the meaning of Baptism

[MoreCoffee]

The baptism Paul is talking about is our immersion into Christ. Water is not even what is being discussed in Romans 6. Therefore water baptism cannot be the subject. The subject must be the work of God the Spirit in immersing (baptizo) us into Christ.

Forgive me for being a little cheeky here but if Paul is not discussing baptism with water and the Spirit here (I say water and the Spirit because that is what Jesus said to Nicodemus) then why do you think anybody need be submerged. One can be immersed without being submerged. I am immersed in water when I shower. I am also immersed in water when I have a bath but I never put my whole head under the water, so why be buried in the water of baptism if Paul is not talking about baptism with Water?

 

[psalms 91]

I have discussed this before that there is a difference between Christ in us and us in Christ. The spiritual application being discussed is us in Christ, becoming dead to sin, dying and being immersed in Christ in order to experience the fullness of salvation and to be a disciple of Christ. In order to be what God wants us to be we must kill the old man and become new in Christ. Christ in us is just the beginning of our walk

 

[MennoSota]

Because the apostles taught us to. They taught us by example. Their example was followed by the bishops who succeeded them. The following generations followed the example they had from their predecessors in the role of bishop.



Infants are baptised because we want to include them in the covenant. God included infants in the covenant with Abraham and repeated their inclusion when the law came. Many Calvinists think of the new covenant as a renewal and expansion of the covenant made with Abraham. We agree with that to a degree. Abram was blessed by God because he believed God. After believing God for many years it was said of Abram "And he believed the LORD; and this was reckoned it to him as righteousness". Years later, after Abram was renamed to Abraham, God told Abraham to circumcise his household, himself and his offspring - you are no longer to be called Abram; your name is to be Abraham, for I am making you father of many nations. ... And I shall maintain my covenant between myself and you, and your descendants after you, generation after generation, as a covenant in perpetuity, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. ... This is my covenant which you must keep between myself and you, and your descendants after you: every one of your males must be circumcised. You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that will be the sign of the covenant between myself and you. So we reason that since God included the children of his people in the old covenant he would also include children of believers in the new covenant. Paul does link baptism and circumcision as signs of covenant membership - In him you have been circumcised, with a circumcision performed, not by human hand, but by the complete stripping of your natural self. This is circumcision according to Christ. You have been buried with him by your baptism; by which, too, you have been raised up with him through your belief in the power of God who raised him from the dead. [Colossians 2:11-12]



Baptism is being born of water and the Spirit. Baptism is the cleansing water of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit. Baptism is dying with Christ and rising to new life in Christ. It is union with Christ. And it is the means by which God saves us in Christ.

Your statement above is a false doctrine and twisting of scripture. It saddens me to read how you destroy grace and replace it with your works.
Your gospel is no gospel at all, but instead it teaches a means by which millions spend eternity in hell on a yearly basis.

 

[MennoSota]

Expositors would disagree. Here are some that are interesting on the topic:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/6-3.htm

I found this quote to be rather telling:

You realize that I posted from scholars on baptism. Read what I posted and get back to me.
http://bible-truth.org/Rom6-whatbaptism.html

 

[Josiah]

A person doesnt become a member of the body of Christ, i.e. saved, thru religious works (good or otherwise), church attendance or denominational membership, 'receiving your 1st holy communion' or water-baptism, etc.

A person is saved and becomes a member of the body of Christ by grace thru faith in Jesus.

Friend,

While it is true that Scripture states, "Baptism now saves you" and "Faith comes by hearing" NO ONE and NO DENOMINATION teaches that baptizing and teaching PER SE - as ACTS PERFORMED - save. The belief is that God can use these for His purposes, as "Means of Grace" ("Tools in the hands of the Carpenter"). Scripture says, "My Word does not return to Me void, but accomplishes all for which I sent it."

No one denies that God can grant His gift of faith immediately (without means) as He likely did with John the Baptist who believed even before He was born. But it seems the great majority of the time, God sccomplishes His will via means.

It's also important to keep in mind that in the Bible, Baptism is always passive - the one receiving it does nothing whatsoever, thus baptism is NOT an act of the one receiving, it is an act of the BELIEVING in response to the Divine Command to "Go.... Baptize..... Teach....." and to love all (neither have an age limitation). There is not one example in Scripture of a person baptizing themselves thus I find it hard to argue that baptism is something self does for self.



