grandma's money and only pretend to be disciples of Christ- ie- are they not simply "wolves in sheep’s clothing"? Whatever they are - scholars they are not.

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15).
When you have time to go through you references at your home please provide even one legitimate scholar who interprets the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission to by anything but immersion in water - the ordinance of Christian baptism.

You did not like 1/3rd of the list I proviede, what about the other 2/3?

Reynolds357
May 26th 2008, 08:06 PM
And the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 is the rite of baptism that puts one into Christ. It is administered by the hands of men…”go…teach…baptize” per Jesus Christ in the Great Commission. He is clearly speaking about the ordinance of Christian baptism commanded for ALL believers and administered by the hands of His disciples – “and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38).


"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" ~ Jesus Christ

"The rite of baptism in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water, and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ." ~ A. S. Peake, The Expositor's Greek Testament, on Col. 2:12

Deal with the scriptures in post 134. Immersion is one baptism. There are multiple baptisms dealt with in scripture.

Reynolds357
May 26th 2008, 08:08 PM
Huh - isn't immersion in water by definition - "baptism"? I don't think your "95% of the scholars" would disagree with the definition I provided - it is pretty much a standard meaning. BAPTIZO: to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge...Please elaborate a bit to clarify what appears to be confusion on your part. Thanks. :)

I have no confusion. You still refuse to see that there are "baptisms" plural. Again post 134.

Reynolds357
May 26th 2008, 08:10 PM
Is it your notion that the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission (Mark 16; Mat 28) is not baptism in water? Do you have any of your "95% of the scholars" who agree with your notion? Do you believe that baptism in water is commanded by God? If it is commanded by Him is it an option at our convenience that maybe we should obey if we feel like it or must that command be obeyed? Must we obey from the heart the doctrine delivered by the Holy Spirit through God’s inspired writers of the NT? Doesn't the doctrine once delivered to the saints include the command to be immersed in water - "he that beleives and is baptized shall be saved"?

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Rom 6:1618 )


The command to immerse in water is clearly given. However, it is not essential to salvation. You twist words at your convenience. I never said we were not comanded to immerse in water. What I said was it is not an element of salvation. Faith and Faith alone is necessary for salvation; Not water baptism. We are commanded to do many things in scripture that are not elements of Salvation.

more excellent way
May 26th 2008, 09:22 PM
Simply eating of the 'bread of life' is not enough, we should also 'drink of The Lord's spirit and have "rivers of living water" (John 7:38, tears of sorrow in our heart/conscience) so that we "neither thirst", Revelation 7:16).

Everything before the spirit was given is not a valid/complete means of devotion/worship (John 7:39), we need to learn the "depths of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10) so we can also have the "better things" that belong to salvation (Hebrews 6:9) and retain our salvation with the GUARANTEE (2 Corinthians 1:22 and 5:5, Ephesians 1:14).

Everybody on earth has salvation AVAILABLE to them, but living a holy lifestyle is the the guarantte of eternal life.
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=all+flesh+shall+se e+salvation&t=RSV&sf=5

All verses are from the RSV (the most understandable and accurate).

losthorizon
May 26th 2008, 11:16 PM
You did not like 1/3rd of the list I proviede, what about the other 2/3?
With the exception of Matthew Henry - not very impressed.


I have no confusion. You still refuse to see that there are "baptisms" plural. Again post 134.
The NT speaks of many baptism but Christians today have but “ONE BAPTISM” that is applicable to ALL Christians until He comes again and that one baptism is the ordinance in water as instituted by the Lord - just as the Supper was instituted by Him – per Ephesians 4 –
“…one body…one Spirit…one Lord…one faith…one baptism…one God…”
Let me go back to your post 134 as you request and let’s look at your recommended passage - Galatians 3:27 and see what Matthew Henry (one of you approved scholars) says about the baptism in that passage. Please note – you insist the baptism in that passage - the baptism that puts one “into Christ” is not a reference to immersion in water – and this is where your confusion continues because you remain in error. Please note Henry correctly identifies the baptism in this passage as the ordinance of Christian baptism – ie – immersion in water. He states – “Baptism is now the solemn rite of our admission into the Christian church”. It is by faith that one is baptized (immersed in water) into the Lord’s church the “body of Christ – baptized “into Christ". He also correctly states that the rite of baptism in water is not from man but is “appointed” by Jesus Christ – “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved…” It is not a suggestion from the Lord - it is a command.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal 3:27 )

(Gal_3:27), was what they professed in baptism; for he adds, As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Having in baptism professed their faith in him, they were thereby devoted to him, and had, as it were, put on his livery, and declared themselves to be his servants and disciples; and having thus become the members of Christ, they were through him owned and accounted as the children of God. Here note, First, Baptism is now the solemn rite of our admission into the Christian church, as circumcision was into that of the Jews. Our Lord Jesus appointed it to be so, in the commission he gave to his apostles (Mat_28:19), and accordingly it was their practice to baptize those whom they had discipled to the Christian faith... ~ Matthew Henry

The command to immerse in water is clearly given. However, it is not essential to salvation. You twist words at your convenience. I never said we were not comanded to immerse in water. What I said was it is not an element of salvation.
Let me post the words of Jesus and the inspired writers one more time and you tell me where I am “twisting words”…
“He who believes and is baptized shall be saved…repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins… arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord...” All of these passages plainly teach that belief, repentance and baptism all come before “shall be saved” - this makes all three essensial to the gospel of grace. Am I really twisting or is the truth as presented in the NT contrary to what you have been taught?

Let me ask you one more time for clarification – is the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission – “go…preach…baptize” a reference to the ordinance of baptism – ie – immersion in water?

SoldierOfChrist
May 27th 2008, 01:55 AM
losthorizon I find it amazing that you just cannot understand this? Besides the scripture there are many witnesses like I that tell you they have had both baptisms. One that did nothing within us, the baptism of John and another that enabled us to bee born from above... ie born again. As others have already said, this is the living water not h2o. I can only believe you speak from what you know and cannot understand what we know.

You have never produced any scripture to back up your statement that we are commanded to be baptized in water. You quote scripture and then give your interpretation of the scripture and never backs up what you say it does, that we must be baptized in water h2o.

But let’s say you maybe correct for a moment and you are only commanded to be baptized in water.

Now what I will tell you there is something more available and it is fellowship with the lord knowing him and him knowing you. The kingdom is within you and washing with water on your outside does not make you clean on the inside. In Ezekiel 36:25-28 who was the "I"? It was God not man! What day do you think he was talking about… OT or NT or after John? One cometh after me...

Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Ezekiel 36:28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Read those lines carefully as we understand what they mean and you should also. Is the teacher the Holy Spirit silent within us? NO! We need not that any man teach us for the holy Spirit will teach us all things... Tell us how he teaches you?

Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Now there are things we are commanded and things we do out of love for our father and having him with us is out of love. Because we love God and he loves us he dwells within us... not because 1 + 2 = 3! Yes he loved us first and forgave us and we know him. The love that he has shown us no man can understand but the man that God has shown his love to. My words cannot describe this but his Word can.

You have a choice to be born again as he said you must be to see the kingdom.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Dunked in water h2o is NOT born again! :B

Michael

losthorizon
May 27th 2008, 03:18 AM
losthorizon I find it amazing that you just cannot understand this? Besides the scripture there are many witnesses like I that tell you they have had both baptisms. One that did nothing within us, the baptism of John and another that enabled us to bee born from above... ie born again. As others have already said, this is the living water not h2o. I can only believe you speak from what you know and cannot understand what we know.

You have never produced any scripture to back up your statement that we are commanded to be baptized in water. You quote scripture and then give your interpretation of the scripture and never backs up what you say it does, that we must be baptized in water h2o.

Well Michael – I understand where you are coming from and you are coming from error regarding the ordinance of baptism and I have provided scripture to back up the command from God that one must be baptized (immersed) in water – “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved”. What baptism do you think Jesus is discussing in that passage? Paul reinforces the essential nature of baptism in water in Romans 6:3-5 when he tells us that immersion in water is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new man – ie- “born of water” - the man who comes up out of the watery grave of baptism is not the same man who entered the water – he is now a “new creation in Christ Jesus”. His past sins have been ""washed away" by the blood of Christ at the point of baptism in water (baptism into His death) and this transformation is completed by the operation of the Holy Spirit (ie - "born of water and the Spirit") – “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” This new birth that is required before one can enter the kigdom of God. This is not a hard concept. :)
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection” Romans 6:3-5.Have you been baptized into the death of Jesus Christ? If you have been when and how was this done - scripture please?

SoldierOfChrist
May 27th 2008, 04:14 AM
Have you been baptized into the death of Jesus Christ? If you have been when and how was this done - scripture please?

I will answer you when you answer me: Tell us how he (the Holy Spirit) teaches you?

You cannot take the born of Spirit out the born of water in this verse "born of water and the Spirit".

Can you answer, who was the "I" in Ezekiel 36:25-28?

Michael

Reynolds357
May 27th 2008, 12:47 PM
With the exception of Matthew Henry - not very impressed.

Let me go back to your post 134 as you request and let’s look at your recommended passage - Galatians 3:27 and see what Matthew Henry (one of you approved scholars) says about the baptism in that passage. Please note – you insist the baptism in that passage - the baptism that puts one “into Christ” is not a reference to immersion in water – and this is where your confusion continues because you remain in error. Please note Henry correctly identifies the baptism in this passage as the ordinance of Christian baptism – ie – immersion in water. He states – “Baptism is now the solemn rite of our admission into the Christian church”. It is by faith that one is baptized (immersed in water) into the Lord’s church the “body of Christ – baptized “into Christ". He also correctly states that the rite of baptism in water is not from man but is “appointed” by Jesus Christ – “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved…” It is not a suggestion from the Lord - it is a command.


Baptism into the body of Christ. Faith and Faith alone baptizes into the body of Christ. Immersion in water is the outward symbol of the work that has already been done within. Baptism in water is a symbol. It has no saving or redeeming force in and of itsself.

Reynolds357
May 27th 2008, 12:55 PM
With the exception of Matthew Henry - not very impressed.


“He who believes and is baptized shall be saved…repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins… arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord...”
All of these passages plainly teach that belief, repentance and baptism all come before “shall be saved” - this makes all three essensial to the gospel of grace. Am I really twisting or is the truth as presented in the NT contrary to what you have been taught?

Let me ask you one more time for clarification – is the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission – “go…preach…baptize” a reference to the ordinance of baptism – ie – immersion in water?

Look at Acts 19:4. You claim in your previous post that there is "one baptim" in the new testament. Again, water baptism is the outward sign of what has already occurred inside. (Same is still true for the point you try to make above.) "Go...preach...baptize" does refer in part to water baptism. You will preach and baptize(in water), the outward sign of what has happened within. Salvation brings about the baptism into the body, water baptism is the outward sign of obedience.

I have wearied of this discussion. When I return to my office, I will post the list of scholars who agree with my point as I told you I would do. Other than that, I am finished. My point has been stated and your point has been stated. At this junction, we are merely running in circles and getting nowhere.

seamus414
May 27th 2008, 03:56 PM
RESPONSE TO SoldierOfChrist:
My logic assumes they were baptised with water because that is what John's baptism was... not sure why I would need to quote the scripture
here as we all know it. How could I assume otherwise as you suggest?

My assumption is essentially that in your reading of the baptism administered by Paul, you appear to assume that the baptism that is being referred to is without water as water is not mentioned in the passage. Equally so, in the passage that referencs to John's baptism, no water is mentioned however you DO assume water is involved in THAT baptism. Your logic is inconsistent. The absence of the word "water" in the passage does not, by definition, mean that no water was involved in the baptism.

