the meaning of Baptism

[MennoSota]

That is not right. Water is water. One is baptised with water and the spoken word of God is proclaimed when one is baptised. It isn't a puzzle made of words where water really means word and word means something else.

Scripture...in context please.

 

[Imalive]

That is not right. Water is water. One is baptised with water and the spoken word of God is proclaimed when one is baptised. It isn't a puzzle made of words where water really means word and word means something else.

Well in English it is. Dutch is a translation from another source than the KJV and it says: washing her with the water bath of His Word.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Use scripture, in its context, and accuse me. I dare you to find where I am misquoting scripture.

If you quote from scripture maybe your quotes are accurate - it depends on what you say is the quote - you already said that Romans were not present on the day of Pentecost and were shown to be wrong. We may be forgiven for being a little careful to check what you claim is a quote from scripture given your record. And your habit of proclaiming that the context makes a verse mean what you claim it means is also bad exegesis because the context of passages like Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit does not make it mean anything different from what it says; namely that we're saved by the washing of regeneration which is rightly identified as baptism as the scriptures testify "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you".

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well in English it is. Dutch is a translation from another source than the KJV and it says: washing her with the water bath of His Word.

The passage says Ephesians 5:24-27 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, [26] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [27] that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. the church (menbers) are cleansed by baptism with the word of God proclaimed at baptism. The liturgy of baptism always proclaims the spoken word of God.

 

[Imalive]

The passage says Ephesians 5:24-27 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, [26] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [27] that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. the church (menbers) are cleansed by baptism with the word of God proclaimed at baptism. The liturgy of baptism always proclaims the spoken word of God.

Ah. interesting.

http://www.totheends.com/water.html

 

[MennoSota]

I am stepping out of this thread. I have shared the biblical reasons for my position. It is clear that people would rather follow their church rather than scripture and that makes me sad. But, until God brings you to loving his holy word over your denominational ties, you will cling to doctrines not found in God's word.

 

[Imalive]

We asked a mother recently, whose babe had just been "christened," as she termed it, by a Methodist preacher, "What benefit has your child derived from this ceremony?" Her answer was like this: "None at all, but I had it done because others do it." And so it is with many other traditions and customs of men. Many a parent has their babe "christened" merely because it is a custom, or the preacher has said so, never searching the Word of God to know the reason why. Had she searched the Word of the Lord to know something of this doctrine she never would have found the object of her search. As we look upon the "christening" of an infant we are reminded more of heathendom than of the kingdom of grace.

The word "christen" we have not been able to find in the Bible. Nowhere since the ordinance of baptism was instituted have we a commandment to baptize infants, and nowhere in all the evangelistic work of the apostles is there an instance of infant baptism recorded. If it is as important as some teach, even the child's eternal destiny depending upon it, do you not think there would have been some plain commandment in the teaching of Jesus and his apostles to that end? One command would be sufficient, but we have none. Infant baptism originated in the confusions of the apostasy. John refused to baptize some because they bore no fruit of repentance. Repentance, therefore, must precede baptism. This was plainly taught by Peter. "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus." Acts 2:38. A little child can not repent, and needs no repentance.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am stepping out of this thread. ...

Must be the heat in the kitchen sort of thing

:smirk:

 

[MoreCoffee]

We asked a mother recently, whose babe had just been "christened," as she termed it, by a Methodist preacher, "What benefit has your child derived from this ceremony?" Her answer was like this: "None at all, but I had it done because others do it." And so it is with many other traditions and customs of men. Many a parent has their babe "christened" merely because it is a custom, or the preacher has said so, never searching the Word of God to know the reason why. Had she searched the Word of the Lord to know something of this doctrine she never would have found the object of her search. As we look upon the "christening" of an infant we are reminded more of heathendom than of the kingdom of grace.

The word "christen" we have not been able to find in the Bible. Nowhere since the ordinance of baptism was instituted have we a commandment to baptize infants, and nowhere in all the evangelistic work of the apostles is there an instance of infant baptism recorded. If it is as important as some teach, even the child's eternal destiny depending upon it, do you not think there would have been some plain commandment in the teaching of Jesus and his apostles to that end? One command would be sufficient, but we have none. Infant baptism originated in the confusions of the apostasy. John refused to baptize some because they bore no fruit of repentance. Repentance, therefore, must precede baptism. This was plainly taught by Peter. "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus." Acts 2:38. A little child can not repent, and needs no repentance.

