the meaning of Baptism

[Imalive]

I know. Nearly all of my posts are exercises in the discipline. Especially the ones that reflect Catholic teaching.

You forgot to quote 'try it sometime'.

:smirk:

 

[Imalive]

So, I think we can close this thread. Theres just one baptism. The baptism of Torben Sondergaard and all the others don't count, lutheran, catholic, pentecostal, evangelical, from the baptists (what do they know?). You have to repent 100 percent and get rebaptized by Torben or you may speak in Dutch tongues and repeat after me: there are 5 baptisms cuz 2 is so boring, we also have a baptism in joy, a baptism in the who cares anointing and I'll make some more up.

 

[Josiah]

Continuing to make water a source of regeneration is an heretical and blasphemous theology.

NO ONE on the planet known to me believes that water per se saves.



But I think it's quite a leap to dogmatically insist that ERGO the Command to "Go.... baptize.... teach...." is "a waste of time" "of no spiritual value" and "meaningless" as has been stated in this thread. Jesus gave AMAZINGLY FEW specific directives to the Age of the Church, but one of them is to baptize..... and we see that having a LOT of importance in the early church and for 1500 years until the Anabaptist denomination was invented in the 16th Century. It's hard for me to understand why Jesus and the Church (for 1500 years) would place so much importance on something of no value, no meaning, a waste of time, that is entirely effectual and bad stewardship of water and time.... But I think we disagree there....


I don't 'buy" that the Great Commission was for Christians to "immerse people in the Holy Spirit" rather than to administer Water and the Word. Friend, I don't see where ANYONE in the Bible or for 1500 years understood the Command to Baptize meant water and the Word are forbidden and we are instead to dunk people in the Holy Spirit. I agree the Greek word doesn't NECESSARILY mean to apply water, but that does seem to be the universal understanding of that in the Bible and in the Church (even the Anabaptist understood it that way).


Yes, only Jesus saves (nothing else can or does).... but I don't agree that He can only do that if there is no human activitiy: we must DO nothing. I think His Great Commission suggests we are to DO something: "Go.... baptize..... teach....." I don't agree that it's wrong to preach the Word to unbelievers or send missionaries; I don 't think Paul was wrong to present the Gospel to unbelievers although I agree what saved them was Jesus. Unviersally, it has been accepted that while God does not NEED any human activity (witness John the Baptist believing before he was born), NORMALLY means ARE used. I think all our own experiences confirms that. And we have verses such as "Baptism now saves you" and "Faith comes by hearing" which to ME (and I know not to you) conveys that the gift of faith is normally delivered via means. You can choose to disagree that God uses the Word or that God uses Baptism - and I understand that - but such does not mean that the ONLY way God can give faith is if no Christian does anything but is entirely void of love or ministry and ignors and rejects the Great Commission.


And IMO, that doesn't supply the verse that states, "Go.... baptize.... teach.... but thou art forbidden to do so for those under the age of X." "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but thou art forbidden to do so unless and until the receiver has documented and proven their born again status and faith in Christ Jesus." "Go..... baptize..... teach...... but don't use water or the Word." "Go.... baptize... teach.... but these are meaningless, a waste of time, of no consequence and of no value." "Go.... baptize.... teach.... but God cannot and will not use or bless any of that and so you're wasting your time."


My half cent....



- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

No.
Water is not the only thing the word baptizo is referring to in scripture. You make a false assertion and then force your assertion upon the text. That is poor hermaneutics on your part.

If a reader doesn't understand what he's reading, he's likely to post something silly in reply. But when he thinks it's cool to be insulting at the same time, that just makes it worse.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So, I think we can close this thread. Theres just one baptism. The baptism of Torben Sondergaard and all the others don't count, lutheran, catholic, pentecostal, evangelical, from the baptists (what do they know?). You have to repent 100 percent and get rebaptized by Torben or you may speak in Dutch tongues and repeat after me: there are 5 baptisms cuz 2 is so boring, we also have a baptism in joy, a baptism in the who cares anointing and I'll make some more up.

Once people claim more than one they may find it hard to resist other people who claim five or five hundred - there's no stopping the number that can be added.

 

[Lamb]

Pagans have empty rituals that man does to appease their false gods but God has ordained sacraments because HE is the one working through them to bring us His blessings and it points to Christ.

 

[Albion]

And the sacraments are not observed or celebrated by us simply in order to appease or flatter a god. They exist in order to help us. God doesn't actually need baptisms, for example, in order to be more godly or to feel praised, etc.

 

[MennoSota]

NO ONE on the planet known to me believes that water per se saves.