You say "Acts 19:5 indicates that Paul administered water baptism" where does it say that? It is not as you indicate, where does it mention water Acts 19:5-6? It clearly does not!

I was talking about Acts 10:44 here of course if you remove the last part of the paragraph you think the context was for Acts 19 but it was not... so here it is again: If water baptism is needed why did they already have Holy Spirit... surely they would not be able to recieve the Spirit without the water baptism as you suggest. However we know that they recieved the Holy Spirit before any baptism in water Acts 10:44. Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. However we know that they recieved the Holy Spirit before any baptism in water Acts 10:44. Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Well I think your question of "need" is answered with Peter's automatic response in v47 which was essentially "get these people water baptized!" as that is what CHrist commanded. Anything Christ commands is "needed" by any definition.

I think this thread has gone far enough a drift already and I don't think we should get into the "on vs. in" argument as well... but for the record I see no diffference.

Well that is an important distinction in the verbiage that makes a world of theological difference. As it makes a difference, I do not think it is appropriate to merely dismiss it in one sentence. There is a difference between God's grace on a person and that person letting the grace in. It is sort of like the idiom about a horse and drinking. The Holy Spirit on a person is God leading you to the water. Allowing the Holy Spirit in provokes one to drink.

Here is what you said:
Your comment was one of tradition and has no scriptural support. Tradition does not make it true either just because it is a tradition!

I highly disagree with this statement. "Tradition" and "Scriptural support" are not necessarily opposites. (2 Thess. 2:15). One of the drums I tend to beat a lot is the acknowledgement that the Bible is not read in a vacuum. If you have three people read the Bible you will get 3 different ideas as to what it means - the raging debates on this board are a testimony to this fact! Each person sincerely reads the Bible, believes they are led by the Holy Spirit, and can spout a million "proof texts" in support of their position. Which is correct? Although people wish to deny it, it is impossible to read the Scriptures without looking through a lense of some sort - whether that be the lense of Luther, Calvin, one's pastor, oneself, or tradition. For me, looking at how the earliest Christians read the BIble, what they believed, and how they practiced their faith is the safest and surest lense through which to read the Bible. So doing will force you to conclude that your reading of the Bible has no place in historical Christian teaching and practice but is, instead, arelatively recent doctrinal innovation.

The OP of this thread inquired of born again.

I will say it again baptised in water h2o does NOT make you born again. Recieving the gift of the Holy Spirit does as you are born of Spirit.

Michael

A old priest taught me something very profound many years ago. He said that he can tell me for certain where Christ is present but he cannot tell me where Christ is not present. We know for certain that Christ is present in the communion, in the water of baptism, in the oil of annointing, in the laying on of hands in confirmation or ordination, or when two or three are gathered in his name in prayer, et cetera. We simply cannot know for certain where Christ is not (with the obvious exception: sin). If someone reports being "baptised with the Spirit" there is no real way for the community of believers to know whether this is true. Baptizing that person with water as Christ commanded gives the Christian community, and that person, assurance through the sacrament established by Jesus just for this purpose, that the Spirit is really and truly present.

seamus414
May 27th 2008, 03:57 PM
Look at Acts 19:4. You claim in your previous post that there is "one baptim" in the new testament. Again, water baptism is the outward sign of what has already occurred inside. (Same is still true for the point you try to make above.) "Go...preach...baptize" does refer in part to water baptism. You will preach and baptize(in water), the outward sign of what has happened within. Salvation brings about the baptism into the body, water baptism is the outward sign of obedience.

INdeed, as I have stated before, baptism, as a sacrament, is an outward and physical sign of an inward and spiritual grace.

fewarechosen
May 27th 2008, 11:33 PM
just remember - its fact that the man on the cross next to christ was not dunked in h20 for it was not needed.

christ did not say today you will be with me in paradise but only if someone dunks you in water really quick or else i cant save you.

so who am i to go against christ and say h2o is needed when he by his very example showed me it was not.

the kingdom is within

our outward sign should be how we treat eachother not some vain ritual

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 01:09 AM
I will answer you when you answer me: Tell us how he (the Holy Spirit) teaches you?

You cannot take the born of Spirit out the born of water in this verse "born of water and the Spirit".

Can you answer, who was the "I" in Ezekiel 36:25-28?

Michael
Sure Michael – I’ll be happy to answer your questions first then you can answer mine. The Holy Spirit teaches through the inspired word of God – “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17).

For your second question allow me post the passage:
Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. (Eze 36:25-28) In an historical setting this passage includes the promise from God spoken through His prophet addressed to the "kingdom of Judah" in relationship to their recent captivity at the hands of the Babylonian Empire and the destruction of Jerusalem (586 B.C.). The phrase “I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols” is a reminder to them that they had forsaken their God as they “went whoring” after other gods (idolatry). Because of their sin God had judged them and found them wanting and He was calling them to repentance. Specifically, “clean water” was a reference to the Jewish “washings of purification” found under the Law of Moses…
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD. So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations ( Ex. 30:17-21).The reference of “clean water” pointed to the forgiveness the Jews were to have from the pollution of idol worship - a cleansing made possible by a forgiving and merciful God. Of course the passage has its ultimate fulfillment under the “gospel of grace” given to both Jew and Gentile and made possible by the cleansing blood freely shed by the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. He will give His disciples a “new heart…and a new spirit” as their sins are "washed away" by His blood when they freely “obey from the heart the doctrine once delivered”. Those who by faith obey the gospel of Christ shall be His people, and He will be their God.

Btw – I have never taken “born of Spirit" out the "born of water" - not sure exactly what you mean. The “new birth” is one birth consisting of to essentials – “water and the Spirit”. According to Peter (Acts 2:38) when one believes, repents and is baptized he receives the remission of sins and the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit –ie- born of water and the Spirit…
"Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and new life." ~ J. B. Lightfoot on Colossians

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 01:32 AM
just remember - its fact that the man on the cross next to christ was not dunked in h20 for it was not needed.

christ did not say today you will be with me in paradise but only if someone dunks you in water really quick or else i cant save you.

so who am i to go against christ and say h2o is needed when he by his very example showed me it was not.

the kingdom is within

our outward sign should be how we treat eachother not some vain ritual
Out of curiosity - how do you know the thief was not baptized – did God reveal this to you? Is it *possible* the thief could have been baptized by the Baptizer? He did know about Jesus as expressed by his words to the Lord on the cross.
In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand…Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan…And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
The truth is your point is a moot point. Did the thief live and die under the Law of Moses? Did Jesus give the command to be baptized after the death of the thief on the cross? Are you on a cross next to Jesus? Does Jesus command baptism in water? Do you really follow His example? Is baptism in water an option?
“He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.”

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 01:41 AM
[/INDENT]Baptism into the body of Christ. Faith and Faith alone baptizes into the body of Christ. Immersion in water is the outward symbol of the work that has already been done within. Baptism in water is a symbol. It has no saving or redeeming force in and of itsself.
Baptism in water is an act of obedience to the Lord's clear command – it is the answer of a good conscious towards God and it points one to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is an essential part of the gospel of Christ. Nowhere in the Book does it say baptism is an “outward symbol of the work that has already been done”.
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,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:21

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 01:50 AM
Look at Acts 19:4. Again, water baptism is the outward sign of what has already occurred inside. (Same is still true for the point you try to make above.) "Go...preach...baptize" does refer in part to water baptism.

Do you now concede that *immersion in water* is what is commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission…"go---preach…baptize”? Please clarify your position.


When I return to my office, I will post the list of scholars who agree with my point as I told you I would do.
Please remember Kenneth Copeland and the other “little gods” do not qualify as scholars by any stretch of the imagination.

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 01:57 AM
your somehow end up stranded in the desert and you are going to die.

you understand how all you have done is wrong, you cry out to god for you have seen the error in your ways and you repent and believe.

god responds with -- darn i wish someone had some water and could dunk you in it --but since there isnt your out of luck buddy sorry

BrckBrln
May 28th 2008, 02:02 AM
your somehow end up stranded in the desert and you are going to die.

you understand how all you have done is wrong, you cry out to god for you have seen the error in your ways and you repent and believe.

god responds with -- darn i wish someone had some water and could dunk you in it --but since there isnt your out of luck buddy sorry

Exactly. And God knows there have been people who just, for some reason, can't get baptized. I mean, what about people on their death beds?

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 02:11 AM
your somehow end up stranded in the desert and you are going to die.

you understand how all you have done is wrong, you cry out to god for you have seen the error in your ways and you repent and believe.

god responds with -- darn i wish someone had some water and could dunk you in it --but since there isnt your out of luck buddy sorry
Have you ever been stranded in the desert without water and in need of baptism – do you know anyone who has? There are many conversions recorded in the Bible and guess what – there is not one instance where God did not provide ample water for the believer to be immersed in water – “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:26-40). And guess what else – there is not one recorded example in the NT where God ever required the life of a believer before he/she had the opportunity to obey the Lord in baptism – not one. Why don’t you just obey His command and stop trying to find an exception to the clear rule – “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 02:12 AM
Exactly. And God knows there have been people who just, for some reason, can't get baptized. I mean, what about people on their death beds?
What about you? What's your excuse?

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 02:19 AM
i have no exception to the rule

the rule is one must be baptized with the holy spirit.

what i find interesting is that you think the guy in the desert will be saved but because god is gonna make some water then dunk him in it.

dont you think god could just save him without having to make water.

and ohhh yes i have been stranded in a desert.

repent and believe -- the pharisees belived in god and so do the devils

but as christ could not convince the pharisees , who am i to think i can convince anyone.

god bless you lost

BrckBrln
May 28th 2008, 02:23 AM
What about you? What's your excuse?

What's your excuse for adding works to Salvation? What's your excuse for changing the plan of Salvation from the Old to the New Testament? :hmm:

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 02:41 AM
What's your excuse for adding works to Salvation? What's your excuse for changing the plan of Salvation from the Old to the New Testament? :hmm:
I guess I would have to ask you to explain how I am adding to the work of Christ on the cross by simply obeying from the heart His commanded to be immersed in water? How can an act of obedient faith possibly damn my soul – pray tell? Of course I have asked this of you before and only received silence.

Since you post with a photo of Charles Spurgeon as your identifying mark let me post what he says about Mark 16:16. While he takes the standard Calvinist view regarding baptism he does write words of wisdom regardless of that bias…
CONCERNING BAPTISM:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Please observe that I did not make the text. Perhaps, if I had made it, I should have left out that piece about baptism; but I have had no hand in making the Bible, I am obliged to take God’s Word as I find it, and here I read these words of our Lord Jesus Christ, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." "Do not dwell on the baptism," says one; "leave that out." That is what you say, my dear Sir; I cannot see your face, but I do not believe that you are my master. My Master is the Lord who taught holy men to write this Book, and I can only go by the Book; the Book has the baptism in it, so I must stick to the truth as it is in the Book: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...First, let me remind you that our Savior’s words teach us that baptism follows faith: "He that believeth and is baptized." Never neglect the order of things in the Bible. If God puts them one, two, three, do not you put them three, two, one... ~ Charles SpurgeonAgain – what is your excuse? The desert or the death bed? "I am obliged to take God’s Word as I find it...the Book has the baptism in it, so I must stick to the truth as it is in the Book..."

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 02:51 AM
god bless you lost
And God be with you as you study His words of life.