Now.... where are the Scriptures that state, "Go.... baptize..... teach..... but thou canst NOT do so unless the receiver hath celebrated their X birthday!!!" "Go.... baptize..... teach..... but thou canst NOT do so unless the receiver hath first proven and documented their regeneration, born again status and Christian faith!!!!" "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but that is a waste of time, of no spiritual value, and accomplishes nothing whatsoever." You know, the claims made over and over in these 60 PAGES of posts...... Where does Scripture say, "God canst NOT bless or save those under the age of X or under the IQ of X because God is rendered impotent by such" Or "God canst NOT bless or save those under the age of X or under the IQ of X because they thus canst NOT save themselves by doing what self must do to save self?" You know, the claim made here?



Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

... a means by which millions spend eternity in hell on a yearly basis.

An annual eternity. That's odd.

:smirk:

 

[Josiah]

Entire household does not necessarily mean 100% of the people. Second, there is literally NO mention of children. You have to infer children into the story by forcing the word "entire" to mean 100%. If the household has pets were the pets also baptized?
What people are doing with Acts 16 is to force the silence of the text to support their churches unsupported teaching on infant baptism. It is horrible hermaneutics to make an argument for baptismal regeneration from silence. It's just horrible.

1. "Oikos" (household) refers to all PEOPLE in a family, it does not include pets or donkeys or mice.....


2. One of the two arguments limiting the Great Commission is that "ALL the examples of baptism that just happen to be recorded in the NT are of those over the age of X who first documented and proved their regeneration, born again status and Christian faith, people who demanded that they be baptized." Of course, the problem with that entire apologetic is that it's not true: we have examples where we know NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the age, gender, nationality, IQ, education, creedal affirmations, demands or spiritual life of the receiptients. BUT yes, we know they were people because the word used, "Oikos" only refers to people.


3. The other fundamental argument used to show Jesus' Great Commission is not to be fully embraced is that those under the age of X cannot be blessed by God because they are unable to do what we must do in order for God to bless them (synergism). I think they have John the Baptist, still in His mother's womb, would be a problem for those who believe we are to follow examples found in the Bible, but they skip over that. I don't think there is much worthwhile response to those who believe God is impotent to save or bless those under a certain age or IQ, or that we must save ourselves (God only offering or helping but never giving anything).



Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[user1234]

Ephesians 4:5 still says "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" doesn't it? Context doesn't make it say "one Lord, one faith, two baptisms". There is one baptism and it is in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and it unites the Christian to Christ in his death and resurrection washing away sins and bringing regeneration by water and the Spirit.

Wrong. Water does not wash away sins, the blood of Jesus Christ washed away our sins.

Stop stressing over what Catholics do in their own Church. You're a protestant. Get on with being one. You've got to get over this weird fixation on what Catholics do. We don't worry much about what you do in your denomination.

Lol, stressing? Hardly.

Catholics plural? I was addressing One self-professing Roman catholic that I'm aware of.

You call me a protestant? Why? You refer to yourself as a RomanCatholic, that's your choice.
I dont refer to myself as a protestant, why do you? ... I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean in 2017. Do you assume that everyone that doesnt believe in the doctrines and practices of the Roman catholic denomination is a so-called protestant?

All believers should have concern over false teaching and religious practices (especially those done in Jesus' name) which lead ppl astray from God's grace and salvation by faith in Jesus. That would include, but isn't limited to, the many teachings in the Roman catholic denomination.

(Other examples would be Mormonism, JW, S D A, NewAgeism, etc., but there doesnt seem to be too many here) You can call that a weird fixation on what catholics do if you like.
I guess christians could say you have a weird fixation on what they do, but what would that accomplish? There's no need for personal attacks and accusations.

You say, ' WE dont worry much about what you do in your denomination.'
A: Who's the WE? Are you presuming to speak for many or all Roman catholics?
B: What denomination are you accusing me, (or is it us), of having?
C: I'm a member of the one true church, the body of Christ, if you want
to call that a denomination...what is it you think we do that you object to?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Wrong. Water does not wash away sins, the blood of Jesus Christ washed away our sins.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
[Acts 22:16]

 

[MennoSota]

1. "Oikos" (household) refers to all PEOPLE in a family, it does not include pets or donkeys or mice.....


2. One of the two arguments limiting the Great Commission is that "ALL the examples of baptism that just happen to be recorded in the NT are of those over the age of X who first documented and proved their regeneration, born again status and Christian faith, people who demanded that they be baptized." Of course, the problem with that entire apologetic is that it's not true: we have examples where we know NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the age, gender, nationality, IQ, education, creedal affirmations, demands or spiritual life of the receiptients. BUT yes, we know they were people because the word used, "Oikos" only refers to people.


