the meaning of Baptism

[Albion]

You know what, folks...we need some new theological issues to discuss here. The several we've been working on for days and days are worn out. Or are there some older ones that should be revisited??

 

[Imalive]

You know what, folks...we need some new theological issues to discuss here. The several we've been working on for days and days are worn out. Or are there some older ones that should be revisited??

Yes but what?
End times!!!!

 

[MennoSota]

It's easy to find someone who agrees with a view point...
http://bible-truth.org/Rom6-whatbaptism.html

https://www.raystedman.org/new-testament/romans/the-true-baptism-of-the-spirit
http://graceambassadors.com/tradition/does-romans-6_3-4-teach-water-baptism

What you won't find is the false teaching of baptismal regeneration, which is what the baptizing of infants falls under in Roman church and Lutheran church communities.

 

[Albion]

What you won't find is the false teaching of baptismal regeneration, which is what the baptizing of infants falls under in Roman church and Lutheran church communities.

...and the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (Copts, etc.), Anglican, Old Catholic, Seventh-day Adventist, Methodist, United Pentecostal, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Presbyterian, Reformed, and, well, just about 80-90% of the world's Christians.

 

[Imalive]

Hey I didn't know MacArthur was that good. I never listen to him cause he's nasty to charismatics lol.

https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B160815

 

[Albion]

Yes but what?
End times!!!!

Thank you. That particular subject wouldn't be my choice, but sure. I didn't have any particular one in mind and if you feel that the End Times would make for a good discussion, frame the question you have in mind and let's see how it goes!

 

[MennoSota]

...and the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (Copts, etc.), Anglican, Old Catholic, Seventh-day Adventist, Methodist, United Pentecostal, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Presbyterian, Reformed, and, well, just about 80-90% of the world's Christians.

Anyone who teaches regeneration by virtue of baptism is teaching a different gospel than what Jesus, the Apostles and God teach. If you wish to say that 80-90% of the Christian community teaches a heresy, then you certainly have the right to say that.
As for me, I will teach what the Bible actually says. God chooses his children by his will alone. God adopts his children by his will alone. God redeems sinners by his will alone. God immerses his chosen people into Christ by his will alone. God gives to the chosen undeserved favor (grace) by his will alone. Water baptism, done by humans, plays NO role in regeneration. Water baptism has no other function than for the elect to declare to the community that God has graciously chosen to save them.

 

[Albion]

Anyone who teaches regeneration by virtue of baptism is teaching a different gospel than what Jesus, the Apostles and God teach. If you wish to say that 80-90% of the Christian community teaches a heresy, then you certainly have the right to say that.

I'm telling you something about the beliefs of almost all Christians, lest you go on suggesting and believing that only a few denominations (which you've named here) believe in baptismal regeneration when, in fact, it's the churches that represent nearly all, but not quite all, of the world's Christians.

Anyway, you ought not just believe what the leadership of whatever denomination you identify with tells you to believe.

 

[MennoSota]

I'm telling you something about the beliefs of almost all Christians, lest you go on suggesting and believing that only a few denominations (which you've named here) believe in baptismal regeneration when, in fact, it's the churches that represent nearly all, but not quite all, of the world's Christians.

Anyway, you ought not just believe what the leadership of whatever denomination you identify with tells you to believe.

No, you are telling me the teaching of denominations that identify themselves as Christians. That does not mean that God's elect, saved by grace, not works, were saved by their denominations teachings.
I tell you that those whom God chooses are saved in spite of their denominations teachings. Not one chosen person who is adopted by God has EVER been redeemed/regenerated by their water baptism. Not one!

 

[MennoSota]

I think the whole concept of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration should be moved into the World Religions and speculative theology forum, because it's not Christian theology.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You know what, folks...we need some new theological issues to discuss here. The several we've been working on for days and days are worn out. Or are there some older ones that should be revisited??

There is the one about tongues ...

It seems moral values in voting is not such a felicitous topic for some ...

The Lord's supper seems to upset some people ...

Justification just ends in a morass of confused terminology ...

Sanctification never gets off the ground ...

Salvation is another morass of confusing terminology ...

The pope is en ever green topic for those who want to denigrate a current or past pope so maybe that will be popular if revived ...

