Water Baptism

[MennoSota]

More than is usual with your posts; the truth is that your usual posts are one liners at most.

Your opinion as usual. Truth is quite sparse in your church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Baptizo simply means to immerse. Someone writing in greek would need to define the object being immersed as well as into what the object is being immersed. There is no reason to assume that every instance of the word baptizo used in scripture is referring to water as the object into which something is being immersed. There are times when the context tells us it is water, but there are other times when water is never indicated.
Second, some prooftexts never mention baptism or even alude to it. Why then would one use that text as an argument for baptism? To do so is to play very loose with scripture and attempt to force a dogma upon scripture.

Why can't we treat baptise as "baptise with water" unless there is some direct, scriptural, and specific reason not to do so. The only reasons that have been advanced in your posts against doing so are theological and the theology behind them is bad theology. In addition "born of water and the Spirit" explicitly mentions water and is treated as a reference to baptism by the majority of Christians so many of the objections to infant baptism that you've raised are theological rather than scriptural. Furthermore when you've objected that an infant cannot repent, have faith or in some other ways is unable to do what you think is required in order to be baptised your arguments are not based on anything explicit in holy scripture you simply presume that infants cannot meet a set of requirements and you ignore the truth that infants can in fact do all that is appropriate to their age and are in fact taught to believe, repent, and obey the commandments of God as they grow having at every stage of their development the amount of faith, repentance, and other things that are appropriate to their age and thus fulfil every requirement for baptism in ways fully appropriate to their age. That is why infant baptism is fully consistent with holy scripture and abundantly evidenced in the practise of the Church from the first century onward.

 

[MennoSota]

Why can't we treat baptise as "baptise with water" unless there is some direct, scriptural, and specific reason not to do so. The only reasons that have been advanced in your posts against doing so are theological and the theology behind them is bad theology. In addition "born of water and the Spirit" explicitly mentions water and is treated as a reference to baptism by the majority of Christians so many of the objections to infant baptism that you've raised are theological rather than scriptural. Furthermore when you've objected that an infant cannot repent, have faith or in some other ways is unable to do what you think is required in order to be baptised your arguments are not based on anything explicit in holy scripture you simply presume that infants cannot meet a set of requirements and you ignore the truth that infants can in fact do all that is appropriate to their age and are in fact taught to believe, repent, and obey the commandments of God as they grow having at every stage of their development the amount of faith, repentance, and other things that are appropriate to their age and thus fulfil every requirement for baptism in ways fully appropriate to their age. That is why infant baptism is fully consistent with holy scripture and abundantly evidenced in the practise of the Church from the first century onward.

Because, YOU use it to teach salvation by water baptism, which is a horrible teaching that is sending millions of people to hell in your church.

 

[atpollard]

It says it in the hand written note on page "one" and "thousand" and "and" and "one" and "hundred" and "and" and "eleven" in the ASV
It says it in the hand written note on page "one" and "thousand" and "and" and "one" and "hundred" and "and" and "eleven" in the ESV
It says it in the hand written note on page "one" and "thousand" and "and" and "one" and "hundred" and "and" and "eleven" in the KJV
It says it in the hand written note on page "one" and "thousand" and "and" and "one" and "hundred" and "and" and "eleven" in the NASB
It says it in the hand written note on page "one" and "thousand" and "and" and "one" and "hundred" and "and" and "fifty-seven" in the NAB
It says it in the hand written note on page "one" and "thousand" and "and" and "one" and "hundred" and "and" and "forty-eight" in the RSV
It says it in the hand written note on page "one" and "thousand" and "and" and "one" and "hundred" and "and" and "eighty-three" in the NRSV
It says it in the hand written note on page "one" and "thousand" and "and" and "one" and "hundred" and "and" and "sixty-four" in the CPDB


:smirk:

:birgits_giggle:

OK, that was funny.
However, you really should erase those hand written notes; they can get you in BIG trouble ...