3. The other fundamental argument used to show Jesus' Great Commission is not to be fully embraced is that those under the age of X cannot be blessed by God because they are unable to do what we must do in order for God to bless them (synergism). I think they have John the Baptist, still in His mother's womb, would be a problem for those who believe we are to follow examples found in the Bible, but they skip over that. I don't think there is much worthwhile response to those who believe God is impotent to save or bless those under a certain age or IQ, or that we must save ourselves (God only offering or helping but never giving anything).



Pax Christi



- Josiah

We know that in every situation the person being baptized has professed faith. We never once read about a non-professing person being baptized.
In Acts 16 you must force the silence of the text to speak. That type of forcing is just horrible hermaneutics. Josiah, it's just HORRIBLE hermaneutics. Please do not expect any thinking human being to perform the juggling act you are doing with the text. Do not expect anyone to think your argument from silence to be a legitimate and valid argument. It's not. It's just not.

 

[user1234]

I posted this→Water does not wash away sins, the blood of Jesus Christ washed away our sins.
And you responded with this, evidently as a counterpoint?→

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
[Acts 22:16]

←And quoting that verse, you try to apply it as a prooftext that water-baptism washes away our sins, therefore
You have just proven that you do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and His shed blood on the cross to be sufficient to take away your sins.

You're free to believe in Jesus or not, but adding water-baptism as a necessity to have our sins removed and be saved violates the grace of God and is not true salvation.

And that usually winds up being the issue when discussing these things with Romancatholics who abide in the teachings of that denomination.
It always comes down to adding to or substituting for Jesus' finished work on the cross and resurrection from the grave for our salvation.

God says, and the bible teaches, that the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross was sufficient.
The roman catholic denomination, and many religious ppl, say No it isnt.

 

[Albion]

I posted this→Water does not wash away sins, the blood of Jesus Christ washed away our sins.
And you responded with this, evidently as a counterpoint?→

←And quoting that verse, you try to apply it as a prooftext that water-baptism washes away our sins, therefore
You have just proven that you do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and His shed blood on the cross to be sufficient to take away your sins.

How ridiculous. Is it your position that we all should be literally baptized with a container of blood rather than with water? Of course it is Jesus' sacrifice which makes possible the salvation of any of us, but it is the sacrament of Baptism which first applies that forgiveness from sin that was bought with Christ's blood.

And any reading of the Bible will prove that your theory is unsustainable. How, for example, could the Lord give the Great Commission, calling on his disciples to go into all the world, preaching the Gospel, making converts and "baptizing them" if they did not engage in some action, some ceremony, with the new believers? They couldn't.

And on top of that, you treat us to that favorite non-issue--"a necessity to have our sins removed." No one wrote that Baptism is a necessity to have our sins removed.

 

[user1234]

How ridiculous. Is it your position that we all should be literally baptized with a container of blood rather than with water? Of course it is Jesus' sacrifice which makes possible the salvation of any of us, but it is the sacrament of Baptism which first applies that forgiveness from sin that was bought with Christ's blood.

And any reading of the Bible will prove that your theory is unsustainable. How, for example, could the Lord give the Great Commission, calling on his disciples to go into all the world, preaching the Gospel, making converts and "baptizing them" if they did not engage in some action, some ceremony, with the new believers? They couldn't.

And on top of that, you treat us to that favorite non-issue--"a necessity to have our sins removed." No one wrote that Baptism is a necessity to have our sins removed.

Wrong. You are confusing water with faith.
It is not any denominations 'sacrament of water-baptism that applies forgiveness of sins'.
It is God's grace thru faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and His resurrection from the grave that applies forgiveness/salvation.
It is God's saving grace, not water-baptism.

It is the proponents of water-baptism as a necessity to have our sins removed that keep treating us to that issue (and it is an issue). I'm one who says water-baptism is NOT a necessity to be saved. If you agree, then Hallelujah. Anyhow.

~
To answer your first question.....
Yes, it's my position that 'we all should be "literally" baptised in a container of blood rather than water. :smashfreakb:
Better make it a big container, too, so we can all fit.
And it cant be just any blood.
It's gotta be bulls and goats.
..... And oranges. (They have em, ya know)

Water?? It has that yucky flouride, dont it?
Eww. Ask Imalive about it. It's icky.
Imalive knows things.
She's Dutch.
:disgonbegood::cheer:

 

[Josiah]

. I'm one who says water-baptism is NOT a necessity to be saved.

In over 60 pages, NO ONE has said otherwise..... on that point, NO ONE is disagreeing.


But that does NOT confirm that ERGO "go.... baptize..... teach...." is "a waste of time" and "of no spiritual value" and "meaningless" as has been argued in this thread. And it does NOT confirm that ERGO the Bible states, "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but thou canst NOT to so to any under the age of X!" "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but thou art forbidden to do so unless the receiver hath first documented and proven their born again status, their regeneration, their Christian faith - thou art forbidden to go or baptize or them them!" You know, the arguments being made in these 60+ pages.