BrckBrln
May 28th 2008, 02:55 AM
I guess I would have to ask you to explain how I am adding to the work of Christ on the cross by simply obeying from the heart His commanded to be immersed in water? How can an act of obedient faith possibly damn my soul – pray tell? Of course I have asked this of you before and only received silence.

Since you post with a photo of Charles Spurgeon as your identifying mark let me post what he says about Mark 16:16. While he takes the standard Calvinist view regarding baptism he does write words of wisdom regardless of that bias…
CONCERNING BAPTISM:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Please observe that I did not make the text. Perhaps, if I had made it, I should have left out that piece about baptism; but I have had no hand in making the Bible, I am obliged to take God’s Word as I find it, and here I read these words of our Lord Jesus Christ, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." "Do not dwell on the baptism," says one; "leave that out." That is what you say, my dear Sir; I cannot see your face, but I do not believe that you are my master. My Master is the Lord who taught holy men to write this Book, and I can only go by the Book; the Book has the baptism in it, so I must stick to the truth as it is in the Book: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...First, let me remind you that our Savior’s words teach us that baptism follows faith: "He that believeth and is baptized." Never neglect the order of things in the Bible. If God puts them one, two, three, do not you put them three, two, one... ~ Charles SpurgeonAgain – what is your excuse? The desert or the death bed? "I am obliged to take God’s Word as I find it...the Book has the baptism in it, so I must stick to the truth as it is in the Book..."

Not only do you twist and add to the scriptures but you twist and add to my words as well. I have never once said that a person should not be baptized. I agree that baptism should follow faith. I also have never said that you, or anybody else who obeys God's commands, are condemned.

However it's painfully obvious that baptism isn't required for one to enter Heaven. It's also painfully obvious that the plan of Salvation has never changed and never will. And you talk about me being silenced on your questions, you have never answered, to my knowledge, about what happens to a person on their death bed who believes? Can they not be saved simply because they are near death?

You live in a world where you think that these situations don't ever happen or that God will somehow make a tub of water appear for the sole purpose of baptizing someone. The only miracle God performs in Salvation, is just that, Salvation, which is by grace through faith.

As for me and my excuse for not being baptized yet, well, for a while it was ignorance. I certainly was never taught that baptism was a command of God, though I should have read it in the Bible. I was always told it was something optional. I do, now, recognize that it is a command and one I fully intend to obey, probably within a month or so. I'm going back to my brother's Church this Sunday and I will see about getting myself baptized here soon. And when I do you will be the first to know. ;)

Now, you don't have to answer the questions I proposed but I sure would like to hear what you have to say about them.

threebigrocks
May 28th 2008, 03:09 AM
Reminder here everyone - let's continue on nicely despite the nature of how these baptism threads tend to go. Step out if necessary, take a deep breath, unsubscribe - I don't want an itchy finger. ;)

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 03:31 AM
hmm let me share this

i was born then baptised in the h20 water ritual in the roman catholic church.(having gone to catholic school)

i never believed in christ nor repented and had not the holy spirit.

after having left the rcc for it greatly offended me, i never had a bible nor read it nor even understood anything in it.

for 20 some years i was baptised by man but it did nothing for me.

then for a long time being lost i pleaded with god not knowing if he was there or listening or cared or anything i just cursed him and wished he was here so i could kill him. after a long time of such thoughts i was baptised.

now mind you i never believe when people say these stories for i trust no man , but none the less here is mine.

i was asleep -- had a vision (at the time i had no idea what it was i just knew it wasnt a dream)

i saw a perfect fetus(for some reason i knew it was perfect) the color was blue and white--blue in the sahdowy parts white in the highlites. and i heard a BOOM of a voice saying "the one good thing" after i had a dream of which i dont remember most all i know is at the end of the dream i was releasing 2 straw dolls one male one female into a river--still have no idea what the dream was for or really about or if it was just a dream.

then immediatly i awoke -and was like what was that? all i knew was the fetus was no dream it was somehow different same with the voice. (it was clearer than what i see with my waking eyes)

i didnt own a bible at the time -- so for some reason i started reading more philosophy then about a year later i picked up a bible for whatever reason. then i read and started to understand. i knew god was real then and i knew what manner of curses he forgave me and i repented my sins.

it took me more years to understand even after that, that i had been baptised on that night - for wahtever reason god saw fit.

now the h2o baptism did not spurn me to repent but the holy spirit sure did.

now some will say well how did you be baptised without repentence and well see the rcc baptised you so you did the water baptism and so on. but i know what baptism was the living water for the holy spirit tells me.

now as far as h2o baptism i will tell you its not needed.
but i will also tell you this.

to some men it is sin not to be baptised with h20 water
to other men it is sin to be baptised with h2o water

but i assure you the men written of in the bible that went forth to babtize gave men the holy spirit when god worked through them.

so before you say you can baptise or you know men who can baptise, know what you are putting faith in when you do so.
(just because someone tells you , you have the holy spirit doesnt mean you have it)
and many like to feel they have it for ins o doing they think themselves saved

and also as to the topic of this thread --- at what age should one be baptised ? whatever age god sees fit

with god all things are possible

oh and no visions or booming voices since for me.

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 03:53 AM
BrckBrln
I also have never said that you, or anybody else who obeys God's commands, are condemned.


Then what is the meaning of your words in post #162 –


“What's your excuse for adding works to Salvation?”
Again, I ask you – is obeying the command of Jesus Christ to believe and be baptized adding works to salvation? Please clarify.



However it's painfully obvious that baptism isn't required for one to enter Heaven. It's also painfully obvious that the plan of Salvation has never changed and never will.
You are correct -the plan of Salvation has never changed and never will. Where you miss the mark is thinking baptism is not essential to God's plan of redemption - it is an essential part of that plan. The gospel of Christ has always included the ordinance of baptism as the rite of admission into the Lord's church - this is in the Book. Why did Christ design, institute and command the ordinance of Christian baptism - the same baptism to be taken unto the entire world - if it is not part of the gospel of Christ? Why does He plainly say that belief and baptism come before “shall be saved”?


And you talk about me being silenced on your questions, you have never answered, to my knowledge, about what happens to a person on their death bed who believes? Can they not be saved simply because they are near death?
I have answered this question for you in the past but I will be happy to repeat it again here. I do not claim to know how God judges one who makes a “death bed” confession of faith and dies before being immersed in water - it is not addressed in Holy Writ and any speculation on the subject is just that - speculation. I do know that God and God alone knows the hearts of men. I do know that He is a God of mercy and grace. I do know He loves His creation and is "not willing that any should perish". I think it presumptuous of you, me or anyone else to try and put God in the box of human reasoning – “His ways are not our ways”. I personally have no doubt in my mind that one on his death bed who believes, repents and confesses Christ before men and then dies before being immersed in water is saved but any exception to the rule certainly does not negate the rule. And the rule is quite clear – believe – repent – be baptized for the remission of sins calling on the name of the Lord.


As for me and my excuse for not being baptized yet, well, for a while it was ignorance. I certainly was never taught that baptism was a command of God, though I should have read it in the Bible. I was always told it was something optional. I do, now, recognize that it is a command and one I fully intend to obey, probably within a month or so. I'm going back to my brother's Church this Sunday and I will see about getting myself baptized here soon. And when I do you will be the first to know.
Godspeed.

BrckBrln
May 28th 2008, 04:08 AM
Then what is the meaning of your words in post #162 –

That you are adding works to Salvation and that you are changing the mode of Salvation from the Old to the New Testament. I don't think you are condemned for doing this but you are in serious error.



Again, I ask you – is obeying the command of Jesus Christ to believe and be baptized adding to salvation? Please clarify.

You are assuming that baptism is required for such Salvation, but it is not as can be seen from looking at the whole Bible, not just one passage.




You are correct -the plan of Salvation has never changed and never will. Where you miss the mark is thinking baptism is not essential to God's plan of redemption - it is an essential part of that plan. The gospel of Christ has always included the ordinance of baptism as the rite of admission into the Lord's church - this is in the Book. Why did Christ design, institute and command the ordinance of Christian baptism - the same baptism to be taken unto the entire world - if it is not part of the gospel of Christ? Why does He plainly say that belief and baptism come before “shall be saved”?

What about the Old Testament? Did they have to be baptized to be saved? It's obvious that at the moment Abraham believed he was saved. It wasn't by circumcision or anything good in him, but it was his faith that saved him. Now the obedience followed his faith because it was a saving faith. If you say that baptism wasn't required in the OT but then say that it is required in the NT then aren't you changing the way of Salvation? And if Salvation was always dependant on the believers good works and obedience then why wasn't there baptism in the OT? Why did God suddenly institute baptism for the NT? Why not just continue with OT way?



I have answered this question for you in the past but I will be happy to repeat it again here. I do not claim to know how God judges one who makes a “death bed” confession of faith and dies before being immersed in water - it is not addressed in Holy Writ and any speculation on the subject is just that - speculation. I do know that God and God alone knows the hearts of men. I do know that He is a God of mercy and grace. I do know He loves His creation and is "not willing that any should perish". I think it presumptuous of you, me or anyone else to try and put God in the box of human reasoning – “His ways are not our ways”. I personally have no doubt in my mind that one on his death bed who believes, repents and confesses Christ before men and then dies before being immersed in water is saved but any exception to the rule certainly does not negate the rule. And the rule is quite clear – believe – repent – be baptized for the remission of sins calling on the name of the Lord.

I don't think Salvation is based on 'almost' doing something or 'intending' on doing something. If you believe baptism is required for Salvation then a person on their death bed can't be saved unless, somehow, he gets baptized. Yes, God is a God of mercy but I don't think there is any leeway in Salvation. What if an unbeliever has been thinking about Christ and would even maybe like to be saved and yet, dies before he can? Does God say 'well he had good intentions so I'll let him in heaven'? Of course not, if you don't have faith in Christ you are not going to be saved even if you want to, like the rich young ruler.

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 04:13 AM
and brckblrn -- i am in no way saying dont get baptised in h2o water.

but if i may ask this,


how are you going to decide what person is going to baptise you ?

and will you know for sure he is somone capable of doing it ?

and if you can have another man baptising you why cant you do it yourself ?

either way god is there and will see what you are doing and know the intent of your heart.

and in no way am i trying to argue or talk you out of it, im just sort of curious i guess -- no response neccesary if you dont feel like it im not trying to stump you or make you seem foolish.

BrckBrln
May 28th 2008, 04:22 AM
and brckblrn -- i am in no way saying dont get baptised in h2o water.

but if i may ask this,


how are you going to decide what person is going to baptise you ?

and will you know for sure he is somone capable of doing it ?

and if you can have another man baptising you why cant you do it yourself ?

either way god is there and will see what you are doing and know the intent of your heart.

and in no way am i trying to argue or talk you out of it, im just sort of curious i guess -- no response neccesary if you dont feel like it im not trying to stump you or make you seem foolish.

The questions are fine. :)

I don't really think it matters who baptizes you as long as they are a believer, right? I guess I'm not really sure. And I've asked on here before why can't I just hop in the tub and baptize myself but apparently that's not the right way to do it. I do understand why though.

DiscipleofChrist
May 28th 2008, 06:10 AM
I think the best age for someone to get baptized would be when they understand the Word of God, and the true meaning of being born again.

SoldierOfChrist
May 28th 2008, 08:02 AM
Sure Michael – I’ll be happy to answer your questions first then you can answer mine. The Holy Spirit teaches through the inspired word of God – “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17).

Well that answer was really no surprise to me. But let me point out that you are a man that is interpreting the word of God (the Bible) not the Holy Spirit. The Bible was inspired by God but its secrets are only revealed to those with the Holy Spirit. Seeing they shall not see and hearing they shall not hear.