... If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. [Rev 22:18 NLT]

I ain’t takin no chances. :ewink:

 

[Josiah]

The Anabaptist dogma, forbidding so much, as nothing in Scripture. As the Anabaptist followers prove.

Where are these dogmatic prohibitions? Forbidding baptizing any under the age of X (but never telling us what age "X" is)? Forbidding baptizing any who has not first proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior? Forbidding baptizing any who has not first proven they are among the few unnamed persons for whom Jesus died? Forbidding baptizing except if all the cells of the body are entirely immersed under water? Where are these prohibitations stated in Scripture?




.

 

[atpollard]

The Anabaptist dogma, forbidding so much, as nothing in Scripture. As the Anabaptist followers prove.

Where are these dogmatic prohibitions? Forbidding baptizing any under the age of X (but never telling us what age "X" is)? Forbidding baptizing any who has not first proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior? Forbidding baptizing any who has not first proven they are among the few unnamed persons for whom Jesus died? Forbidding baptizing except if all the cells of the body are entirely immersed under water? Where are these prohibitations stated in Scripture?

Just for the record, the real Particular Baptist concern is:

"make disciples" and "baptizing" [Matthew 28:19]
"Repent" and "be baptized" [Acts 2:38]
"received his word were baptized" [Acts 2:41]
"believed" and "baptized" [Acts 8:12]
"What prevents me from being baptized?” (asking) [Acts 8:36]
"praying" [Acts 9:11] and "baptized" [Acts 9:18]
"You know of Jesus" [Acts 10:38] and "Holy Spirit fell" and "listening to the message" [Acts 10:44] and "baptized" [Acts 10:48]
"the Lord opened her heart" and "respond to the things spoken" and "baptized" [Acts 16:14-15]
"Believe" and "the word of the Lord" and "baptized" [Acts 16:31-33]
"believed" and "baptized" [Acts 18:8]

We have a legitimate difference of opinion on the function of Baptism. We see baptism as a practice not for those who God may choose (admission into the Covenant Community) but for those that God has already chosen (the Body of Christ). Any infant that articulates a desire to be baptized because of their faith in God ... should be baptized and welcomed as a full member in the Body of Christ. :graduation:

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

:birgits_giggle:

OK, that was funny.
However, you really should erase those hand written notes; they can get you in BIG trouble ...

... If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. [Rev 22:18 NLT]

I ain’t takin no chances. :ewink:

Ah yes, but what about colored highlighters?

:scared:

 

[atpollard]

Ah yes, but what about colored highlighters?
:scared:

That’s why I went to DIGITAL Bibles ... I read Revelation and I am taking NO CHANCES of even a stray pencil mark!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ah yes, but what about colored highlighters?

:scared:

One cannot help but gasp and the extent to which the scriptures are laid waste by the highlighter pen; surely the highlighter pen is mightier than the word.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That’s why I went to DIGITAL Bibles ... I read Revelation and I am taking NO CHANCES of even a stray pencil mark!

Beware the superstition of the scrib[bl]es and the parentheses.

 

[Andrew]

Couldn't "be baptised" just mean "be covered" that is, in His name or in the action it calls for?
'Believe' and be Covered/immersed in your belief?
Repent and therefore be Covered/immersed in repentance?
I hear evangelical preachers say "we are baptised in the blood of Christ" or "covered in his blood"... Im pretty sure baptism means "immersed/submerged in" not just water.

 

[Arsenios]

Couldn't "be baptised" just mean "be covered" that is, in His name or in the action it calls for?
'Believe' and be Covered/immersed in your belief?
Repent and therefore be Covered/immersed in repentance?
I hear evangelical preachers say "we are baptised in the blood of Christ" or "covered in his blood"... Im pretty sure baptism means "immersed/submerged in" not just water.

Well if you like non-literal interpretations - The literal means "dip in liquid" - Then simply ask yourself what it means to be submerged in water - When this happens, is there ANY portion of you that does not get wet? And the answer is obviously no... So it means to immerse yourself into Christ, leaving no part of you not wetted in that submersing in liquid...