I agree that it's JESUS that saves..... I agree that God GIVES faith..... I just don't agree that this CANNOT be given to us via any means, that God cannot use means to accomplish this. The Bible says, "My Word does not return to Me void but accomplishes that for which I sent it." It does NOT say, "Thou canst NOT go or baptize or teach anything because the ONLY way I can save people is if nothing is done by any human!" I agree... just because WE do something for another in love and obedience to God's Commands does NOT mean WE saved them and does NOT mean what we DID saved them.... but I also disagree that ergo they are "worthless" and "of no value" and "cannot be used by God."



My half cent.



- Josiah

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You realize that I posted from scholars on baptism. Read what I posted and get back to me.
http://bible-truth.org/Rom6-whatbaptism.html

I only perused it as I'm a little short on time, but I'll come back to it. But what I noticed is that the author does not deny that water baptism is being spoken of as well as spiritual. He does adhere to the idea that water baptism is a symbolic act, which I don't, but he nowhere says that water baptism is not in view.

Conclusion
I would like to suggest that the reference is to both spiritual and water baptism. You cannot separate the symbol from that which it symbolizes. I believe Paul is using what water baptism signifies to strengthening his point of verse two, by reminding them of the purpose and significance of their water baptism. Water baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection with Christ where the sins of the world were conquered and put to death. In reality this is not an either/or situation, because both spiritual and water baptism are in view. Paul was saying to the Romans that "God forbid that you who died to sin should continue on in sin to appropriate more grace. Remember what your water baptism meant in that it symbolized that you received God's spiritual baptism in salvation and you were placed into Jesus Christ and to His death".

 

[MennoSota]

I only perused it as I'm a little short on time, but I'll come back to it. But what I noticed is that the author does not deny that water baptism is being spoken of as well as spiritual. He does adhere to the idea that water baptism is a symbolic act, which I don't, but he nowhere says that water baptism is not in view.

Does the context of Romans 6 state anywhere that the word baptizo is referring to the use of water? I cannot see where it fits since the entire dialogue is a spiritual analogy.
Paul uses the word baptizo, but it is not exclusively referring to water immersion or dipping when he uses the term. The context around the word helps us understand how the word is being used. In this case, water baptism is not being referenced.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've never understood the fixation that some have for collecting things that are "necessities for salvation" and then listing them and doing their utmost to keep the list short but always making sure to include at least one of their groups "distinctive doctrines" in it.

Baptism is necessary in exactly the way that Jesus said it was when he spoke to Nicodemus. No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he(or she) is born of water and the Spirit. And baptism is also necessary in exactly the way that the long ending of the Gospel according to saint Mark says "He that believes and is baptised shall be saved".

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Does the context of Romans 6 state anywhere that the word baptizo is referring to the use of water? I cannot see where it fits since the entire dialogue is a spiritual analogy.
Paul uses the word baptizo, but it is not exclusively referring to water immersion or dipping when he uses the term. The context around the word helps us understand how the word is being used. In this case, water baptism is not being referenced.

This remains your answer after you posted a study of the passage stating otherwise, as well as the commentaries I posted. If theologians can't convince you, I don't think I'm going to be able to.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I've never understood the fixation that some have for collecting things that are "necessities for salvation" and then listing them and doing their utmost to keep the list short but always making sure to include at least one of their groups "distinctive doctrines" in it.

Baptism is necessary in exactly the way that Jesus said it was when he spoke to Nicodemus. No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he(or she) is born of water and the Spirit. And baptism is also necessary in exactly the way that the long ending of the Gospel according to saint Mark says "He that believes and is baptised shall be saved".

Then there's always that 'Peter' fellow (although he was a Catholic from what I hear...) "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

 

[user1234]

I've never understood the fixation that some have for collecting things that are "necessities for salvation" and then listing them and doing their utmost to keep the list short but always making sure to include at least one of their groups "distinctive doctrines" in it.

Baptism is necessary in exactly the way that Jesus said it was when he spoke to Nicodemus. No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he(or she) is born of water and the Spirit. And baptism is also necessary in exactly the way that the long ending of the Gospel according to saint Mark says "He that believes and is baptised shall be saved".

Okay then, try it this way....
A: What does it mean to be born of water?
B: Can a person be saved and enter the Kingdom of God,
simply by believing in Jesus and not being baptised in or with water, water-baptised?

Just asking your opinion on A, and yes or no on B, in your opinion.
No need to post one of the many verses already posted about it, or another.

Can a person be saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ alone without water-baptism?