# Speaking of Baptisim...



## Randy

Had a friend that was going to be baptized in the river as a Baptist this past weekend.  Turned out the river was too low so he only got a sprinkle and is just a Methodist.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

lol       

John 3:23 - And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

no reason to go where there was 'much water' unless submersion was the way it was done!


----------



## Madman

Hey Randy--- Now that's funny!  I don't care who you are!
                                                                        Larry the cable guy







BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol
> 
> John 3:23 - And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
> 
> no reason to go where there was 'much water' unless submersion was the way it was done!



Interesting point Bander but the literal translation of Aenon is "Many springs".  I've been to that area, couldn't find a puddle deep enough to "dunk a donut".


----------



## Huntinfool

Well, I'm covered from all sides!

I was sprinkled as a Methodist.  My current church is baptist in its roots and insisted that I be dunked.

I fought it for a long while.  But, in the end, at the encouragement of my wife, I submitted to the request for the sake of fellowship.

Baptism is not a big issue to me.  I do not subscribe to the belief that it is necessary for salvation.  I do believe that all who are saved are to be baptized.  The method is not of importance to me and I don't think that one method is valid over another.

I still don't believe that my first baptism was invalid.  But I'm ok with being dunked too.

It is an outward sign of an inward experience.  But I know we don't need to get back into a baptism debate....been there, done that.  No resolution.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Madman said:


> Interesting point Bander but the literal translation of Aenon is "Many springs".  I've been to that area, couldn't find a puddle deep enough to "dunk a donut".



I can relate.   Even where I live has changed drastically since I was a boy.    Many many lakes where in my city, and they have been 15' lower than normal for years.    

would love to go visit Israel.   Think I'll avoid it for the time being, though!


----------



## rjcruiser

Huntinfool said:


> Baptism is not a big issue to me.  I do not subscribe to the belief that it is necessary for salvation.  I do believe that all who are saved are to be baptized.  The method is not of importance to me and I don't think that one method is valid over another.
> 
> I still don't believe that my first baptism was invalid.  But I'm ok with being dunked too.
> 
> It is an outward sign of an inward experience.  But I know we don't need to get back into a baptism debate....been there, done that.  No resolution.



Well put.


----------



## JB0704

We don't have a church, so my kid got baptized in about 3 feet of water in a creek by a preacher friend.  It was a pretty cool scene, kind-of-like in "Oh brother where art thou."  Bunch of folks, picnic, and an old timey baptizin'......good stuff.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Yep...my son, too!    He had never been baptized, and we were going bass fishing with the youth pastor about 2 months ago.   I told him, "What a perfect time for you to get baptized!"   (He had always wanted to get baptized outdoors; not in the church)    

I had the wife meet us at the ramp when we were done and we watched him get baptized right in that nasty lake water!   lol    The youth pastor had never baptized anyone, but I told him not to sweat it....as it was a simple procedure.   My son actually joked with him by asking him to "just sprinkle me"....   lol    After a few minutes of laughter he got down to business. 

Pretty cool...


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Baptism is not a big issue to me.  .



A lot of people, like me, might misunderstand a Christian making the above statement on that subject or any other subject spoken and proclaimed by Jesus Christ.

(Not to get into the subject again)


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> A lot of people, like me, might misunderstand a Christian making the above statement on that subject or any other subject spoken and proclaimed by Jesus Christ.
> 
> (Not to get into the subject again)



What I find interesting is how folks choose which hills are the ones to die for, and which ones are not.


----------



## Huntinfool

> A lot of people, like me, might misunderstand a Christian making the above statement on that subject or any other subject spoken and proclaimed by Jesus Christ.
> 
> (Not to get into the subject again)



Let me clarify....the METHOD of baptism isn't a big issue for me.  I don't care whether you were dunked, sprinkled or sprayed with a garden hose.  Believers need to be baptized.  We agree on that.  I'm just not picky on how much water you use.

But then, what do I know...I'm neither a believer in nor a follower of the Bible, right?


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> A lot of people, like me, might misunderstand a Christian making the above statement on that subject or any other subject spoken and proclaimed by Jesus Christ.
> 
> (Not to get into the subject again)



Amazing how when you pick out a few words in a paragraph, how quickly you can distort and change the meaning.

If you'd have read the entire paragraph, it is obvious the intent and the meaning.


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Let me clarify....the METHOD of baptism isn't a big issue for me.  I don't care whether you were dunked, sprinkled or sprayed with a garden hose.  Believers need to be baptized.  We agree on that.  I'm just not picky on how much water you use.
> 
> But then, what do I know...I'm neither a believer in nor a follower of the Bible, right?



If baptism was not a big deal to you, the above statement would again be true.
I just thought it was a statement that you probably didn't mean exactly the way it came out.

.


----------



## Ronnie T

rjcruiser said:


> Amazing how when you pick out a few words in a paragraph, how quickly you can distort and change the meaning.
> 
> If you'd have read the entire paragraph, it is obvious the intent and the meaning.



When I read the entire paragraph, my sense was that baptism wasn't a big deal to him.  Just like he said. And I didn't pick out a few words..... I quoted the very first sentence.
And I appreciate his response thank you very much.


----------



## grouper throat

Ronnie T said:


> When I read the entire paragraph, my sense was that baptism wasn't a big deal to him.  Just like he said. And I didn't pick out a few words..... I quoted the very first sentence.
> And I appreciate his response thank you very much.



This is his clarifying sentence- The method is not of importance to me and I don't think that *one method is valid over another*. 

It does tend to be somewhat confusing at first glance.

I'll be Baptized myself this Sunday


----------



## Ronnie T

grouper throat said:


> This is his clarifying sentence- The method is not of importance to me and I don't think that *one method is valid over another*.
> 
> It does tend to be somewhat confusing at first glance.
> 
> I'll be Baptized myself this Sunday



I'm glad to hear that.
God will bless you on that day.
Enjoy it for all that it is.