Is this another "the word is not in the bible so it cannot be true" argument?

Baptism is the word used in the bible. It refers to washing. It points to the work of the Holy Spirit washing away sins and cleansing human nature to make the faithful righteous (just) before God. It also refers to the washing of regeneration and to the birth from above. By means of baptism the Holy Spirit effects the new life of Christ in the faithful by bringing them to death in Christ and burial with Christ and raising them to new life in Christ. It is never complicated and never obscure unless your theology makes it so by claiming that baptism is a symbol and that it is an act of obedience and public testimony to one's faith in Jesus - all of which holy scripture does not say baptism is. Baptism is what Jesus said it was, being born of water and the spirit so that one may enter the kingdom of God.

 

[Josiah]

It is clear that people would rather follow their church rather than scripture and that makes me sad. But, until God brings you to loving his holy word over your denominational ties, you will cling to doctrines not found in God's word.

Friend, that's my position....

I think Scripture is very clear. And I think it is obvious that it is silent about all these prohibitions and limitations placed on the Great Commission.

I think all this "gotta be X years old...." "Gotta dunk in at least X amount of water....." "Gotta be documented Christians before we can go... baptize.... teach.....them....." All that is unheard of in Scripture and unheard of until the 16th Century when the Anabaptist denomination invented it. These are denominational inventions (and relatively new ones at that), not anything the Bible says.



- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

Is this another "the word is not in the bible so it cannot be true" argument?

Baptism is the word used in the bible. It refers to washing. It points to the work of the Holy Spirit washing away sins and cleansing human nature to make the faithful righteous (just) before God. It also refers to the washing of regeneration and to the birth from above. By means of baptism the Holy Spirit effects the new life of Christ in the faithful by bringing them to death in Christ and burial with Christ and raising them to new life in Christ. It is never complicated and never obscure unless your theology makes it so by claiming that baptism is a symbol and that it is an act of obedience and public testimony to one's faith in Jesus - all of which holy scripture does not say baptism is. Baptism is what Jesus said it was, being born of water and the spirit so that one may enter the kingdom of God.

It's not just a symbol. I agree w that. They split it up. It was immediately when they received the Word or repented in the Bible. It's a work of faith. But baptism and Word don't save. That baby in that example is just as saved as someone parrotting the sinners prayer without meaning it. But if a parent is sincere and believes the kid gets saved? They forced Jews to be baptized centuries ago. I don't think it got em saved. That link was good that I found. He washes her w the Word to make her clean for baptism. The robber on the cross wasn't baptized, but was saved. He literally died w Christ too btw.

 

[Albion]

Imalive:

But if a parent is sincere and believes the kid gets saved?

I'm seriously wondering what it would take before the words "Infant Baptism isn't believed to guarantee salvation" sinks in. :banghead:

We asked a mother recently, whose babe had just been "christened," as she termed it, by a Methodist preacher, "What benefit has your child derived from this ceremony?" Her answer was like this: "None at all, but I had it done because others do it." And so it is with many other traditions and customs of men. Many a parent has their babe "christened" merely because it is a custom, or the preacher has said so, never searching the Word of God to know the reason why.

Do you also believe that if a parent has his child immunized against small pox--perhaps because he's been told to do that or because other parents do it--that the injection won't protect the child against the disease unless the parent knows everything about disease, how it's spread, what it does to the victim, and so on??

 

[Imalive]

I'm seriously wondering what it would take before the words "Infant Baptism isn't believed to guarantee salvation" sinks in. :banghead:

Regeneration is born again is salvation. If you say you get regenerated by baptism and Word then you cant say but it doesnt mean born again or that happens years later. Its this or that.Torben Sondergaard believes you get saved, born again by baptism (in combination w repentance and faith). So he let his kids get baptized, but not as babies.

 

[Albion]

Regeneration is born again is salvation.

Absolutely not. Regeneration is a fresh start, not a guaranteed finish.

If you say you get regenerated by baptism and Word then you cant say but it doesnt mean born again or that happens years later.

We certainly can. It's nothing but misinformation or poor guesswork when "Believer's Baptism Only" folks say what you do here.

 

[Imalive]

Absolutely not. Regeneration is a fresh start, not a guaranteed finish.