So will you then say that those that cannot read a Bible cannot be taught by the Holy Spirit? We only have two commandments to follow... to love God and our neighbor and that is what the Holy Spirit teaches us for when we love god and others his anointing pours over us.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

It is clear that in 1 John 2:27 that the teacher is the anointing... the Holy Spirit... this cannot be confused with reading the Bible and please don't tell us that the anointing is being dunked in h2o.

When you are baptized in the spirit it is the "I" as in Eze 36:25-28 that washes us clean. Can water make a man clean on the inside, I think not. It is the living water. In Ex. 30:17-21 it was not the Lord washing them it was them washing themselves with h2o.

You mention: Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

But when you read Luke 3:16 it is clear that John baptized with water and Jesus with the Holy Spirit.

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

So to answer your question on how I was baptized:

I was baptized as child with John's baptism and what did it do? Did I receive the holy Spirit as you claim Acts 2:38 states? NO!

When I was in my mid twenties I was baptized with the Holy Spirit. How? By the laying on of the hands by someone that had the Spirit already. They planted a seed... watered and God gave the increase. A person filled with the Spirit layed their hands upon me and a few minutes after the Holy Spirit descended upon me from head to my toes. When you receive the Holy Spirit you know it! Even Simon the magician knew how the Holy Spirit was given.

Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Hebrews 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

1 Thessalonians 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

1 Corinthians 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.



Of course the passage has its ultimate fulfillment under the “gospel of grace” given to both Jew and Gentile and made possible by the cleansing blood freely shed by the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. He will give His disciples a “new heart…and a new spirit” as their sins are "washed away" by His blood when they freely “obey from the heart the doctrine once delivered”. Those who by faith obey the gospel of Christ shall be His people, and He will be their God.


Yes, that is right and Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

John 1:1 ...the Word was God.

The baptism of John also does not fill your lamp with oil as spoken of from the parable of the ten virgins.

I don't see much point in going on with this as you have your interpretation and I have mine.

I cannot say I didn’t learn from this exchange.

Michael

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 11:39 AM
That you are adding works to Salvation and that you are changing the mode of Salvation from the Old to the New Testament. I don't think you are condemned for doing this but you are in serious error.


Let me repeat my question – Jesus commands that we believe and be baptized into His death (immersed in water) to rise up out of the water a new man in Christ Jesus with our past sins washed away per His command in the Great Commission. I have obeyed from the heart His command – I have believed and I was immersed in water calling on the name of the Lord. Exactly how does my obedience to my Lord in baptism put me in “serious error”? How am I "changing the mode of Salvation" when I simply obey Him?

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 11:50 AM
Well that answer was really no surprise to me. But let me point out that you are a man that is interpreting the word of God (the Bible) not the Holy Spirit. The Bible was inspired by God but its secrets are only revealed to those with the Holy Spirit. Seeing they shall not see and hearing they shall not hear.


A couples of problems with your scenario my friend – according to Holy Writ - (1) believers today are not baptized with “John’s baptism”. Believers under the NT are to be baptized “into Christ” by means of the Christ-ordained and commanded ordinance of Christian baptism – "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit". (2) Christians today do not receive the Holy Spirit through the “laying on of hands” as you suggest. We receive the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit when by faith we are baptized in water for the remission of our sins…”Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

threebigrocks
May 28th 2008, 02:16 PM
Nothing saves except grace through faith. We must be born again of the Spirit. (John 3) Now, if we are indeed born again - we have the Spirit living within us. Getting wet doesn't bring the Spirit upon us, believing in the redeeming sacrafice of Christ does. That happens through faith.

I do not believe that there was one instance of the apostles baptizing anyone who wasn't first born again of the Spirit. Even the eunich had scripture explained to him so that he understood, then immediately found a water source and was baptized. Early in Acts - many thousands came to believe AND were baptized after hearing the gospel. They believed, and then were baptized. Born again of the Spirit and then baptism by water.

Being baptized is commanded by Christ. It doesn't save, but is an act of obedience and symbolic of dying and rising to life with Christ. John the Baptist did so only with water. Christ does so with His Spirit when we come to believe, become born again. We return to the water in testimony of a changed heart and new life.

Reynolds357
May 28th 2008, 03:31 PM
Do you now concede that *immersion in water* is what is commanded by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission…"go---preach…baptize”? Please clarify your position.


Please remember Kenneth Copeland and the other “little gods” do not qualify as scholars by any stretch of the imagination.

I am going to clarify two things, and as I said earlier, I am finished with this thread. I will post a more complete list when I return to my library, but will make no further comment on this topic.

First I never said Jesus did not command us to baptize in water. I said that baptism in water is not neccessary for salvation. You add 2 + 2 and get 5. That is the main reason I have wearied of this discussion with you.

As to who I consider a scholar and who I do not, that is not for you to dictate. Who you accept as scholars is your perogative. You have no authority to tell me who I can consider a scholar. I do not assassinate the character of brother Christians, and I really do not enjoy dialogue with someone who does. There are many people of different denominational beliefs within Christianity that I 100% disagree with, but I show them respect. Character assassinations of Kenneth Copeland, or anyone else for that matter, are not fruitful. Christians should let the fruit of love manifest in their lives.

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 03:42 PM
just remember - its fact that the man on the cross next to christ was not dunked in h20 for it was not needed.

christ did not say today you will be with me in paradise but only if someone dunks you in water really quick or else i cant save you.

so who am i to go against christ and say h2o is needed when he by his very example showed me it was not.

the kingdom is within

our outward sign should be how we treat eachother not some vain ritual



I have said this previously in this thread, but it is worth restating here. The exception to the rule does NOT make the rule. The Good Theif was not able to be baptised given his condition, but I can almost guarantee that, were he to have been taken down from the cross alive, he would have gotten baptised as it is the command of Christ to be baptised.

The fact that the standard (i.e.: Christians are to be baptised with water) could not have been performed on the Good Theif because of his obvious condition does not relieve you or any other person from receiving the sacrament of baptism.

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 03:48 PM
your somehow end up stranded in the desert and you are going to die.

you understand how all you have done is wrong, you cry out to god for you have seen the error in your ways and you repent and believe.

god responds with -- darn i wish someone had some water and could dunk you in it --but since there isnt your out of luck buddy sorry


If you are familiar with historical and universal Christian theology (with the exception of the sectarian movement out of the Protestant Reformation), you would be familiar with the concept of baptism by intention. God judges your heart and he knows that this person in the desert would receive baptism but for the conditions in which he finds himself. Therefore, God judges this person with mercy.

However, as stated in a post just above, you cannot live by the exception to the rule, you must live by the rule. You are not in a desert right now and you are very near water therefore you have no excuse but to be baptized. Again, let me repeat, the exception to the rule does not justify one's disobeying Jesus' direct commandment.

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 03:54 PM
hmm let me share this

i was born then baptised in the h20 water ritual in the roman catholic church.(having gone to catholic school)

i never believed in christ nor repented and had not the holy spirit.

after having left the rcc for it greatly offended me, i never had a bible nor read it nor even understood anything in it.

for 20 some years i was baptised by man but it did nothing for me.

then for a long time being lost i pleaded with god not knowing if he was there or listening or cared or anything i just cursed him and wished he was here so i could kill him. after a long time of such thoughts i was baptised.

now mind you i never believe when people say these stories for i trust no man , but none the less here is mine.

i was asleep -- had a vision (at the time i had no idea what it was i just knew it wasnt a dream)

i saw a perfect fetus(for some reason i knew it was perfect) the color was blue and white--blue in the sahdowy parts white in the highlites. and i heard a BOOM of a voice saying "the one good thing" after i had a dream of which i dont remember most all i know is at the end of the dream i was releasing 2 straw dolls one male one female into a river--still have no idea what the dream was for or really about or if it was just a dream.

then immediatly i awoke -and was like what was that? all i knew was the fetus was no dream it was somehow different same with the voice. (it was clearer than what i see with my waking eyes)

i didnt own a bible at the time -- so for some reason i started reading more philosophy then about a year later i picked up a bible for whatever reason. then i read and started to understand. i knew god was real then and i knew what manner of curses he forgave me and i repented my sins.

it took me more years to understand even after that, that i had been baptised on that night - for wahtever reason god saw fit.

now the h2o baptism did not spurn me to repent but the holy spirit sure did.

now some will say well how did you be baptised without repentence and well see the rcc baptised you so you did the water baptism and so on. but i know what baptism was the living water for the holy spirit tells me.

now as far as h2o baptism i will tell you its not needed.
but i will also tell you this.

to some men it is sin not to be baptised with h20 water
to other men it is sin to be baptised with h2o water

but i assure you the men written of in the bible that went forth to babtize gave men the holy spirit when god worked through them.

so before you say you can baptise or you know men who can baptise, know what you are putting faith in when you do so.
(just because someone tells you , you have the holy spirit doesnt mean you have it)
and many like to feel they have it for ins o doing they think themselves saved

and also as to the topic of this thread --- at what age should one be baptised ? whatever age god sees fit

with god all things are possible

oh and no visions or booming voices since for me.



I thank God that the grace you received so early on in your life in the sacrament of baptism enabled you to be open to receive such a vision and insight. God prepared you for himself on that very day when you undertook that act of obedience.

Getting baptized is never a sin unless (1) one gets baptized more than once or (2) it is being done sacreligiously.

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 03:57 PM
seamus i understand where you are coming from-

but this is where we differ

gods rules cant be broken
one must have the holy spirit to be in the body
that is the rule and as such is unbreakable
there is no exception to that because it is the rule

now if the real rule was you must be dunked in water
than that would be a unbreakable rule just like having the holy spirit is the rule. no exceptions

but since h2o is not the rule it can be broken

the holy spirit IS LIVING water, it is the water baptism

- also the "sacrament" of baptism i recieved from the catholic church did nothing for me i assure.

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 04:28 PM
Response to fewarechosen:
gods rules cant be broken one must have the holy spirit to be in the body
that is the rule and as such is unbreakable there is no exception to that because it is the rule now if the real rule was you must be dunked in water
than that would be a unbreakable rule just like having the holy spirit is the rule. no exceptions
but since h2o is not the rule it can be broken

By what authority are you saying that there are no exceptions? We are not Jews. We do not live under the law. Your arguments seem very legalistic. God judges one's heart, therefore God's rules are not broken. The person the desert, or whatever, desires baptism but cannot be baptized because of a condition out of his control. God judges the person's heart which is compliant with the will of God.

grit
May 28th 2008, 04:38 PM
At what age should one be baptised?
Birth, or soon thereafter. Most Christians actually agree on this, but they have a much more difficult time agreeing on when one is so spritually born and just what place and meaning baptism has in connection with it.


I was looking for some clarification on this subject. It is my understanding that children do not need to be baptised at an early age, and that as adults we need to be. So we can be born again and forgive our sins.It mostly depends on how one defines a child and an adult, for spiritual purposes. There's been a lot written here thus far on baptism distinctive, so I'll leave it at that for now. :)

SoldierOfChrist
May 28th 2008, 05:26 PM
A couples of problems with your scenario my friend – according to Holy Writ - (1) believers today are not baptized with “John’s baptism”. Believers under the NT are to be baptized “into Christ” by means of the Christ-ordained and commanded ordinance of Christian baptism – "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit". (2) Christians today do not receive the Holy Spirit through the “laying on of hands” as you suggest. We receive the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit when by faith we are baptized in water for the remission of our sins…”Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

When you say "according to Holy Writ" I assumed you meant the Bible but it must be some other document that you rely on? Because in what scripture does it say that we will not receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the hands? There is none that I know of!

