the meaning of Baptism

[Imalive]

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?? "





.

Yes, but that mom didnt just not know it all, she didnt believe anything would happen. If you take communion w out faith or if you live in wilfull sin it can be to your own judgement, so yes something happens.
So kids can get baptized because otherwise grandma will be sad. Jews got baptized cause some crazy ppl forced em, adult baptism. Don't believe it regenerated em or did em any good. The person must have faith themselves in order to get born again.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but that mom didnt just not know it all, she didnt believe anything would happen.

Except that it DID happen, if you believe in the sacrament.

If you take communion w out faith or if you live in wilfull sin it can be to your own judgement, so yes something happens.

But that's not parallel to the infant being baptized. The infant WAS baptized and cannot be accused of doing it with the wrong intention.

. Jews got baptized cause some crazy ppl forced em, adult baptism.

What makes you say that? Anyway, you are again deflecting. The issue here concerned INFANT baptism, not whether a sacrament is invalidated if the adult candidate approaches it insincerely or ignorantly.

 

[Lamb]

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.

You don't believe that faith comes by God's word? Do you know that the Gospel is preached prior to any baptism in the churches where it's believed it's a sacrament?

 

[Imalive]

Except that it DID happen, if you believe in the sacrament.


But that's not parallel to the infant being baptized. The infant WAS baptized and cannot be accused of doing it with the wrong intention.


What makes you say that? Anyway, you are again deflecting. The issue here concerned INFANT baptism, not whether a sacrament is invalidated if the adult candidate approaches it insincerely or ignorantly.

It did happen if the person believed. It doesnt matter what others believe. Yes communion is different. If a baby gets born again always by infant baptism no matter what a parent believes then everyone who was baptized as a baby should at least for a while have been born again, regenerated. If not maybe its not true that the baby had faith and it worked. There's a lot of atheists who were baptized as a baby and never knew God personally.
And why is the baptism in the Spirit left out by laying on of hands? That's what baptism also was for.

 

[Lamb]

It did happen if the person believed. It doesnt matter what others believe. Yes communion is different. If a baby gets born again always by infant baptism no matter what a parent believes then everyone who was baptized as a baby should at least for a while have been born again, regenerated. If not maybe its not true that the baby had faith and it worked. There's a lot of atheists who were baptized as a baby and never knew God personally.
And why is the baptism in the Spirit left out by laying on of hands? That's what baptism also was for.

There is one baptism and in it we do receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (it's in Acts). It's also for our children.

For those who fall away from faith after baptism, it's the same as the adult who came to faith but then later rejected the Savior. That doesn't mean God didn't do the baptism for the baby correctly.

 

[Albion]

It did happen if the person believed.

That's what you believe. Going against it we have almost 2000 years of Christian history and the conviction of the great majority of churches. My point in saying so is that we cannot resolve anything simply by stating or exchanging different beliefs minus any rationale for them.

There's a lot of atheists who were baptized as a baby and never knew God personally.

Certainly. I have already said, many times, that baptism is not a guarantee of future belief or of salvation. And Lammchen just gave her own answer, which IMO was very clear.

 

[MennoSota]

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/what-is-baptism-and-how-important-is-it

 

[Josiah]

Yup. We have Scriptures like the COMMAND of Jesus for us to "GO...... BAPTIZE.... TEACH......" "Baptism now saves you..." "My Word does not return void but accomplishes all that the Lord intends" "This promise is for you and your children." We have examples of WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS being baptizes (with NOTHING that remotely suggests all were over the age of X, had first documented their regeneration and Christian status, and were not baptized with water but rather dunked ONLY in the Holy Spirit.

What we don't have is "Thou canst NOT go.... baptize.... teach those under the age of X and I won't tell you what age that is!" "Thou canst NOT baptize with water but only and exclusively with the Holy Spirit." Thou canst NOT go.... teach.... baptize until one has proven and documented that they are born again already!" "Baptism and teaching are of no spiritual value" "Baptizing and teaching are a waste of time" - the things that have been argued here. A denomination (the Anabaptists) has taught some of this for the past 500 years or so, but not the Bible.


We have folks arguing we can't do things unless such is illustrated in the Bible... and yet they are stating so by posting on the internet, something never illustrated in the Bible.



- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

Yup. We have Scriptures like the COMMAND of Jesus for us to "GO...... BAPTIZE.... TEACH......" "Baptism now saves you..." "My Word does not return void but accomplishes all that the Lord intends" "This promise is for you and your children." We have examples of WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS being baptizes (with NOTHING that remotely suggests all were over the age of X, had first documented their regeneration and Christian status, and were not baptized with water but rather dunked ONLY in the Holy Spirit.