We certainly can. It's nothing but misinformation or poor guesswork when "Believer's Baptism Only" folks say what you do here.

So you don't believe a baby gets born again by baptism and Word? From what I read here I thought you did. So then the baptism doesn't make you born again or later?
Regeneration (had to look it up, never heard of it) is born again in Dutch, saved. You were saved by grace through faith. Then work out your salvation, but because the Phillippians did that, Paul was convinced they'd stay saved.

 

[Albion]

So you don't believe a baby gets born again by baptism and Word? From what I read here I thought you did.

I said that the infant is not guaranteed salvation.

If, by "born again," you mean that you are forgiven your sin, then yes, Baptism does that, but it's not a 'Get Out of Hell Free' card. Many evangelicals-pentcostals-fundamentalists use the term in a somewhat different sense, I think.

I'd still appreciate an answer to the question I asked in post 352. It wasn't meant merely as a joke.

'

 

[Josiah]

Regeneration is born again is salvation. If you say you get regenerated by baptism and Word then you cant say but it doesnt mean born again or that happens years later. Its this or that.Torben Sondergaard believes you get saved, born again by baptism (in combination w repentance and faith). So he let his kids get baptized, but not as babies.

With all due respect, friend...

I think most Christians (all before the Anabaptist denomination started in the 16th Century) believe that Baptism and the Word are "Means of Grace", "tools in the hands of the Carpenter" (as Calvin put it), conduits through which God gives faith. Thus, not a "waste of time" and "of zero value" as many here have stated. Thus Jesus COMMANDS their use toward the unregenerate in the Great Commission (and He doesn't command something that's useless, a waste of time, of no value, impotent to accomplish anything at all). Follow me?


Now, Means of Grace CAN be used.... but that doesn't necessarily mean the receiver is guarenteed Heaven. Yes, the Bible DOES at time speak of them that way: "Faith comes by hearing" "Baptism now saves you." And yes, traditionally Christians speak this way, too (again, as at times Scripture does): This is embracing Gospel Scriptures as Gospel. But, there is mystery in all this (as I and others have said). Scripture says, "My Word does not return void but accomplishes all that I desire." Two things there, friend: The application of the Means of Grace (Proclaiming the Gospel and applying Baptism) are NOT void, not a waste to time and water, impotent and valueless and worthless (Jesus was nuts to COMMAND we apply them) but it also says "accomplishes what I (God) desires." I'm SURE there are people who attend a Billy Graham Crusade that don't end up in Heaven. Does that mean that ERGO no one does, that Dr. Graham is wasting his time, it's all useless to God, God CANNOT use any of that for His purposes, it PER SE is "of no spiritual value?" That's where I'd disagree. Follow me?


Something else: Only uber, extreme Calvinists believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved." Traditionally, for 2000 years, Christians have spoken of "BAPTISMAL grace" and stressed (even mandated in the Baptism ceremony) that such be accomplied by a life time of regular worship and Christian education. Parents and Sponsors VOW to raise the child in the Lord, to teach them the Word, to bring them regularly to Sunday worship..... because that BAPTISMAL grace is to be nurished and to grow. And traditionally, Christians have taught that it can be lost. JUST AS IN THE CASE of someone who is given faith via a Billy Graham Crusade- same/same. So no, no one is saying that if the unsaved are given faith THEREFORE they have a ticket to heaven that they CANNOT loose. We cannot accept Christ (Christ accepts us) but we CAN reject him (so say Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, and most Reformed Christians). Not too similar but.... God GIVES life to humans and thus they are born (cute and wrinkled), but that doesn't mean that they are GUARENTEED to live 87 years even if they never eat, never do anything, and put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. But that doesn't make it any LESS true that God GAVE them life (via means, lol).


And of course, we're still waiting for the verse where Jesus corrects the Great Commission by insisting: "Go..... Baptize...... teach...... but you are FORBIDDEN to do so unless they are past the age of X and documented and proven that FIRST they are a Christian - and thus what I just commanded you to do is a complete waste of time and of no spiritual value." That's exactly what several have insisted Jesus said! But I sure don't see that in Scripture.... I see it from the Anabaptist denomination but not in the Bible.



I hope that helps....


Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

 

[Imalive]

With all due respect, friend...