But the simple fact is the early Church did not get it wrong - I means to submerge a person in water - It means the Church submerging the person water... Followed by the Christing, the Anointing, of that person in the Holy Spirit, which is what is signified by the application of oil in the hands of a Presbyter of the Body of Christ... And Baptism is in water because Christ was Baptized in water, and the Holy Spirit descended and abided on Him...

I mean, IF you want to know the meaning of the Bible on Baptism, look to the early Church's practices... The Apostles were Commissioned to Baptize ALL the nations into Christ... How can one possibly imagine that the early Church got such an issue on Baptism WRONG?? That would mean that Christ FAILED to even impart proper Baptism to His Apostles... And these Baptisms were well known to Paul and are seen in Acts, and they are all in water...

Another thing - The arrival of the Holy Spirit is not Baptism - Having a holy event in your life is not Baptism... Christ's Servants in His Body Baptize in obedience to Christ... IF the Body of Christ Baptizes, then it is Christ Himself Baptizing... And that is what John the Baptist prophesied, that One is Coming Who will Baptize in the Holy Spirit - Unless you are born of Water and of Spirit - That is the Rebirth from Above...


Arsenios

 

[Andrew]

Well if you like non-literal interpretations - The literal means "dip in liquid" - Then simply ask yourself what it means to be submerged in water - When this happens, is there ANY portion of you that does not get wet? And the answer is obviously no... So it means to immerse yourself into Christ, leaving no part of you not wetted in that submersing in liquid...

But the simple fact is the early Church did not get it wrong - I means to submerge a person in water - It means the Church submerging the person water... Followed by the Christing, the Anointing, of that person in the Holy Spirit, which is what is signified by the application of oil in the hands of a Presbyter of the Body of Christ... And Baptism is in water because Christ was Baptized in water, and the Holy Spirit descended and abided on Him...

I mean, IF you want to know the meaning of the Bible on Baptism, look to the early Church's practices... The Apostles were Commissioned to Baptize ALL the nations into Christ... How can one possibly imagine that the early Church got such an issue on Baptism WRONG?? That would mean that Christ FAILED to even impart proper Baptism to His Apostles... And these Baptisms were well known to Paul and are seen in Acts, and they are all in water...

Another thing - The arrival of the Holy Spirit is not Baptism - Having a holy event in your life is not Baptism... Christ's Servants in His Body Baptize in obedience to Christ... IF the Body of Christ Baptizes, then it is Christ Himself Baptizing... And that is what John the Baptist prophesied, that One is Coming Who will Baptize in the Holy Spirit - Unless you are born of Water and of Spirit - That is the Rebirth from Above...


Arsenios

I'm speaking beyond just water, the act in these rituals is to be full submerged into them, to believe, to repent, to receive, ALL under His Name, now I ask if you have literally been baptised in Fire?? So that can't be literal can it? There must be a meaning beyond that. Just as there is a meaning beyond water. We are speaking rituals and it was a custom for Jews who wished to become rabies to be dipped in water, which is what Jesus HAD to do, but now we are baptised in Jesus, the use of water is community ritual aka Tradition and I find no fault in that, seeing water is abundant I can baptise others on my own like the bible says,... So why do we NEED to have a priest baptise when we are told to ALL baptise eachother? I really don't care for the show they put on but when they do it, we should do it as soon as the person believes and asked to be baptised. I believe in the believers baptism, but as soon as I hear someone say "I believe! i want to be baptised" I will find water and do it one the spot, I respect the tradition I just know that water does nothing for a someone who has no idea what's going on... they aren't going to hell if they aren't baptised as an infant, they may be stinky though, so bathe them lol