But I think it's quite a leap to dogmatically insist that ERGO the Command to "Go.... baptize.... teach...." is "a waste of time" "of no spiritual value" and "meaningless" as has been stated in this thread. Jesus gave AMAZINGLY FEW specific directives to the Age of the Church, but one of them is to baptize..... and we see that having a LOT of importance in the early church and for 1500 years until the Anabaptist denomination was invented in the 16th Century. It's hard for me to understand why Jesus and the Church (for 1500 years) would place so much importance on something of no value, no meaning, a waste of time, that is entirely effectual and bad stewardship of water and time.... But I think we disagree there....


I don't 'buy" that the Great Commission was for Christians to "immerse people in the Holy Spirit" rather than to administer Water and the Word. Friend, I don't see where ANYONE in the Bible or for 1500 years understood the Command to Baptize meant water and the Word are forbidden and we are instead to dunk people in the Holy Spirit. I agree the Greek word doesn't NECESSARILY mean to apply water, but that does seem to be the universal understanding of that in the Bible and in the Church (even the Anabaptist understood it that way).


Yes, only Jesus saves (nothing else can or does).... but I don't agree that He can only do that if there is no human activitiy: we must DO nothing. I think His Great Commission suggests we are to DO something: "Go.... baptize..... teach....." I don't agree that it's wrong to preach the Word to unbelievers or send missionaries; I don 't think Paul was wrong to present the Gospel to unbelievers although I agree what saved them was Jesus. Unviersally, it has been accepted that while God does not NEED any human activity (witness John the Baptist believing before he was born), NORMALLY means ARE used. I think all our own experiences confirms that. And we have verses such as "Baptism now saves you" and "Faith comes by hearing" which to ME (and I know not to you) conveys that the gift of faith is normally delivered via means. You can choose to disagree that God uses the Word or that God uses Baptism - and I understand that - but such does not mean that the ONLY way God can give faith is if no Christian does anything but is entirely void of love or ministry and ignors and rejects the Great Commission.


And IMO, that doesn't supply the verse that states, "Go.... baptize.... teach.... but thou art forbidden to do so for those under the age of X." "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but thou art forbidden to do so unless and until the receiver has documented and proven their born again status and faith in Christ Jesus." "Go..... baptize..... teach...... but don't use water or the Word." "Go.... baptize... teach.... but these are meaningless, a waste of time, of no consequence and of no value." "Go.... baptize.... teach.... but God cannot and will not use or bless any of that and so you're wasting your time."


My half cent....



- Josiah




.

No one has said water baptism is a waste of time. That is your interpretation of what has been said.
What I am saying is the word baptizo is not exclusively tied to water. We know from the context whether water is being discussed in reference to baptism and we know when it is not.
The problem is that people are forcing water upon every situation where the word baptizo is used. That forcing is really terrible hermaneutics.
MC forces the phrase "born of water and spirit" to say baptized by water when there is nothing in the context to indicate that water baptism is being discussed. The overwhelming use of silent passages to infer baptism is beyond the pale and it represents really bad use of scripture as a means of creating a prooftext out of no context.
Please, for God's sake, people, stop abusing scripture so you can cling to your denominational teachings. Just stop.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And the sacraments are not observed or celebrated by us simply in order to appease or flatter a god. They exist in order to help us. God doesn't actually need baptisms, for example, in order to be more godly or to feel praised, etc.

Baptism saves us and God does not need to be saved. Baptism means being conformed to Christ. It is the beginning of the process. The new birth. But after birth comes the rest of life and the other sacraments are food & drink for life and also equipment for the activities of life.

 

[Imalive]

Jesus saves.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
Please, for God's sake, people, stop abusing scripture so you can cling to your denominational teachings. Just stop.

It's reading in context that teaches us to believe that being born from above is baptism with water and the Spirit. Those who pay close attention to the story in The Gospel according to saint John know it is about dying with Christ and rising to new life in Christ and that is exactly what saint Paul says baptism is.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Jesus saves.

Jesus saves through the church which is the temple of the Holy Spirit and baptism is the door of entry into the temple.

 

[MennoSota]

It's reading in context that teaches us to believe that being born from above is baptism with water and the Spirit. Those who pay close attention to the story in The Gospel according to saint John know it is about dying with Christ and rising to new life in Christ and that is exactly what saint Paul says baptism is.

Which is not water baptism at all. Thank you for your support.

 

[Albion]

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.

I guess the word 'applies' escaped you. Yes, everything that's good for us ultimately comes from God, and "grace" speaks to that fact. But Jesus often used physical objects when curing or blessing someone--a completely unnecessary action, we might argue, since he could do the same thing with a word or the wave of his hand--because we are creatures of physical matter, not pure spirit. So Baptism, like all sacraments, uses physical objects in the process of imparting a spiritual benefit to us mortals.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Which is not water baptism at all. Thank you for your support.

Romans 6:3 You cannot have forgotten that all of us, when we were baptised into Christ Jesus, were baptised into his death.