I think most Christians (all before the Anabaptist denomination started in the 16th Century) believe that Baptism and the Word are "Means of Grace", "tools in the hands of the Carpenter" (as Calvin put it), conduits through which God gives faith. Thus, not a "waste of time" and "of zero value" as many here have stated. Thus Jesus COMMANDS their use toward the unregenerate in the Great Commission (and He doesn't command something that's useless, a waste of time, of no value, impotent to accomplish anything at all). Follow me?


Now, Means of Grace CAN be used.... but that doesn't necessarily mean the receiver is guarenteed Heaven. Yes, the Bible DOES at time speak of them that way: "Faith comes by hearing" "Baptism now saves you." And yes, traditionally Christians speak this way, too (again, as at times Scripture does): This is embracing Gospel Scriptures as Gospel. But, there is mystery in all this (as I and others have said). Scripture says, "My Word does not return void but accomplishes all that I desire." Two things there, friend: The application of the Means of Grace (Proclaiming the Gospel and applying Baptism) are NOT void, not a waste to time and water, impotent and valueless and worthless (Jesus was nuts to COMMAND we apply them) but it also says "accomplishes what I (God) desires." I'm SURE there are people who attend a Billy Graham Crusade that don't end up in Heaven. Does that mean that ERGO no one does, that Dr. Graham is wasting his time, it's all useless to God, God CANNOT use any of that for His purposes, it PER SE is "of no spiritual value?" That's where I'd disagree. Follow me?


Something else: Only uber, extreme Calvinists believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved." Traditionally, for 2000 years, Christians have spoken of "BAPTISMAL grace" and stressed (even mandated in the Baptism ceremony) that such be accomplied by a life time of regular worship and Christian education. Parents and Sponsors VOW to raise the child in the Lord, to teach them the Word, to bring them regularly to Sunday worship..... because that BAPTISMAL grace is to be nurished and to grow. And traditionally, Christians have taught that it can be lost. JUST AS IN THE CASE of someone who is given faith via a Billy Graham Crusade- same/same. So no, no one is saying that if the unsaved are given faith THEREFORE they have a ticket to heaven that they CANNOT loose. We cannot accept Christ (Christ accepts us) but we CAN reject him (so say Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, and most Reformed Christians). Not too similar but.... God GIVES life to humans and thus they are born (cute and wrinkled), but that doesn't mean that they are GUARENTEED to live 87 years even if they never eat, never do anything, and put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. But that doesn't make it any LESS true that God GAVE them life (via means, lol).


And of course, we're still waiting for the verse where Jesus corrects the Great Commission by insisting: "Go..... Baptize...... teach...... but you are FORBIDDEN to do so unless they are past the age of X and documented and proven that FIRST they are a Christian - and thus what I just commanded you to do is a complete waste of time and of no spiritual value." That's exactly what several have insisted Jesus said! But I sure don't see that in Scripture.... I see it from the Anabaptist denomination but not in the Bible.



I hope that helps....


Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

That's on page 345.
A preacher in a church once said that w a text. 'It's in my Bible.' Everyone: Where? Where? Never seen it.
He: Oh I wrote it there myself.

 

[Imalive]

I said that the infant is not guaranteed salvation.

If, by "born again," you mean that you are forgiven your sin, then yes, Baptism does that, but it's not a 'Get Out of Hell Free' card. Many evangelicals-pentcostals-fundamentalists use the term in a somewhat different sense, I think.

I'd still appreciate an answer to the question I asked in post 352. It wasn't meant merely as a joke.

'

Oh okay, then I understood it correct what you believe. Born again isnt a get out of hell free card either. People can fall away.
That question, sure for natural things you dont need faith.

 

[Albion]

That question, sure for natural things you dont need faith.

The moral of that story** is that you don't have to understand how "it" works in order for it TO work. That's true with the things of God no less than with your computer or with immunizations.

You believe in miracles, I think. You don't understand how they occurred, though. That's what makes them miracles! If they were naturally occurring, you wouldn't perceive it to have been a miracle.

So also with the sacraments which were instituted by Christ to benefit us. The idea that we have to know exactly how God works his will in us through them (the classic argument against baptizing small children) is illogical, to say the least.


**"Do you also believe that if a parent has his child immunized against small pox--perhaps because he's been told to do that or because other parents do it--that the injection won't protect the child against the disease unless the parent knows everything about disease, how it's spread, what it does to the victim, and so on?? "





.