Sorry, but besides that I have a greater witness than you for it was not revealed to me by man but by the Father himself.

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

I am no liar and I am a true witness to these things.

John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

You cannot twist the scriptures and add "these days" and imply that God must have changed this lately. You have nothing to support your claims but the doctorine of man.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Can I ask you if there signs that followed your baptism in water?

Michael

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 05:38 PM
Response to SoldierOfChrist:
Because in what scripture does it say that we will not receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the hands? There is none that I know of!

Actually there is one that you can know of: the laying on of hands in the sacrament of confirmation which has been performed at least since Acts 8.

You cannot twist the scriptures and add "these days" and imply that God must have changed this lately. You have nothing to support your claims but the doctorine of man.

You two clearly have read the same Scriptures and have come away with a different interpretation of them. Objectively there is no way for you to argue your interpretation is more correct than his. However, if you interpret the Scriptures as they *always* have been interpreted since the days of the Apostles; how they have *always* been applied and practiced since the days of the Apostles; how they *always* have been understood since the days of the Apostles, you will see that baptism is a water baptism (and administered as early to birth as possible). What you are suggesting was not believed or practiced by Christians until someone invented your doctrinal innovation in the 16th century. As I have stated before, when it comes to interpreting Scripture, I will believe those who knew the Apostles rather than some 16th century "theologian".

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 06:08 PM
Nothing saves except grace through faith. We must be born again of the Spirit. (John 3) Now, if we are indeed born again - we have the Spirit living within us. Getting wet doesn't bring the Spirit upon us, believing in the redeeming sacrafice of Christ does. That happens through faith.


I don’t think anyone on this thread contradicts the biblical fact that we are by God’s grace save through faith. The Bible does not contradict itself - there is no conflict between God’s grace and our obedience to the Lord’s command to be baptized in water. We are saved by the blood of Christ alone freely shed on our behalf – a gift that is unmerited by His fallen creation. And the saving faith that saves us is an obedient faith that comes from the heart – obedience to the “form of doctrine” delivered by Christ and recorded in the Book. And that doctrine of Christ includes the command from the Lord to be immersed in water - into the body Christ… “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”

SoldierOfChrist
May 28th 2008, 06:21 PM
Response to SoldierOfChrist:
Because in what scripture does it say that we will not receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the hands? There is none that I know of!

Actually there is one that you can know of: the laying on of hands in the sacrament of confirmation which has been performed at least since Acts 8.
Not sure what you are referring to here or maybe you misread my reply. Acts 8:17 says the opposite? Tell me of just one scripture that says the Holy Spirit is no longer or is not given by the laying on of the hands... just one.

Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.



You cannot twist the scriptures and add "these days" and imply that God must have changed this lately. You have nothing to support your claims but the doctorine of man.

You two clearly have read the same Scriptures and have come away with a different interpretation of them. Objectively there is no way for you to argue your interpretation is more correct than his. However, if you interpret the Scriptures as they *always* have been interpreted since the days of the Apostles; how they have *always* been applied and practiced since the days of the Apostles; how they *always* have been understood since the days of the Apostles, you will see that baptism is a water baptism (and administered as early to birth as possible). What you are suggesting was not believed or practiced by Christians until someone invented your doctrinal innovation in the 16th century. As I have stated before, when it comes to interpreting Scripture, I will believe those who knew the Apostles rather than some 16th century "theologian".

I'm quoting the Bible and not some "16th century theologian" as you suggest! It is clear what the Apostles did and Paul was NOT one of the twelve and he laid his hands on and they recieved the Holy Spirit!

It is the doctorine of man that teaches that this is no longer true as the Bible is very clear. Show me a scripture that says that it is not true and I already know the one the JW's use (1 Corinthians 13:8) now that's a stretch!

John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Michael

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 06:21 PM
ok so what i am gathering from some in here is that after getting the holy spirit we should be baptised in water ?

christ was baptised in water (so scripture could be fullfilled and he could put to rest the old law) then he recieved the holy spirt.

so now after recieving the holy spirit he shoulda have had john dunk him again because he needed to and since that was his command he should have followed it.

christ was not baptised with water after receiving the holy spirit.

so notice he got baptised under the law -- but then after him that law no longer applied.
he did not recieve the holy spirit then say ok dunk me and do this in rememberence of me.

the holy spirit was the baptism. the h20 was so he would fullfill under the old law- after his baptism the h2o law no longer applied. only the baptism of the holy spirit.

and if its good enough for christ to not be dunked in water after receiving the holy ghost well then its good enough for me.

14Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 06:27 PM
also for everyone who says after you recieve the holy spirit to be baptised in h20water.

what happens if you are not baptised in h2owater ?

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 06:30 PM
I don’t think anyone on this thread contradicts the biblical fact that we are by God’s grace save through faith. The Bible does not contradict itself - there is no conflict between God’s grace and our obedience to the Lord’s command to be baptized in water. We are saved by the blood of Christ alone freely shed on our behalf – a gift that is unmerited by His fallen creation. And the saving faith that saves us is an obedient faith that comes from the heart – obedience to the “form of doctrine” delivered by Christ and recorded in the Book. And that doctrine of Christ includes the command from the Lord to be immersed in water - into the body Christ… “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”

I totally agree. Well said.

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 06:32 PM
ok so what i am gathering from some in here is that after getting the holy spirit we should be baptised in water ?

christ was baptised in water (so scripture could be fullfilled and he could put to rest the old law) then he recieved the holy spirt.

so now after recieving the holy spirit he shoulda have had john dunk him again because he needed to and since that was his command he should have followed it.

christ was not baptised with water after receiving the holy spirit.

so notice he got baptised under the law -- but then after him that law no longer applied.
he did not recieve the holy spirit then say ok dunk me and do this in rememberence of me.

the holy spirit was the baptism. the h20 was so he would fullfill under the old law- after his baptism the h2o law no longer applied. only the baptism of the holy spirit.

and if its good enough for christ to not be dunked in water after receiving the holy ghost well then its good enough for me.


I have to say, this post does not make any sense to me. Especially in light of the clear teaching of Scripture and historic Christian teaching and practice.

Let me be clear: there is absolutely NO precedent of a Christian not receiving baptism in water. You have no basis to believe this in the practices of the Apostles and their followers or any generation of Christian until the advent of whomever invented your theology.

We can debate what occurs at baptism, but the suggestion that water baptism is not part of a Christian's life and practice is, in a word, absurd.

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 06:38 PM
Not sure what you are referring to here or maybe you misread my reply. Acts 8:17 says the opposite? Tell me of just one scripture that says the Holy Spirit is no longer or is not given by the laying on of the hands... just one. [/color]

Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.



I'm quoting the Bible and not some "16th century theologian" as you suggest! It is clear what the Apostles did and Paul was NOT one of the twelve and he laid his hands on and they recieved the Holy Spirit!

It is the doctorine of man that teaches that this is no longer true as the Bible is very clear. Show me a scripture that says that it is not true and I already know the one the JW's use (1 Corinthians 13:8) now that's a stretch!

John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Michael


You are correct to say that the laying on of hands by those with authority to do so one can receive the Holy Spirit.

BrckBrln
May 28th 2008, 06:40 PM
The way I see it, there are two extremes and a middle ground when it comes to being saved. One extreme says all you have to do is believe in a few facts about Christ and you will be saved. Sanctification and obediance are optional but not required. This is what is known as 'easy believism' and it's just flat out wrong.

The other extreme says not only do you have to believe the facts of Christ but you also must submit to Him in obediance and give your whole life to Him. However, according to this extreme, if you don't do certain good works that spring from this obediant faith then you won't be saved. This is what is known as salvation by works.

The middle ground, the right ground imo, says you must not only believe the facts of Christ but you also must submit to Him making Him Lord and Savior of your life. If a person does this then they have saving faith. The product of this saving faith is obediance and good works that one will do but they are not the thing that saves you, it's the saving faith that actually saves you.

Anyway, that's my take on the big picture.

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 06:43 PM
was christ dunked in water after having recieved the holy spirit ?

no

the pharisees had very well established rules and customes also , they thought they knew gods will , they thought they were children of abraham , they thought they were following the law.

but they were none of his
as it is today , the modern pharisees follow vanity just like the pharisees of old did. the look to customs and tradition but forget the heart of it, thinking ordinances will save.

and i whole heartedly say the water baptism is needed but you say its h20 i say its the living water spoke of in the scriptures

also to anyone who thinks it is needed to recieve the h2o water baptism after recieiving the holy spirit --what happens if you dont ?


brck -very well said in your last post

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 06:56 PM
was christ dunked in water after having recieved the holy spirit ?

no

the pharisees had very well established rules and customes also , they thought they knew gods will , they thought they were children of abraham , they thought they were following the law.

but they were none of his
as it is today , the modern pharisees follow vanity just like the pharisees of old did. the look to customs and tradition but forget the heart of it, thinking ordinances will save.

and i whole heartedly say the water baptism is needed but you say its h20 i say its the living water spoke of in the scriptures

also to anyone who thinks it is needed to recieve the h2o water baptism after recieiving the holy spirit --what happens if you dont ?


brck -very well said in your last post

I am not sure what the point is of raising Jesus' baptism as an issue. Jesus received John's baptism. Jesus has no reason to receive Christian baptism as Christian baptism is the rite through which one formally enters the covenant (and, therefore, the Church). As Jesus IS the covenant and IS the Church, and created the covenant, there is no need for him to receive it. However, it is worth noting, that the Spirit came onto Jesus after he was baptised with water.

Regardless of which, Jesus commanded us to be baptised in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and for the Church to baptise others likewise.

I hope you understand that what you believe has not been believed by any Christian of any stripe until very recently. This includes the Reformers as well as RCC, Anglican, and Orthodox Christians. The idea that baptism is not by water is asbent from EVERY Christian doctrinal statement since the days of the Apostles. I hope you understand that rejecting water baptism is rejecting what the Apostles taught and practiced.

threebigrocks
May 28th 2008, 06:58 PM
Ah, but He was Christ. ;)

The Holy Spirit was not given under the new covenant of grace as we have it today until Penticost. Christ had to die, rise, and ascend for the Spirit to be sent to all who believed.

John 16



6"But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.
7"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
8"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
9concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 07:01 PM
ok lets say semus that i am rejecting it as you say

but now i have recieved the holy spirit -to which you also say its possible to recieve the holy spirit without h20 baptism and i agree.

so now what happens when i dont do the h20 water baptism ?

btw im not into christian doctrinal statements -- i will read scripture and let the holy spirit hash it out for me.
many devils write many books

and i totally agree with you there too threebigrocks

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 07:13 PM
ok lets say semus that i am rejecting it as you say

but now i have recieved the holy spirit -to which you also say its possible to recieve the holy spirit without h20 baptism and i agree.

so now what happens when i dont do the h20 water baptism ?

btw im not into christian doctrinal statements -- i will read scripture and let the holy spirit hash it out for me.
many devils write many books

and i totally agree with you there too threebigrocks



Well you HAVE received water baptism so it is a moot issue. However, if you had not, a Christian's walk with Christ, sanctification, and continuing in the state of grace, are all imperiled and greatly handicapped when you refuse to employ Jesus' established means of grace. It is also a grave sin to directly disobey a direct command of Christ.

I am not saying this to you personally, but the idea that you and you alone can read, interpret, and apply Scripture, without input, wisdom, and testing of the community of believers, is of the greatest hubris and is the cause of a great many cults, not the least of which include LDS, JW, and others.

