Water Baptism

[YourTruthGod]

Just catechism followed by Baptism into Christ...



So nothing about Baptism except Baptism???

?????????????????????????????????????????

Menno, you are beginning to vorry me!!



Where does the Bible say God saved the Ethiopian Eunuch and then had Philip Baptize him???

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????



You have invented it...



OK Dearest...

Everything will be all better soon...

Just you rest here for awhile...


Arsenios

You don't believe Philip baptized the eunuch?

 

[Arsenios]

Catechism?
All Phillip did was explain Isaiah 53.

That is called catechesis...

The Spirit did the rest.

The Spirit does everything worth doing...

After the Ethiopian came to faith, Phillip baptized him.

Yes, he Baptized him INTO Christ...

Prior to that he was NOT in Christ...

Phillip was a Baptist, not Eastern Orthodox.

You Baptists do not vanish into thin air and reappear miles away...

Besides, he was single minded...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

That’s right. Baptists are those fools that think when Peter said “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” he actually meant that each person should BOTH “repent” and “be baptized” (a Greek word meaning to immerse).

If the person being addressed is an adult, then of course that is what would be expected. If he is not, then that would not--and cannot--be expected. But it doesn't affect the latter person's need for God and, therefore, for baptism.

 

[Arsenios]

You don't believe Philip baptized the eunuch?

He did so and in doing so initiated the Church in Ethiopia into Christ...

That is how the Faith first came to Ethiopia...

Ever see the Churches there?

Cruciform shaped...

Carved out of solid rock...

One in a cave atop a mountain over a rope bridge, icons painted into the rock inside...

Monasteries on islands in a large lake...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

That is called catechesis...



The Spirit does everything worth doing...



Yes, he Baptized him INTO Christ...

Prior to that he was NOT in Christ...



You Baptists do not vanish into thin air and reappear miles away...

Besides, he was single minded...


Arsenios

It's too bad for you that the text does not say what you claim.
Acts 8:26-36,38-40 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.

 

[Arsenios]

Just a little excursus from discussionary rigors into Apostolic Ethiopian Christianity...

https://www.google.com/url?] sa=i&...aw19N2fgicjrSeGwiyGhKe2Z&ust=1556307340605688

https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/18/gallery/

https://youtu.be/Lo_KycIyHAg

 

[Arsenios]

It's too bad for you that the text does not say what you claim.

Acts 8:26-36,38-40 And when they came up out of the water,
the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away,
and the eunuch saw him no more,
and went on his way rejoicing.
But Philip found himself at Azotus,
and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.

That is what I said...

Unless I am more senile than I forgot to think...???

Enjoy the Ethiopian Church!


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

It's too bad for you that the text does not say what you claim.

The text does not say what you claim.

It does not say, "Because you have celebrated your "Xth" birthday (and remember not to tell any one what birthday that is), God is no longer impotent to bless you and I'm no longer forbidden to baptize or teach you." No Anti-Paedobaptism invention of the Anabaptist in the late 16th Century.

It does not say, "Because there is sufficient water for me to entirely immerse every cell of your body under the water, God has now released me from the prohibition to place water on you otherwise." No "immersion" dogma invented by the Anabaptist in the late 16th Century.

It does not say, "Because you have proven that you are one of the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, I am now released from the Scripture that forbids baptism unless such as been proven." No Credobaptism dogma invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century.

We have an example of baptism. There are many. Including Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16. With nothing about any dogmatic prohibitions, the inventions of a few Anabaptists in the late 16th Century.





.

 

[MennoSota]

That is what I said...

Unless I am more senile than I forgot to think...???

Enjoy the Ethiopian Church!


Arsenios

You are senile. You add much that is not there. It is the curse of your church.

 

[MennoSota]

The text does not say what you claim.

It does not say, "Because you have celebrated your "Xth" birthday (and remember not to tell any one what birthday that is), God is no longer impotent to bless you and I'm no longer forbidden to baptize or teach you." No Anti-Paedobaptism invention of the Anabaptist in the late 16th Century.