What we don't have is "Thou canst NOT go.... baptize.... teach those under the age of X and I won't tell you what age that is!" "Thou canst NOT baptize with water but only and exclusively with the Holy Spirit." Thou canst NOT go.... teach.... baptize until one has proven and documented that they are born again already!" "Baptism and teaching are of no spiritual value" "Baptizing and teaching are a waste of time" - the things that have been argued here. A denomination (the Anabaptists) has taught some of this for the past 500 years or so, but not the Bible.


We have folks arguing we can't do things unless such is illustrated in the Bible... and yet they are stating so by posting on the internet, something never illustrated in the Bible.



- Josiah

Baby sprinkling isn't illustrated in the Bible either.
They went in and out of the water. I'm glad that they sprinkle though cause I just saw a few babies died. That's dangerous to put em under water.

 

[Albion]

Baby sprinkling isn't illustrated in the Bible either.

Direct us to a church in which baby sprinkling is the mode of Baptism and we'll discuss it.

I'm growing a trifle weary of these strawman arguments that are little more than "Someone I know said that she believed..." as though that defines the issue for billions of Christians. :sigh:

They went in and out of the water.

Which does not translate to "went underwater."

 

[Imalive]

Direct us to a church in which baby sprinkling is the mode of Baptism and we'll discuss it.

I'm growing a trifle weary of these strawman arguments that are little more than "Someone I know said that she believed..." as though that defines the issue for billions of Christians. :sigh:


Which does not translate to "went underwater."

The church that we rented. We rented it from another church. It had a tiny thing in the front, like 15 cm.

No they went to a river to poor some water on them as a burial w Christ. Not gonna look those texts up anymore hear. I already did that that Jesus came up and Philip went in. Too much work. Ask Snerfie lol.

 

[Albion]

The church that we rented.

That's it??? The great majority of Christian churches that have been baptizing their children for centuries without sprinkling are wrong because a local congregation that you rented a building from did so??

I already did that that Jesus came up and Philip went in. Too much work. Ask Snerfie lol.

As I suspected, you completely misunderstood those verses. No one went under the water, or at least there is no reason to think that they did since the verses don't say that they did.

 

[Imalive]

That's it??? The great majority of Christian churches that have been baptizing their children for centuries without sprinkling are wrong because a local congregation that you rented a building from did so??


As I suspected, you completely misunderstood those verses. No one went under the water, or at least there is no reason to think that they did since the verses don't say that they did.

I have no idea what you're even talking about. I thought you wanted an example of a church that sprinkled. Theres a lot in Holland.
They started w that in 300 or so cause they had no time, I read somewhere. Anyways, they killed, the anabaptists were killed, so they were persecuted and right. Period. lol.

 

[Lamb]

Baby sprinkling isn't illustrated in the Bible either.
They went in and out of the water. I'm glad that they sprinkle though cause I just saw a few babies died. That's dangerous to put em under water.

Have you ever gone down to a river...then came back up? Usually riverbanks are high up around the river and the river Jordan around the time of Jesus' baptism wasn't very high water (I'm trying to find the source for that now). Most likely John the Baptist poured the water over his head. The amount of water is not indicated in scripture how much to use because that's not the point of baptism. Water and God's Word with the water is what makes baptism.

 

[Albion]

.

 

[Albion]

Very true, Lamm. And the other instance that our friend was thinking of ("There is much water here..." John 3:23) reads that way because there were a lot of shallow pools in that area, NOT because there was some lake or river with deep water.

 

[Lamb]

Very true, Lamm. And the other instance that our friend was thinking of ("There is much water here..." John 3:23) reads that way because there were a lot of shallow pools in that area, NOT because there was some lake or river with deep water.

I wish I could find my source

I did read that the level of the water varies during certain seasons. In some spots it is only like a creek.

We also know that the catacombs have images from the years 230-270AD where it shows John the Baptist pouring water over Jesus' head. If immersion had been demanded, those images would not have shown baptism like that with the pouring.

Here is a nice section from a site that talks about immersion and the coming out of the water...

https://thelutherancolumn.com/2017/10/25/jesus-baptism-and-immersion/
"In the Greek, Jesus is said to have been Baptized, and He then ἀνέβη (anebē) from the water. What does this mean? It means Jesus walked, or traveled from the water to a place that was not the water. How do I know that? ἀνέβη comes from ἀναβαίνω (anabainó), that is to go up from, to ascend.