Barnes Notes on the Bible

Romans 6:3
Know ye not - This is a further appeal to the Christian profession, and the principles involved in it, in answer to the objection. The simple argument in this verse and the two following is, that by our very profession made in baptism, we have renounced sin, and have pledged ourselves to live to God.
So many of us ... - All who were baptised; that is, all professed Christians. As this renunciation of sin had been thus made by all who professed religion, so the objection could not have reference to Christianity in any manner.
Were baptised - The act of baptism denotes dedication to the service of him in whose name we are baptised. One of its designs is to dedicate or consecrate us to the service of Christ: Thus 1Co 10:2, the Israelites are said to have been baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; that is, they became consecrated, or dedicated, or bound to him as their leader and lawgiver. In the place before us, the argument of the apostle is evidently drawn from the supposition that we have been solemnly consecrated by baptism to the service of Christ; and that to sin is therefore a violation of the very nature of our Christian profession.
Into - εἰς eis. This is the word which is used in Mat 28:19, Teach all nations, baptising them into εἰς eis the name of the Father, etc. It means, being baptised unto his service; receiving him as the Saviour and guide, devoting all unto him and his cause.
Were baptised unto his death - We were baptised with special reference to his death. Our baptism had a strong resemblance to his death. By that he became insensible to the things of the world; by baptism we in like manner become dead to sin. Further, we are baptised with particular reference to the design of his death, the great leading feature and purpose of his work. That was, to expiate sin; to free people from its power; to make them pure. We have professed our devotion to the same cause; and have solemnly consecrated ourselves to the same design - to put a period to the dominion of iniquity.​

What does a baptist commentator say? Have you checked to see?

 

[MennoSota]

Romans 6:3 You cannot have forgotten that all of us, when we were baptised into Christ Jesus, were baptised into his death.

Barnes Notes on the Bible

Romans 6:3
Know ye not - This is a further appeal to the Christian profession, and the principles involved in it, in answer to the objection. The simple argument in this verse and the two following is, that by our very profession made in baptism, we have renounced sin, and have pledged ourselves to live to God.
So many of us ... - All who were baptised; that is, all professed Christians. As this renunciation of sin had been thus made by all who professed religion, so the objection could not have reference to Christianity in any manner.
Were baptised - The act of baptism denotes dedication to the service of him in whose name we are baptised. One of its designs is to dedicate or consecrate us to the service of Christ: Thus 1Co 10:2, the Israelites are said to have been baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; that is, they became consecrated, or dedicated, or bound to him as their leader and lawgiver. In the place before us, the argument of the apostle is evidently drawn from the supposition that we have been solemnly consecrated by baptism to the service of Christ; and that to sin is therefore a violation of the very nature of our Christian profession.
Into - εἰς eis. This is the word which is used in Mat 28:19, Teach all nations, baptising them into εἰς eis the name of the Father, etc. It means, being baptised unto his service; receiving him as the Saviour and guide, devoting all unto him and his cause.
Were baptised unto his death - We were baptised with special reference to his death. Our baptism had a strong resemblance to his death. By that he became insensible to the things of the world; by baptism we in like manner become dead to sin. Further, we are baptised with particular reference to the design of his death, the great leading feature and purpose of his work. That was, to expiate sin; to free people from its power; to make them pure. We have professed our devotion to the same cause; and have solemnly consecrated ourselves to the same design - to put a period to the dominion of iniquity.​

What does a baptist commentator say? Have you checked to see?

We've gone over this ad naseum, MC.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We've gone over this ad naseum, MC.

Do baptist commentators deny that Romans 6 is about baptism with water and the Spirit saying it is about some other baptism? Do they? Or have you painted yourself into a corner.

 

[MennoSota]

Do baptist commentators deny that Romans 6 is about baptism with water and the Spirit saying it is about some other baptism? Do they? Or have you painted yourself into a corner.

Why do I care if you found a commentator that fits your narrative?
What does the Bible say. I care about that. I care about the context.
After I have done that, I can go look at what others may say. I can then either change my perspective or I can recognize where the other person has a flaw in their thinking.
That's how I do this. You seem to just look for someone who fits your denominational narrative.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why do I care if you found a commentator that fits your narrative?
What does the Bible say. I care about that. I care about the context.
After I have done that, I can go look at what others may say. I can then either change my perspective or I can recognize where the other person has a flaw in their thinking.
That's how I do this. You seem to just look for someone who fits your denominational narrative.

Every Baptist commentator that I've found says Romans 6 is about baptism - the kind of baptism that involves water and that is common to believers (being Baptists they think baptism is for people who make a profession of personal faith before receiving baptism).

 

[Imalive]

We are baptized into His death but when you do it Biblical and repent get baptized then this is about the spiritual and water baptism. But they split it up. I think that's why I've never seen this was also about baptism in water. It's supposed to be one thing. Now you repent, get born again wait I don't know how long and then get baptized in water. This text is also for the ones who couldn't get baptized like the thief.