Some topics where personal childhood education was religiously inadequate are popular with a few ...

How about trying some of one's denomination's distinctive doctrines?

 

[Lamb]

I think the whole concept of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration should be moved into the World Religions and speculative theology forum, because it's not Christian theology.

Thankfully your thinking won't move this thread.

The one baptism in scripture has been practiced by the disciples and since then by quite a few denominations. It's the newer practice of believing in 2 baptisms that removes God from doing His work...which involves water and His word.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hey I didn't know MacArthur was that good. I never listen to him cause he's nasty to charismatics lol.

https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B160815

Not good, just very opinionated

 

[MennoSota]

Thankfully your thinking won't move this thread.

The one baptism in scripture has been practiced by the disciples and since then by quite a few denominations. It's the newer practice of believing in 2 baptisms that removes God from doing His work...which involves water and His word.

You are speaking from silence again.
Water is not necessary for salvation at any age. If you claim it is then you preach a different gospel than Jesus or his disciples. You preach a salvation by works, which Paul says is anathema. Why do you insist on preaching a gospel not taught by God?

 

[MoreCoffee]

You are speaking from silence again.
Water is not necessary for salvation at any age. If you claim it is then you preach a different gospel than Jesus or his disciples. You preach a salvation by works, which Paul says is anathema. Why do you insist on preaching a gospel not taught by God?

You are the one whose posts discount what the holy scriptures say. You ignore the water that Jesus speaks about in John 3:5. You claim that "this baptism now saves you" means something different from what it says. You deny that "he saved us, by means of the cleansing water of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit " is about baptism yet you have no reasonable explanation for what this "cleansing water of rebirth" is. You pretend that Romans 6:3-9 is not baptism but rather is something called baptism that involves no water. The truth is that your claims are not scriptural. You're the one who interprets things away and discards context.

 

[MennoSota]

You are the one whose posts discount what the holy scriptures say. You ignore the water that Jesus speaks about in John 3:5. You claim that "this baptism now saves you" means something different from what it says. You deny that "he saved us, by means of the cleansing water of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit " is about baptism yet you have no reasonable explanation for you it is "cleansing water of rebirth". You pretend that Romans 6:3-9 is not baptism but rather is something called baptism that involves no water. The truth is that your claims are not scriptural. You're the one who interprets things away and discards context.

MC, in neither of those passages can you find water baptism. It's just not there. You literally are pulling it out of your empty mind. Stop deliberately abusing the word of God. It's an evil thing you do.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MC, in neither of those passages can you find water baptism. It's just not there. You literally are pulling it out of your empty mind. Stop deliberately abusing the word of God. It's an evil thing you do.

I mentioned five passages and all five are about baptism. You just like to pretend that they are about something else - something unspecified that involves water.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

It's easy to find someone who agrees with a view point...
http://bible-truth.org/Rom6-whatbaptism.html

https://www.raystedman.org/new-testament/romans/the-true-baptism-of-the-spirit
http://graceambassadors.com/tradition/does-romans-6_3-4-teach-water-baptism

What you won't find is the false teaching of baptismal regeneration, which is what the baptizing of infants falls under in Roman church and Lutheran church communities.

What you will find is a confusion of your objections. References one and two admit Paul was referring to water baptism, but only as a symbol; the third reference denies Paul was referring to water baptism at all. I think you're a bit confused.

So what is your objection - that water baptism is regenerative, or that it is even being referred to at all in the passage?

Btw, as for the third reference, it's from a group that "... confidently teach mid-Acts Pauline dispensational right division of a King James Bible." What...?

 

[MennoSota]

There is no place in the Bible that says anything about infant baptism. That is the epitome of speculative theology.

 

[MennoSota]

What you will find is a confusion of your objections. References one and two admit Paul was referring to water baptism, but only as a symbol; the third reference denies Paul was referring to water baptism at all. I think you're a bit confused.

So what is your objection - that water baptism is regenerative, or that it is even being referred to at all in the passage?

In Romans 6 you find no water in the entire context. None. The word baptizo does not equal water. You are forcing your bias on the passage.
I am saying that water and the ceremony of sprinkling or immersion has no mystical power to save. None