The Holy Spirit has led essentially every Christian of all time to believe water baptism is what Christ commands. I think an important question for you is why you think the Holy Spirit is leading you another direction. May it be your pride (hubris) that is not allowing you to employ the wisdom of the Community of Believers?

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 07:20 PM
now see thats the thing i was getting at you say its a grave sin-- i say any sin is a grave sin. if its just a sin well we sin everyday-- unless yor saying that somehow not being dunked in h2o will prevent you from getting to heaven

so why would you worry about h2o when you can be helping feed the poor.

what if everytime someone was going to get h2o baptism instead he went and fed the poor.

which do you think christ would prefer ?

threebigrocks
May 28th 2008, 07:24 PM
I don’t think anyone on this thread contradicts the biblical fact that we are by God’s grace save through faith. The Bible does not contradict itself - there is no conflict between God’s grace and our obedience to the Lord’s command to be baptized in water. We are saved by the blood of Christ alone freely shed on our behalf – a gift that is unmerited by His fallen creation. And the saving faith that saves us is an obedient faith that comes from the heart – obedience to the “form of doctrine” delivered by Christ and recorded in the Book. And that doctrine of Christ includes the command from the Lord to be immersed in water - into the body Christ… “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”

It looks like we are saying, at least thinking, the same thing. Agreed! :)

threebigrocks
May 28th 2008, 07:26 PM
now see thats the thing i was getting at you say its a grave sin-- i say any sin is a grave sin. if its just a sin well we sin everyday-- unless yor saying that somehow not being dunked in h2o will prevent you from getting to heaven

so why would you worry about h2o when you can be helping feed the poor.

what if everytime someone was going to get h2o baptism instead he went and fed the poor.

which do you think christ would prefer ?

A baptism will take you about 10 minutes, either as part of a Sunday service or aside from it. Should we not take that 10 minutes to follow through what Christ asked of us and put off a meal for the poor for 10 minutes (they'll wait...) because we love Him?

SoldierOfChrist
May 28th 2008, 07:28 PM
Well you HAVE received water baptism so it is a moot issue. However, if you had not, a Christian's walk with Christ, sanctification, and continuing in the state of grace, are all imperiled and greatly handicapped when you refuse to employ Jesus' established means of grace. It is also a grave sin to directly disobey a direct command of Christ.

I am not saying this to you personally, but the idea that you and you alone can read, interpret, and apply Scripture, without input, wisdom, and testing of the community of believers, is of the greatest hubris and is the cause of a great many cults, not the least of which include LDS, JW, and others.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.



The Holy Spirit has led essentially every Christian of all time to believe water baptism is what Christ commands.
Wrong... every Christian? The baptism of the Holy Spirit is what is needed! Other wise he said I know you not! You need to study Matthew 25.



I think an important question for you is why you think the Holy Spirit is leading you another direction. May it be your pride (hubris) that is not allowing you to employ the wisdom of the Community of Believers?

That is very close to personal attacks and shall we do the same back? This thread although very controversial has taught me how others interpret these scriptures and I have learned something here... we don't need it to be deleted.

Michael

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 07:32 PM
now see thats the thing i was getting at you say its a grave sin-- i say any sin is a grave sin. if its just a sin well we sin everyday-- unless yor saying that somehow not being dunked in h2o will prevent you from getting to heaven so why would you worry about h2o when you can be helping feed the poor. what if everytime someone was going to get h2o baptism instead he went and fed the poor. which do you think christ would prefer ?

First of all, Jesus acknowledged that some sins are worse than others (John 19:11). Second, there is more to the Christian life than the salvation of one's own soul. That is very egocentric and inappropriate for a Christian. We should not aim to do the minimum to be saved; Christ wants to live abundantly not get to heaven by the skin of our teeth. Paul roundly discourages this sort of thinking (1 Cor. 3:15).

I think Jesus wants us to follow his commandments. Jesus commanded us to be baptised with water so it is imperitive that this occurs; not doing so is to disobey a direct command. Failure to do so will greatly handicap your Christian life. INdeed, disobeying such a basic and easy to fulfill command says a lot about the state of one's soul. Indeed, if someone cannot fulfill such a simple command, one wonders if the person is qualified to perform other allegedly Christian acts.

SoldierOfChrist
May 28th 2008, 07:37 PM
Jesus commanded us to be baptised with water so it is imperitive that this occurs; not doing so is to disobey a direct command. Show us the scripture! It is only your interpetation of the scripture that supports your argument.

Michael

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 07:46 PM
see the thing is threebigs that in my heart i know the holy spirit is telling me what is important .

hes telling me you gotta feed the poor, help the infirmed, visit those in prison, do all those things to help your neighbor for that love is following christ.

the spirit in me says i dont care about crude elements they will not save you I WILL - do my work and let the elements worry about themselves.

the spirit has never come close to letting me think any element is of any importance to me

the holy spirit asks me why would you return to being bound by earthly things i freed you from that.

so in my book i have way more issues than if i am dunked in water.

and also yes i do break bread with fellow believers as christ said to do in rememeberence of him but not as a vain ritual -- just to build brotherly bonds and remember him

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 07:48 PM
Show us the scripture! It is only your interpetation of the scripture that supports your argument.

Michael

There are almost too many to mention. Here is a sample:


matt 28:19
Acts 2:38, 41
Acts 8:12, 13, 36
Acts 9:18
Acts 10:47
Acts 16:33
Acts 18:8
Acts 19:5
Acts 22:16
1 Cor. 1:14, 16


How do you know if your interpretation is correct and mine is false?

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 07:49 PM
see the thing is threebigs that in my heart i know the holy spirit is telling me what is important .

hes telling me you gotta feed the poor, help the infirmed, visit those in prison, do all those things to help your neighbor for that love is following christ.

the spirit in me says i dont care about crude elements they will not save you I WILL - do my work and let the elements worry about themselves.

the spirit has never come close to letting me think any element is of any importance to me

the holy spirit asks me why would you return to being bound by earthly things i freed you from that.

so in my book i have way more issues than if i am dunked in water.

and also yes i do break bread with fellow believers as christ said to do in rememeberence of him but not as a vain ritual -- just to build brotherly bonds and remember him


I would suggest to you, then, that the Holy Spirit has led you to action and belief at variance to virtually every Christian of all time.

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 07:51 PM
I would suggest to you, then, that the Holy Spirit has led you to action and belief at variance to virtually every Christian of all time.


then so be it -- for god alone saves me and not every christian of all time

i have faith in god not every christian of all time

all men are liars

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 07:55 PM
SoldierOfChrist1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

No one is talking about the teachings of man. We are speaking of the teaching of the Holy Spirit. When 99 sincere Christians say that the Holy Spirit has led them to believe that Jesus commands water baptism and 1 sincere Christian who says that the Holy Spirit led him to believe Jesus does not command water baptism, one would logically conclude that the 1 is probably mistaken. The only difference is that, in the matter of water baptism, those believing that Jesus commands water baptism are almost innumerable and those believing otherwise are the smallest of fractions.

Wrong... every Christian? The baptism of the Holy Spirit is what is needed! Other wise he said I know you not! You need to study Matthew 25.

I never said the Holy Spirit was not needed. The two are not mutually exclusive. And yes, every Christian. Can you name for me one respected theologian who holds your view?

That is very close to personal attacks and shall we do the same back? This thread although very controversial has taught me how others interpret these scriptures and I have learned something here... we don't need it to be deleted.

I do not think it was personal, I was merely trying to point out that perhaps the way one interprets Scripture is not based on the Holy Spirit's guidance.

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 07:57 PM
then so be it -- for god alone saves me and not every christian of all time

i have faith in god not every christian of all time

all men are liars


How do you explain the Holy Spirit (i.e.: God) leading these Christians to a different conclusion than your own?

Why do you think the Holy Spirit (i.e.: God) led these Christians to a different conclusion than your own?

Which conclusion is right? How do you determine that?

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 07:59 PM
No one is talking about the teachings of man. We are speaking of the teaching of the Holy Spirit. When 99 sincere Christians say that the Holy Spirit has led them to believe that Jesus commands water baptism and 1 sincere Christian who says that the Holy Spirit led him to believe Jesus does not command water baptism, one would logically conclude that the 1 is probably mistaken. The only difference is that, in the matter of water baptism, those believing that Jesus commands water baptism are almost innumerable and those believing otherwise are the smallest of fractions.


Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

many call themselves christians
just like many pharisees called themselves gods children
there were lots of them and none of them got it right but they sure thought they did
and christ himself couldnt convince them they were wrong

threebigrocks
May 28th 2008, 08:09 PM
No one is talking about the teachings of man. We are speaking of the teaching of the Holy Spirit. When 99 sincere Christians say that the Holy Spirit has led them to believe that Jesus commands water baptism and 1 sincere Christian who says that the Holy Spirit led him to believe Jesus does not command water baptism, one would logically conclude that the 1 is probably mistaken. The only difference is that, in the matter of water baptism, those believing that Jesus commands water baptism are almost innumerable and those believing otherwise are the smallest of fractions.


Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

many call themselves christians
just like many pharisees called themselves gods children
there were lots of them and none of them got it right but they sure thought they did
and christ himself couldnt convince them they were wrong

Yet scripture gives us a solid reason that Christ commanded that believers be baptized. That is not of man at all however you slice it - it's of God.

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 08:11 PM
No one is talking about the teachings of man. We are speaking of the teaching of the Holy Spirit. When 99 sincere Christians say that the Holy Spirit has led them to believe that Jesus commands water baptism and 1 sincere Christian who says that the Holy Spirit led him to believe Jesus does not command water baptism, one would logically conclude that the 1 is probably mistaken. The only difference is that, in the matter of water baptism, those believing that Jesus commands water baptism are almost innumerable and those believing otherwise are the smallest of fractions.


Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

many call themselves christians
just like many pharisees called themselves gods children
there were lots of them and none of them got it right but they sure thought they did
and christ himself couldnt convince them they were wrong



Are you suggesting that the gudiance and wisdom of other believers is not necessary, needed, useful, or appropriate and /or is not of the Holy Spirit?

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 08:17 PM
seamus me and soldier seem to agree.

i have faith that god can save me from anything, even crude elements. i guess many christians dont feel that way. i do feel sorry for them and i do pray for them.

i wish every christian that went to h2o baptism would instead take that time to feed the poor-- how many man hours would that be

all those so called preists and followers that gather could be spending thier time more inline with the heart of christs teachings instead of bringing themselves back under the law from which christ freed them.

and im suggesting that there are many more who just call themselves christian than that there really are

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 08:24 PM
seamus me and soldier seem to agree.

i have faith that god can save me from anything, even crude elements. i guess many christians dont feel that way. i do feel sorry for them and i do pray for them.

i wish every christian that went to h2o baptism would instead take that time to feed the poor-- how many man hours would that be

all those so called preists and followers that gather could be spending thier time more inline with the heart of christs teachings instead of bringing themselves back under the law from which christ freed them.

and im suggesting that there are many more who just call themselves christian than that there really are

As someone else indicated, baptisms occur during a Sunday worship service, so no time is "wasted." I am not sure why you are so determined to avoid obeying what Christ commands.

You did not answer my question: are you suggesting that the guidance and wisdom of other Christians is not needed, necessary, appropriate, useful and/or of the Holy Spirit?