It does not say, "Because there is sufficient water for me to entirely immerse every cell of your body under the water, God has now released me from the prohibition to place water on you otherwise." No "immersion" dogma invented by the Anabaptist in the late 16th Century.

It does not say, "Because you have proven that you are one of the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, I am now released from the Scripture that forbids baptism unless such as been proven." No Credobaptism dogma invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century.

We have an example of baptism. There are many. Including Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16. With nothing about any dogmatic prohibitions, the inventions of a few Anabaptists in the late 16th Century.





.

The text doesn't say to burn your britches in a 50 gallon dumpster either. I'm not sure why you think your dogma becomes legitimate because you can't find a document that explicitly says "don't baptize people who are dead in their trespasses and sins."
Scripture show's over and over again that only the elect were baptized, after they were given faith. But, hey, let's just ignore the Bible and make up a dogma from silence and superstition.

 

[Josiah]

Scripture show's over and over again that only the elect were baptized, after they were given faith.

Let's see if that's true.
Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16.
Prove for us from Scripture that every one in the households that was baptized was
1) Over the age of X
2) Had proven they were among the few for whom Jesus died.
3) Had been given faith
4) Every cell of their bodies were immersed under water.

When you do that, your claim will be shown to be true. But it still will be irrelevant. SILLY is your apologetic that we can only do what is illustrated as done by examples in the Bible. How do I KNOW for CERTAIN you don't accept your own apologetic? You are posting on the internet. You don't accept your apologetic, silly you want everyone else to.


But, hey, let's just ignore the Bible and make up a dogma from silence. Follow the Anabaptists and their radical synergism that caused them to invent your dogma on baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

Let's see if that's true.
Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16.
Prove for us from Scripture that every one in the households that was baptized was
1) Over the age of X
2) Had proven they were among the few for whom Jesus died.
3) Had been given faith
4) Every cell of their bodies were immersed under water.

When you do that, your claim will be shown to be true. But it still will be irrelevant. SILLY is your apologetic that we can only do what is illustrated as done by examples in the Bible. How do I KNOW for CERTAIN you don't accept your own apologetic? You are posting on the internet. You don't accept your apologetic, silly you want everyone else to.


But, hey, let's just ignore the Bible and make up a dogma from silence. Follow the Anabaptists and their radical synergism that caused them to invent your dogma on baptism.

I don't have to prove it.
Show when a person who is dead in their trespasses and sins is baptized in scripture. You can't. Every instance, the person is already alive with Christ.
You keep wanting to make your dogma stand by silence.
Added to that, you contradict all your assertions about justification by faith when you baptize infants who cannot exhibit or express faith. You contradict your claims that God saves by faith, not works. Your usual go-to crutch is..."mystery." All that does is give you an excuse to ignore the significant contradictions that your church dogma simply ignores and thus you ignore it as well. Afterall, why question the all-knowing synod. As humans they could never be wrong.
Now, do you want to address what scripture provided or are you going to build a doctrine upon empty space and pray your levitation is pleasing to God?

 

[Arsenios]

The text doesn't say to burn your britches in a 50 gallon dumpster either.

Then why are you doing so?

I mean, I would act like you if my britches were burning in a 50 gallon dumpster too!!!

Why such a small dumpster?

Where can I get one?

I will walk the mile in your burning of the britches...

Scripture show's over and over again that only the elect were baptized,
after they were given faith.
But, hey, let's just ignore the Bible and make up a dogma from silence and superstition.

Boy o boy that is a hot fire, yes???


Arsenios


Itches Ditches Birds and Britches...

Scratch it till it bleeds!!

It still is better than Tweeds!!

I say!!!

 

[MennoSota]

Then why are you doing so?

I mean, I would act like you if my britches were burning in a 50 gallon dumpster too!!!

Why such a small dumpster?

Where can I get one?

I will walk the mile in your burning of the britches...



Boy o boy that is a hot fire, yes???


Arsenios


Itches Ditches Birds and Britches...

Scratch it till it bleeds!!

It still is better than Tweeds!!