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why can't we treat baptise as "baptise with water" unless there is some direct, scriptural, and specific reason not to do so. The only reasons that have been advanced in your posts against doing so are theological and the theology behind them is bad theology. In addition "born of water and the Spirit" explicitly mentions water and is treated as a reference to baptism by the majority of Christians so many of the objections to infant baptism that you've raised are theological rather than scriptural. Furthermore when you've objected that an infant cannot repent, have faith or in some other ways is unable to do what you think is required in order to be baptised your arguments are not based on anything explicit in holy scripture you simply presume that infants cannot meet a set of requirements and you ignore the truth that infants can in fact do all that is appropriate to their age and are in fact taught to believe, repent, and obey the commandments of God as they grow having at every stage of their development the amount of faith, repentance, and other things that are appropriate to their age and thus fulfil every requirement for baptism in ways fully appropriate to their age. That is why infant baptism is fully consistent with holy scripture and abundantly evidenced in the practise of the Church from the first century onward.

Because, YOU use it to teach salvation by water baptism, which is a horrible teaching that is sending millions of people to hell in your church.

The holy scriptures affirm salvation by baptism; the Lord Jesus Christ affirms salvation by being born of water and the Spirit. It is your posts and the peculiar theology contained in them that sends people into error and the risk of condemnation at the last judgement.

 

[MennoSota]

The holy scriptures affirm salvation by baptism; the Lord Jesus Christ affirms salvation by being born of water and the Spirit. It is your posts and the peculiar theology contained in them that sends people into error and the risk of condemnation at the last judgement.

Your church teaches such. The scriptures do not affirm your assertion.
1) You utterly misinterpret John 3:5. No baptism ever mentioned or ever considered by Nicodemus and Jesus. You simply have an awful interpretation.
2) Water is not associated in the other verses where the word baptism is used. Therefore...another poor interpretation by the boys with the pointy hats.
3) Such a teaching spits on God and his grace.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Your church teaches such. The scriptures do not affirm your assertion.
1) You utterly misinterpret John 3:5. No baptism ever mentioned or ever considered by Nicodemus and Jesus. You simply have an awful interpretation.

When the Lord says "born of water and the Spirit" he is referencing baptism even if you pretend otherwise. John 3:5

2) Water is not associated in the other verses where the word baptism is used. Therefore...another poor interpretation by the boys with the pointy hats.

You do not know the scriptures so you err in what you write in your posts. The Lord teaches through the letter of saint Peter that water is most definitely involved in salvation. 1Peter 3:21

3) Such a teaching spits on God and his grace.

You do not know the gospel well enough to understand that what you are saying is absurd. The faithful are saved by grace and baptism is a means by which grace is conveyed John 3:5; Romans 6:3-5

 

[Josiah]

The Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, because of their radical synergism, invented the Baptism dogma that is echoed by a few Protestants today.


Anti-Paedobaptism: That we are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (although that age is not revealed); no underage baptisms. They have not one Scripture however that states this invention.

Credobaptism: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savi0or; must choose Jesus first. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.

Immersion Only: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely immersed under water; no other mode permitted. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.

Elect Only: This very recent invention comes from Calvinist Anabaptists: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless and until they prove they are among the few for whom Jesus died. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.

Baptism Does Nothing: That Baptism is SO stressed in the NT and a part of the Great Commission because it does and accomplishes nothing (it is forbidden in so many cases because of this). They have not one Scripture that states this invention and there are numerous that suggest otherwise.




.

 

[atpollard]

... invented the Baptism dogma that is echoed by a few Protestants today.

Are 43 million Baptists "a few"?
There are "only" 65 million Lutherans.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Are 43 million Baptists "a few"?
There are "only" 65 million Lutherans.

And 1,300 million Catholics. Maybe 300 million orthodox, and another 50 or so million Oriental Orthodox. It gets so complicated when theology is based on demographics.

 

[Albion]

Are 43 million Baptists "a few"?
There are "only" 65 million Lutherans.

Yes, but with regard to the issue being discussed, you would have to add 2 billion other Christians of various denominations who share the Lutheran POV, whereas there are far fewer to add to the Baptist side.