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 08:32 PM
its not needed or neccessary, but yes it is usefull and appropriate if it is from a TRUE christian.

because MANY false christs will come. teaching things that they shouldnt and leading many astray.

they would decieve the very elect if it were possible
thank god its not

threebigrocks
May 28th 2008, 08:37 PM
seamus me and soldier seem to agree.

i have faith that god can save me from anything, even crude elements. i guess many christians dont feel that way. i do feel sorry for them and i do pray for them.

i wish every christian that went to h2o baptism would instead take that time to feed the poor-- how many man hours would that be

all those so called preists and followers that gather could be spending thier time more inline with the heart of christs teachings instead of bringing themselves back under the law from which christ freed them.

and im suggesting that there are many more who just call themselves christian than that there really are

No hours, you can do both. Do you plan on feeding the poor today or tomorrow? What else could you "waste" your time with to keep yourself from doing what the Lord commanded? People can come up with plenty. We are told to be baptized and to baptize by Christ, that too is one of His commands. Why ignore it and make it seem as though it holds you bondage instead of allowing you to proclaim a testimony of Christ, just as feeding the poor would be doing?

threebigrocks
May 28th 2008, 08:40 PM
its not needed or neccessary, but yes it is usefull and appropriate if it is from a TRUE christian.

because MANY false christs will come. teaching things that they shouldnt and leading many astray.

they would decieve the very elect if it were possible
thank god its not

How do you discern who you agree with here then? You have agreed with several members, including myself. You don't know any of us, and anyone can be someone else over the internet.

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 08:45 PM
its not needed or neccessary, but yes it is usefull and appropriate if it is from a TRUE christian.

because MANY false christs will come. teaching things that they shouldnt and leading many astray.

they would decieve the very elect if it were possible
thank god its not


If it is not necessary or needed how do you resolve differences of opinions between Christians? Only one view can be correct, but how do you discern which is correct?

IamBill
May 28th 2008, 08:46 PM
I can't beelieve I read the whoOOole thing !

*burp*


Baptism of the Holy spirit ! :pp

H2O left me for dead.

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 08:47 PM
i was baptized with the holy spirit-- and his apostles were told to go forth and baptise not the pharisees .



read the scripture and see who he says that too hes not standing on a roof and saying everyone go baptize. he gave authority to those chosen to do it.

and remember they baptized with the holy spirit and they also healed the maimed.
if these men now adays have power to baptize why dont they have power to clense lepers ?


their baptism had power.

and heck no im not feeding the poor today im greedy and self serving --but the truth is still the truth

yes and i agree with different people on different topics
just pointing out me and soldier agreed here.
i dont claim to be correct on every topic here and as a human i say never believe a word i say

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 08:48 PM
lol bill you must be a man of god to be able to suffer through this whole thread :)
i gotta admit bill god gives you a way with words i type pages of crud and you sum it up in a few words lol

and seamus the holy spirit discerns for me

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 08:50 PM
i was baptized with the holy spirit-- and his apostles were told to go forth and baptise not the pharisees .



read the scripture and see who he says that too hes not standing on a roof and saying everyone go baptize. he gave authority to those chosen to do it.

and remember they baptized with the holy spirit and they also healed the maimed.
if these men now adays have power to baptize why dont they have power to clense lepers ?


their baptism had power.

and heck no im not feeding the poor today im greedy and self serving --but the truth is still the truth

yes and i agree with different people on different topics
just pointing out me and soldier agreed here.
i dont claim to be correct on every topic here and as a human i say never believe a word i say


YOu did not answer my question: If it [the wisdom/guidance of the community of believers] is not necessary or needed how do you resolve differences of opinions between Christians? Only one view can be correct, but how do you discern which is correct?

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 08:54 PM
seamus i pray the holy spirit discerns it for me

then i present what i know to other christians and hopefully we can agree

then god will take care of the rest

i have to worry more about my actions than i do on if i agree with other christians or not



if hitler called himself christian would you want to be baptised by him ?

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 08:55 PM
lol bill you must be a man of god to be able to suffer through this whole thread :)
i gotta admit bill god gives you a way with words i type pages of crud and you sum it up in a few words lol

and seamus the holy spirit discerns for me

Ok, let's say that the Holy Spirit discerns for you "X" and the Holy Spirit discerns for me "Z" - how do you determined which of us discerned correctly or discerned from the Holy Spirit? Is "X" or "Z" correct? Only one can be, how do you know which?

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 08:57 PM
seamus i pray the holy spirit discerns it for me

then i present what i know to other christians and hopefully we can agree

then god will take care of the rest

i have to worry more about my actions than i do on if i agree with other christians or not

Ok, you "present what i know to other christians and hopefully we can agree" - ok, if you were to do that you would discover that the essentially universal opinion of Christians is that baptism is by water. Are you suggesting that all of these people have discerned incorrectly? If so, by what authority?

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 09:03 PM
yes i am absolutly suggesting that.

what authority does any man have ?

and thats by which authority i do it

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 09:08 PM
yes i am absolutly suggesting that.

what authority does any man have ?

and thats by which authority i do it


In that case, allow me to say in the most loving of ways that I think you acting with a great amount of hubris to say tha your personal discernment carries more weight than the history of Christendom.

Your suggestion here is not Biblical. In Acts 15 we see two sets of Christians with two (2) different ideas of how the Holy Spirit has led them. In other words, Paul discerned "X" and Peter discerned "Z" and the Community of Believers together discerned that "X" was correct. By your own suggestion, you would call into quesiton the discernment of the Community of Believers and hold onto belief "Z". This, my friend, is contrary to the example and method of the Apostles and Biblical teaching.

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 09:10 PM
yes i am absolutly suggesting that.

what authority does any man have ?

and thats by which authority i do it

What authority does man have? Let's consult Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18. Man also had the authority to write the Bible (under inspiration of course) and discern what writings were inspired.

Ultimately, it seems that you are unwilling to allow the Holy Spirit's action throughout the entirety of Christendom to determine your beliefs, but instead have chosen an innovation of your own making.

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 09:10 PM
It looks like we are saying, at least thinking, the same thing. Agreed! :)

Well - I will be happy to state my position and you tell me if we are on the same page. We are saved by God’s grace through a faith that is obedient to His will – “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice.” It is the blood of Christ that completely and finally saves us from our past sins at the point of conversion – ie - when we are baptized into Christ via the ordinance of Christian baptism upon our confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ and when we repent of our sins. It is this same blood shed on the cross that continues to remove the stain of sin for those sins we commit after our conversion – if we walk in the light as He is in the light and if we confess our sins to Him - if we do this “He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”. :)

fewarechosen
May 28th 2008, 09:21 PM
if you think i personally discern it so be it.

but let me ask you this if the whole community said peter was right would that have made paul wrong ?

or would the whole community have been wrong.

now mind you not to drag others into this but it seems soldier, IamBill, and I all agree.

so am i really all out there by myself ?

now seamus obviously you care about god and i dont at all think we cant be in the same body. but i think you and me both have much to learn perhaps its in different areas.

im gonna withdraw from this thread for awhile

but i hope we both can pray for eachother , and i do apologize if i wronged you.

peace

seamus414
May 28th 2008, 09:24 PM
if you think i personally discern it so be it.

but let me ask you this if the whole community said peter was right would that have made paul wrong ?

or would the whole community have been wrong.

now mind you not to drag others into this but it seems soldier, IamBill, and I all agree.

so am i really all out there by myself ?

now seamus obviously you care about god and i dont at all think we cant be in the same body. but i think you and me both have much to learn perhaps its in different areas.

im gonna withdraw from this thread for awhile

but i hope we both can pray for eachother , and i do apologize if i wronged you.

peace


If the Council of Jerusalem said Peter was right, the Paul would have been wrong.

Using your methods, there is no way to know if your own discernment is correct or incorrect.

losthorizon
May 28th 2008, 09:28 PM
yes i am absolutly suggesting that.

what authority does any man have ?

and thats by which authority i do it
Man has the authority from Jesus Christ to “Go…teach all nations…baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” The baptism authorized and commanded by Jesus Christ is immersion in water. "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."

IamBill
May 29th 2008, 12:36 AM
Man has the authority from Jesus Christ to “Go…teach all nations…baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” The baptism authorized and commanded by Jesus Christ is immersion in water. "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."

The baptism authorized and commanded by Jesus Christ is immersion in water.
Can you provide me with scripture that states that beyond doubt ? :)

losthorizon
May 29th 2008, 01:25 AM
The baptism authorized and commanded by Jesus Christ is immersion in water.
Can you provide me with scripture that states that beyond doubt ? :)
Well Bill I guess the question that goes begging is – “Beyond whose doubt?” – I think more than enough scriptures have been provided showing that Jesus commanded baptism and it is universal scholastic opinion that the apostolic church as recorded in the Bible and in the historical record believed in, taught and practiced immersion in water – per Paul a burial in water (Rom 6:3-5) – a burial into the death of Christ as the old man goes down into the water a sinner – he is submerged in water (buried) – and he comes forth a new creature in Christ by the operation of the Holy Spirit - born of "water and the Spirit". I will share with you the wise words of my favorite Calvinist preacher – Charles Spurgeon…
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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."—Romans 6:3-4.

I shall not enter into controversy over this text, although over it some have raised the question of infant baptism or believers' baptism, immersion or sprinkling. If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done. I am content to take the view that baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord, and I shall so interpret the text. If any think not so, it may at least interest them to know what we understand to be the meaning of the baptismal rite, and I trust that they may think none the less of the spiritual sense because they differ as to the external sign. After all, the visible emblem is not the most prominent matter in the text. May God the Holy Spirit help us to reach its inner teaching. ~ Charles SpurgeonNow – can I convince IamBill that the baptism commanded by Christ is immersion in water – probably not - your mind may be set against such an idea because of past religious indoctrination. Does someone's rejection of immersion in water negate its reality or its necessity in God’s plan to save sinners by the blood of Christ – of course not. It is in the Book. What “baptism” did Jesus command in the Great Commission in your theology?

IamBill
May 29th 2008, 01:58 AM
Well Bill I guess the question that goes begging is – “Beyond whose doubt?” –

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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."—Romans 6:3-4.

:) Mentions no h2o
Not "whose doubt", -

The baptism authorized and commanded by Jesus Christ is immersion in water.
states that beyond doubt ? -- Scripture ! From the Bible -the word of God

losthorizon
May 29th 2008, 02:24 AM
:) Mentions no h2o
Not "whose doubt", -

states that beyond doubt ? -- Scripture ! From the Bible -the word of God
Well Bill – you’re a hard case and you didn’t answer my question – if not water baptism then what baptism – Mark 16:16? The Lord directed Philip to “go toward the south” and preach the gospel of Christ to “a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians”. “Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus…” Part of that gospel message Philip preached to the eunuch included the “one baptism” commanded by Jesus Christ - ie - real live water, the kind that gets you wet - “when they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (Acts 8). The gospel of Christ includes immersion in water as instituted and commanded by the Lord - it's that simple.;)

IamBill
May 29th 2008, 02:38 AM
Well Bill – you’re a hard case and you didn’t answer my question –
:) I am trying to learn, not be hard
I am still waiting for you to answer ! You said ---
The baptism authorized and commanded by Jesus Christ is immersion in water

I asked -> :)
Can you provide me with scripture that states that beyond doubt ?

scripture! as in the word of God -the Bible. I am not interested in anyones commentary.

BECAUSE-

1co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

losthorizon
May 29th 2008, 02:45 AM
:) I am trying to learn, not be hard
I am still waiting for you to answer ! You said ---
The baptism authorized and commanded by Jesus Christ is immersion in water

I asked -> :)
Can you provide me with scripture that states that beyond doubt ?

scripture! as in the word of God -the Bible
It is beyond doubt. Can you provide scripture that it is not immersion in water? You didn't answer my question - if not water then what? Or do you not have an answer?