I say!!!

Your ignorance of scripture is impressive.

 

[Josiah]

Let's see if that's true.

Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16.

Prove for us from Scripture that every one in the households that was baptized was
1) Over the age of X
2) Had proven they were among the few for whom Jesus died.
3) Had been given faith previously.
4) Every cell of their bodies were immersed under water.

When you do that, your claim will be shown to be true. But it still will be irrelevant. SILLY is your apologetic that we can only do what is illustrated as done by examples in the Bible. How do I KNOW for CERTAIN you don't accept your own apologetic? You are posting on the internet. You don't accept your apologetic, silly you want everyone else to.


But, hey, let's just ignore the Bible and make up a dogma from silence. Follow the Anabaptists and their radical synergism that caused them to invent your dogma on baptism.


.

I don't have to prove it.

Then your claims and your positions are unsubstantiated. The opinions of a few late-16th Century Anabaptists that you echo, obviously, but not substantiated.

Every instance, the person is already alive with Christ.

Well, since you give one (yourself) a "pass" on substantiation, I guess you an say anything you want (funny how you severely ridicule this from any other, then do worse yourself: think about that).

I gave you a chance to show your claim is true. You ignored it (again) and we ALL KNOW WHY.

And I showed you the absurdity of your whole rubric, and how YOU TOO reject it and don't follow it. You ignored it (again) and we ALL KNOW WHY.

Now, do you want to address what scripture provided or are you going to build a doctrine upon empty space and pray your levitation is pleasing to God?

Sure.


Quote the following verses and we can discuss:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is)." To support Anti-Paedobaptism dogma invented by the Anabaptist that you echo, the dogma they invented to 'jibe' with their radical synergism

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath proven they are among the few for whom Jesus died and give adequate public confession and evidence of this proof." To support the Credobaptism dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you echo.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless every cell of their body is immersed into and under water." To support the immersion dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you echo.


Then, regarding your apologetic...

Quote the Scripture that states, "Thou canst not do anything unless that practice is specifically illustrated by examples in the Bible" And show that you accept this by not posting on the internet, etc.... by doing nothing not specifically illustrated as done in the Bible.


Then regarding your claim based on the above....

Show from Scripture that in Acts 16:33 and in 1 Corinthians 1:16, all those in the household that were baptized were over the age of X, had given public proof that they were among the few for whom Jesus died, and every cell of their body was covered by water. But this has validity ONLY if you show this is relevant AND that you yourself accept the rubic by never doing anything not clearly illustrated as having been done in the Bible (such as posting on the internet, giving Communion to women, having youth and women's groups, using powerpoint, etc., etc.)




Here's what I have said.... We are told to baptize, and there is no stated prohibition because of age, gender, IQ, race, etc. And no prohibitions as to certain modes of administration. You've strongly disagreed but have yet to supply anything to support your disagreement, you instead have given one (just yourself) a "pass" on substantiation.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Then your claims and your positions are unsubstantiated. The opinions of a few late-16th Century Anabaptists that you echo, obviously, but not substantiated.







Well, since you give one (yourself) a "pass" on substantiation, I guess you an say anything you want (funny how you severely ridicule this from any other, then do worse yourself: think about that).

I gave you a chance to show your claim is true. You ignored it (again) and we ALL KNOW WHY.

And I showed you the absurdity of your whole rubric, and how YOU TOO reject it and don't follow it. You ignored it (again) and we ALL KNOW WHY.








Sure.


Quote the following verses and we can discuss:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is)." To support Anti-Paedobaptism dogma invented by the Anabaptist that you echo, the dogma they invented to 'jibe' with their radical synergism

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath proven they are among the few for whom Jesus died and give adequate public confession and evidence of this proof." To support the Credobaptism dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you echo.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless every cell of their body is immersed into and under water." To support the immersion dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you echo.


Then, regarding your apologetic...

Quote the Scripture that states, "Thou canst not do anything unless that practice is specifically illustrated by examples in the Bible" And show that you accept this by not posting on the internet, etc.... by doing nothing not specifically illustrated as done in the Bible.