We could just as well translate the verse to say “having been baptized, Jesus immediately climbed up out of the water.” (One could also say “…Jesus immediately entered up out of the water,” but the wording is extremely awkward. This can be supported by the use of the exact word, in the exact tense, as found in Luke 19:4.) Additionally, the word is found in many places such as Matthew 14:23, and Luke 9:28, where Jesus ascends aka climbs the mountain.

Also Mark 6:51, where it could also be described that Jesus climbed into a boat. Also John 10:1, though the Greek word used there is ἀναβαίνων (anabainōn). Therefore, nothing in the verse suggests either immersion or pouring of water. Rather it simply states that Jesus got out of the water after being Baptized aka climbed out of the water aka walked from the water to the shore."

 

[Josiah]

Yup. We have Scriptures like the COMMAND of Jesus for us to "GO...... BAPTIZE.... TEACH......" "Baptism now saves you..." "My Word does not return void but accomplishes all that the Lord intends" "This promise is for you and your children." We have examples of WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS being baptizes (with NOTHING that remotely suggests all were over the age of X, had first documented their regeneration and Christian status, and were not baptized with water but rather dunked ONLY in the Holy Spirit.

What we don't have is "Thou canst NOT go.... baptize.... teach those under the age of X and I won't tell you what age that is!" "Thou canst NOT baptize with water but only and exclusively with the Holy Spirit." Thou canst NOT go.... teach.... baptize until one has proven and documented that they are born again already!" "Baptism and teaching are of no spiritual value" "Baptizing and teaching are a waste of time" - the things that have been argued here. A denomination (the Anabaptists) has taught some of this for the past 500 years or so, but not the Bible.


We have folks arguing we can't do things unless such is illustrated in the Bible... and yet they are stating so by posting on the internet, something never illustrated in the Bible.



- Josiah


.

Baby sprinkling isn't illustrated in the Bible either.

So what?

I always wonder about the Christians who insist we are to ignore what the Bible says.... and instead, rather, go by the VERY, VERY few examples of stuff as recorded in the Bible. But they don't believe their own premise, they reject their own argument. Since they don't accept it, since they don't do it - why should we?


They post on the internet - yet there are NO examples of that anywhere in the Bible.

They accept Gentiles doing the baptizing - yet there are NO examples of that anywhere in the Bible.

They dunk people in a used spa now behind the pulpit - yet there are NO examples of that anywhere in the Bible.

They baptize people in the USA and England and even in Australia - yet there are NO examples of that anywhere in the Bible.

They pass Communion around the pews with little cut up pieces of white leavened bread and little plastic cups of Welches' Grape Juice - yet there are NO examples of that anywhere in the Bible.

They use powerpoint, YouTube sermon illustrations, websites, email - yet there are NO examples of that anywhere in the Bible.

They have youth groups and youth pastors, they have VBS, they use big screens to display stuff, they use electric keyboards - yet there are NO examples of that anywhere in the Bible.

Their pastor is in jeans, an Aloha shirt, birkenstock sandals, with a mic on his lapel and holding a flopping, leather found KJV Bible - yet there are NO examples of that anywhere in the Bible.

Probably 99% of what their church does is nowhere exampled int he Bible.

I don't think they can use the argument "But that's never done in the Bible."



- Josiah



.

 

[Imalive]

Even Luther said it lol.

https://www.gospelway.com/salvation/baptism_action.php

Luther urged, in opposition to the standard practice of pouring, that baptism should be by immersion. He pointed out that the word in the Greek language means 'To plunge something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it,' and urged that immersion should be the mode of baptism. Today, however, the general practice of the Lutheran Church is to administer baptism by pouring, although immersion is also permitted" - A Compend of Luther's Theology, p. 167, via Handbook of Religious Quotations, p. 11.

 

[MennoSota]

1. Baptism Is an Ordinance of the Lord

First, “We believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Lord . . .” What we mean by this is that the Lord Jesus commanded it—he ordained it—in a way that would make it an ongoing practice of the church. We find this most explicitly in Matthew 28:19-20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

“Make disciples” is the main verb: “Having gone, make disciples of all nations.” The defining participles are “baptizing them” and “teaching” them. So the church is commanded to do this for all disciples. Making disciples of all nations includes baptizing them.

And the time frame is defined by the promise of Christ’s help in verse 20: “And behold,* I am with you always, to* the end of the age.” The promise of help is for as long as this age lasts. So the command he promises to help us with is as long as this age lasts.
So baptism is a command, and ordinance, of the Lord Jesus to be performed in making disciples until Christ returns at the end of the age.