IamBill
May 29th 2008, 03:20 AM
:)

Take your time, I have patience -- Scripture.

losthorizon
May 29th 2008, 03:49 AM
:)

Take your time, I have patience -- Scripture.
No time needed - why was the eunuch baptized in water after hearing the gospel of Christ preached? The answer is there at your fingertips. Do you not have an answer? “What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?”

IamBill
May 29th 2008, 04:43 AM
:) I have not professed anything Lost

Lets start over - YOU SAID -
The baptism authorized and commanded by Jesus Christ is immersion in water.

I ASKED -
Can you provide me with scripture that states that beyond doubt ?

YOU REPLIED-
Well Bill I guess the question that goes begging is – “Beyond whose doubt?”
- and added commentary

I ASKED again -
Not "whose doubt", -
states that beyond doubt ? -- Scripture ! From the Bible -the word of God

YOU REPLIED-
Well Bill – you’re a hard case and you didn’t answer my question –

I Asked the Question again-
Can you provide me with scripture that states that beyond doubt ?
ADDING
scripture! as in the word of God -the Bible. I am not interested in anyones commentary.

YOU REPLIED-
It is beyond doubt. Can you provide scripture that it is not immersion in water? You didn't answer my question - if not water then what? Or do you not have an answer?

I REPLIED-
Take your time, I have patience -- Scripture

YOU REPLIED-
No time needed - why was the eunuch baptized in water after hearing the gospel of Christ preached? The answer is there at your fingertips. Do you not have an answer? “What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?”
*******

I've read 13 pages of this sort of run-around

IS this or is this NOT FACT found in the word of God ?
The baptism authorized and commanded by Jesus Christ is immersion in water.
If it IS biblical TRUTH, show me through scripture please.

SoldierOfChrist
May 29th 2008, 05:50 AM
I've read 13 pages of this sort of run-around

IS this or is this NOT FACT found in the word of God ?
The baptism authorized and commanded by Jesus Christ is immersion in water.
If it IS biblical TRUTH, show me through scripture please.

He is talking about this below (Acts 8:35-38) and it does support his argument in that this baptism was in water. It does not mention the Holy Spirit as far as the eunuch is concerned.

As we know the Spirit fell on those that were not baptized as well as we know that if fell on those after they were only baptized with the baptism of John (Acts 8:16-17).

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

But... there are other scriptures besides these:

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

But here is his problem:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

If we are not to be baptized with the Holy Spirit why mention it? :confused

John 4:1 When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

He has his reasons to beleive what he does and it is what he has been taught. Probably 95% of Christians believe that someday THE ANTICHRIST will come and it is widely accepted by most of the scribes he has quoted... but there is nothing to support it but tradition.

Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Somehow this argument has gone off track and turned to the water baptism vs spirit baptism. In which there is no doubt which is greater. I was dunked in water as a child and I knew not God until I was born of Spirit.

Water h2o baptism is not born of Spirit.

Michael

losthorizon
May 29th 2008, 11:35 AM
He is talking about this below (Acts 8:35-38) and it does support his argument in that this baptism was in water. It does not mention the Holy Spirit as far as the eunuch is concerned.


Thank you, Michael and the Bible does mention the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit giver to All believes at the point of immersion in water –


Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 (KJV)
Like every believer – the eunuch received the Holy Spirit when he obeyed the Lord and was immersed in water – into the death of Jesus Christ just as Paul explained in Romans 6:3-5. Just as Paul received the Holy Spirit when his own sins were washed away at the point of his immersion in water –
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16 (KJV)

seamus414
May 29th 2008, 12:28 PM
I simply cannot understand why people would believe that Christian baptism is not with water. This is NOT to say that there is no "spiritual baptism" - the two are NOT mutually exclusive - but there IS Christian baptism in water and it is the baptism commanded by Christ in Matt 28.

Here's my logic and I wish someone would address it:

On one side you have the water-baptism group saying the Bible supports its view.

On the other side you have the baptism-is-without-water group saying the Bible supports its view.

The Bible can only support ONE of these views not both. So, how does one discern which view is correct when the Bible is allegedly unclear (for the record, I think the Bible is clear: water is involved in Christian baptism).

The way you determine which view of the Bible is correct is to measure it next to how Christians have practiced their faith and believed through the centuries. The UNIVERSAL practice and faith among the Apostolic church was water baptism. The UNIVERSAL practice and faith among the Patristic church was water baptism. The UNIVERSAL practice and faith among the church in the middle ages was water baptism. The UNIVERSAL practice and faith among the Protestant Reformers and Anglicans is water baptism. There is NOT ONE significant branch of Christianity that teaches or practices no water baptism.

I am not saying the following in a pejoritive way, I am saying the following in a descriptive way: Christians who do not believe in water baptism are extremely new (I do not think this idea dates before the 1800's; I would be surprised if it is older than the 1900's). Christians who do not believe in water baptism are EXTREMELY few and far between - indeed a cursory google search does not bring up even ONE link. If you were to wiki search baptism, the concept that baptism is done without water is not even in the article.

What can be concluded? That those who do not think that baptism is by water is essentially saying to the ENTIRE Christian community for ALL TIME that they were wrong. It is essentially telling the Apostles, and their followers, that THEY were wrong.

It defys basic common sense that the word "baptism" - a greek word mean ablusion/wash/immerse - would not involve water. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If you want to stand against every Christian tradition of all time, be my guest, be as for me and my own, we simply do not have the hubris to look virtually every Christian who has ever lived in the face and say "I know more than all of you" or "you were not led by the Holy Spirit in this issue - I have been."

seamus414
May 29th 2008, 12:36 PM
To those who do not believe in water-baptism, please answer this question:

Many verses have been cited (like Matt 28:19) where Christians are told to baptize others. If water is not involved in baptism, how is this baptism administered?

In other words, if you participate in witnessing to a new convert and this person says to you, "I would like to be baptized" and you have discerned that baptism is appropriate, what would you do? How would you go about "performing" the baptism? What steps would you take? What are the elements or parts to the rite? Take us through it. What actions do you take? What words do you use? How do you know when the baptism occurs? When it starts or finishes?

Thanks.

fewarechosen
May 29th 2008, 01:13 PM
when god decides to baptise you with the LIVING WATER it can happen anyway he wants.

if you note in scripture some recieved the holy spirit with laying of hands.

some it decended upon in a room

some where dunked in water

in all of those cases they are being immersed in the living water.

-- what i find interesting is read the scriptures and see what other works those men did--

remember the 11 were sent out-- not everyone

so now what happens is people want the saftey net of being "baptised" because they cant see the holy spirit or hear it --but they want it.

so man makes a ritual --well i cant see the holy spirit and i cant hear it --so who is to know i cant give it to anyone or i cant have it. it is the easy way out -- heck i got dunked in water im SAVED i follow gods commandments

people are attached to the pagan rituals -- christ died to free us from the bonds of this world not to put us under them. elements have no controll over us and christ would never give us a vain cerimony.

what i find interesting is when you ask them who is qualified to baptise someone.

can anyone baptise you ?
could hitler baptise you ?
could a molesting priest baptise you ?
how do you know that person is qualified ?

the answer is no one is qualified but god
notice when the 11 were sent out --they healed lepers,
they vanished before peoples eyes. they did those works and baptised with the holy spirit.

so now people want to claim to baptise but where are thier other works ?

so because man clings to things they want to say well we can still baptise and give someone the holy ghost- but well that other stuff its just not for us to do right now.

put your faith in god people -he will save you from any element

the pharisees thought they knew god but thier heart was far from him.
as it is today

and seamus that baptism is administered by the holy spirit .
look in scripture, some it was laying on hands, some it decended upon in a room, some dunked in water, me i was asleep.

yet all where in LIVING water for that is the holy spirit

fewarechosen
May 29th 2008, 01:28 PM
seamus the second part of your question is the important part.

if someone asked me that personally - i would say i can do no such thing, pray to god and he will send you the comforter.

then i would continue to discuss scripture with them and try to lead by example and help my fellow brother.

for make no mistake NO MAN STOPS SOMEONE FROM BEING BAPTISED.

not one of his will be lost -- so your little h2o cerimony is not needed.

if god does decide to use someone to baptise its anyway god sees fit.

dont try to bottle it into some little cerimony
sometimes it decended on a crowd, sometimes it was laying on of hands, sometimes it was in h20.
however god wants.

but just as you think its a grave sin to not be h2o baptised.

i will tell you its a way greater sin to say you can baptize when when your baptism isnt giving the holy spirit. you are mocking the ones who got nailed to trees and where persecuted unto death.

seamus414
May 29th 2008, 02:07 PM
seamus the second part of your question is the important part.

if someone asked me that personally - i would say i can do no such thing, pray to god and he will send you the comforter.

then i would continue to discuss scripture with them and try to lead by example and help my fellow brother.

for make no mistake NO MAN STOPS SOMEONE FROM BEING BAPTISED.

not one of his will be lost -- so your little h2o cerimony is not needed.

if god does decide to use someone to baptise its anyway god sees fit.

dont try to bottle it into some little cerimony
sometimes it decended on a crowd, sometimes it was laying on of hands, sometimes it was in h20.
however god wants.

but just as you think its a grave sin to not be h2o baptised.

i will tell you its a way greater sin to say you can baptize when when your baptism isnt giving the holy spirit. you are mocking the ones who got nailed to trees and where persecuted unto death.


Obviously I disagree (it is plainly obvious that Christians have the authority to baptise others) but I respect your view.

I just add a note of caution to you. By taking such a position, you are looking the Apostles, and their followers, and essentially every Christian of all time in the face and telling them that they are all wrong and all have been led astray. You are saying that you have heard the Holy Spirit more clearly and differently than essentially every Christian who has ever lived - including the followers of the Apostles - and that at this late date the Holy Spirit has given you a new message that is at variance with virtually EVERY Christian community of all time. Allow me to reiterate: your belief is absent from the Apostolic teaching, absent from the patristic teaching, absent from the Protestant Reformation's and Anglican teaching, and absent from virtually every grouping of Christians from all time.

I simply do not have the hubris to tell the entirety of Christendom that they are wrong and I am right.

I think you should really consider why you are "led" differently than essentially the whole of Christendom since the Apostles and how it is that you are wiser than essentially the whole of Christendom since the Apostles. I do not think God would allow all of his people to be led astray.

SoldierOfChrist
May 29th 2008, 02:10 PM
Thank you, Michael and the Bible does mention the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit giver to All believes at the point of immersion in water –

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 (KJV)
Like every believer – the eunuch received the Holy Spirit when he obeyed the Lord and was immersed in water – into the death of Jesus Christ just as Paul explained in Romans 6:3-5. Just as Paul received the Holy Spirit when his own sins were washed away at the point of his immersion in water –

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16 (KJV)

This is problem in talking to you... you make statements that are not backed up by scripture and are only how you would like them to read... however they do not!

There is no scripture that states the Holy Spirit is given to all when dunked in water... not h2o anyway!


the eunuch received the Holy Spirit when he obeyed the Lord and was immersed in waterThe only thing the Bible said is he was immersed in water. It does NOT say he received the Holy Spirit!



Just as Paul received the Holy Spirit when his own sins were washed away at the point of his immersion in waterThe only thing the Bible said is he was Baptized. It does NOT say he was immersed in water!

If you want to continue to add your own scriptures do so but please start another thread called losthorizon's Bible. You cannot add to the Bible things that are not there (Revelation 22:18).

Michael