Then regarding your claim based on the above....

Show from Scripture that in Acts 16:33 and in 1 Corinthians 1:16, all those in the household that were baptized were over the age of X, had given public proof that they were among the few for whom Jesus died, and every cell of their body was covered by water. But this has validity ONLY if you show this is relevant AND that you yourself accept the rubic by never doing anything not clearly illustrated as having been done in the Bible (such as posting on the internet, giving Communion to women, having youth and women's groups, using powerpoint, etc., etc.)




Here's what I have said.... We are told to baptize, and there is no stated prohibition because of age, gender, IQ, race, etc. And no prohibitions as to certain modes of administration. You've strongly disagreed but have yet to supply anything to support your disagreement, you instead have given one (just yourself) a "pass" on substantiation.




.

My claim is that the people who we see baptized in the church are all persons who came to faith. We don't read of any person's, still dead in their sins, being baptized and declared justified by their baptism.
So...am I wrong? Can you find a person who God has not given faith who the Apostles and early disciples baptize while still unsaved? I can't. But perhaps there are verses I haven't yet read.
I will let the Bible guide my understanding and toss out confessions, catechisms and concords that do not provide solid biblical evidence.
I state that there is zero biblical evidence for infant baptism. There is only extremely liberal inference at best and complete silence at worst. It is foolish to build a doctrine on such pathetically flimsy inference.

 

[atpollard]

The sad part of this topic is that there is actually an important discussion to be had on the difference between “Believers baptism” and “Covenant baptism” that has nothing to do with sprinkling vs dunking, little to do with the question of babies in the households mentioned in scripture and everything to do with what baptism is and means and who is in the Church (body of Christ on the Earth).

Few people bother to get beyond the issue of biblical precedent.

Just for fun a question to point at the real issue ... Are there unbelievers in the Church (the Body of Christ)?


(I am half tempted to argue FOR infant baptism just to show you that it is about something more fundamental than whether there were babies in the households in Acts.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

The sad part of this topic is that there is actually an important discussion to be had on the difference between “Believers baptism” and “Covenant baptism” that has nothing to do with sprinkling vs dunking, little to do with the question of babies in the households mentioned in scripture and everything to do with what baptism is and means and who is in the Church (body of Christ on the Earth).

Few people bother to get beyond the issue of biblical precedent.

Just for fun a question to point at the real issue ... Are there unbelievers in the Church (the Body of Christ)?


(I am half tempted to argue FOR infant baptism just to show you that it is about something more fundamental than whether there were babies in the households in Acts.)

Baptism is

• being born of water and Spirit (John 3:5)
• having one's sins washed away (Acts 22:16)
• the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5)
• enlightenment and tasting the good things of the world to come (Hebrews 6:4-5)
• salvation like that of the eight who survived the destruction of the world by flood in Noah's day (1Peter 3:21)
• dying with Christ and rising with Christ in new life (Romans 6:3-4)

 

[atpollard]

Baptism is

• being born of water and Spirit (John 3:5)
• having one's sins washed away (Acts 22:16)
• the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5)
• enlightenment and tasting the good things of the world to come (Hebrews 6:4-5)
• salvation like that of the eight who survived the destruction of the world by flood in Noah's day (1Peter 3:21)
• dying with Christ and rising with Christ in new life (Romans 6:3-4)

Since the topic is “water baptism”, I have to ask:

Does the adult or infant really experience all of those things at the moment they are sprinkled, poured or dunked with/in water?
What does it mean when a baby, child or adult is water baptized in a Roman Catholic Church; how are they different from a baby, child or adult attending RCC services that has not been water baptized?

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Just for fun a question to point at the real issue ... Are there unbelievers in the Church (the Body of Christ)?


(I am half tempted to argue FOR infant baptism just to show you that it is about something more fundamental than whether there were babies in the households in Acts.)

I don't know how we could ever know for certain the answer to that question. We could look at their fruits or deeds and judge that way. But without being able to see what is in their heart, there's no way to say for certain if they are saved or not.