----------



## rjcruiser

grouper throat said:


> I'll be Baptized myself this Sunday



Awesome.  And if you die between now and Sunday...you'll be just like the thief on the cross....in paradise with Jesus.


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> And I didn't pick out a few words..... I quoted the very first sentence.







Huntinfool said:


> Baptism is not a big issue to me.



and 



Huntinfool said:


> Baptism is not a big issue to me.  I do not subscribe to the belief that it is necessary for salvation.  I do believe that all who are saved are to be baptized.  The method is not of importance to me and I don't think that one method is valid over another.



You specifically left out the underlined part.  Now...whether or not you did it on purpose, or it was oversight on your part...I have no idea.

I will say, from reading your response...it seems as though you have it out for HF.


----------



## hummdaddy

i went to a church a few times that had a dunk tank, like what you see at the fair ...


----------



## Ronnie T

I assure you that I would have asked the same question of anyone, even you, that posted his first two sentences.
Hey, it's a discussion forum!


----------



## mtnwoman

I've been fully submerged, but I'd love to be baptized again in the Jordan.


----------



## Bama4me

According to 1 Peter 3:21, baptism saves us... and the implication of Acts 22:16 is that is in baptism when we contact Jesus' blood.  The "mode" (if you want to refer to it in that way) is immersion.  The Greek language is very specific... baptizo literally means "immersion."  The Greek language actually has a word for sprinkle... and it's not baptizo.


----------



## Huntinfool

> If baptism was not a big deal to you, the above statement would again be true.



Well....I suppose if it was true the first time it was posted, it probably still is.


----------



## rjcruiser

rjcruiser said:


> You specifically left out the underlined part.  Now...whether or not you did it on purpose, or it was oversight on your part...I have no idea.





Ronnie T said:


> I assure you that I would have asked the same question of anyone, even you, that posted his first two sentences.
> Hey, it's a discussion forum!



So were you trolling for "discussion" by quoting only one sentence that changed the meaning of what HF had posted?  Or did you honestly think that someone who has been baptized twice as many times as you have didn't think it was important?


----------



## JB0704

mtnwoman said:


> I've been fully submerged, but I'd love to be baptized again in the Jordan.



My wife went to Israel a few years back, and was Baptized in the Jordan river.  She said it was a very cool experience.


----------



## Huntinfool

> According to 1 Peter 3:21, baptism saves us...




Like I said, there is no point getting into this again.  It's been hashed out ad nauseam with no resolution.  I will simply say, that I 100% disagree with you on this statement and leave it at that.


----------



## Madman

Randy,

I hope you are happy!!!

Now look at what you have done.

In for a penny, in for a pound.




Bama4me said:


> According to 1 Peter 3:21, baptism saves us... and the implication of Acts 22:16 is that is in baptism when we contact Jesus' blood.  The "mode" (if you want to refer to it in that way) is immersion.  The Greek language is very specific... baptizo literally means "immersion."  The Greek language actually has a word for sprinkle... and it's not baptizo.



Bama,

Actually the better "Biblical" and "Greek" translation for baptizo is merge.

The translation to dip or dunk comes from an extra Biblical source.

I don't care how someone was baptised as long as they were.

I was sprinkled, and it took.  "One Lord, One faith, One baptism, One God and Father of all."


----------



## Ronnie T

rjcruiser said:


> So were you trolling for "discussion" by quoting only one sentence that changed the meaning of what HF had posted?  Or did you honestly think that someone who has been baptized twice as many times as you have didn't think it was important?



I actually thought we'd "discuss" rather than argue.

You know my history on this forum concerning the subject of baptism?  It's not new to you.

I think being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is a huge deal.

Listen to the sound of this:   "We've been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

I just consider it to be a huge deal.  A monumental moment.  A holy experience.
From time to time I have the pleasure of asking someone:  "Would you like to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ".


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Like I said, there is no point getting into this again.  It's been hashed out ad nauseam with no resolution.  I will simply say, that I 100% disagree with you on this statement and leave it at that.



What is your understanding of what 1Peter 3 is saying concerning baptism?


----------



## Tim L

Ronnie T said:


> I actually thought we'd "discuss" rather than argue.
> 
> You know my history on this forum concerning the subject of baptism?  It's not new to you.
> 
> I think being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is a huge deal.
> 
> Listen to the sound of this:   "We've been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".
> 
> I just consider it to be a huge deal.  A monumental moment.  A holy experience.
> From time to time I have the pleasure of asking someone:  "Would you like to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ".



It's sad the way Satan has been able to confuse the world since the days of the early church regarding christian baptism as it was practiced by the first century church.  We are commanded to accept christ as our personal savoir, repent, and be immersed in christian baptism.  Ol Peter was pretty clear about that...Well Satan would have a hard time confusing folks about whether or not they have to accept christ as their savoir and repent of their sins...However one of his greatest victories has been to confuse the world about christian baptism as it was taught by Peter in Acts 2:38.  

He now (and sadly has for centuries) has folks running around saying things like it doesn't matter if your baptized or not, or it doesn't matter how your baptized, or that baptism is an outward symbol of what christ has already done if their lives; or that their being baptized to join a church....Those first two things (accepting christ as their savoir and repentance of sins) are pretty hard to confuse, but man Satan has had a field day on baptism....Well for all those folks that think that it doesn't really matter if your baptized or how their baptized as long as their content with what they have already done, well maybe their right....the bible is full of instances where it really didn't matter in the end whether we obeyed the word of the lord as long as our heart was in the right place and we are content with our lives....ol Lots wife probably thought it really didn't matter if she turned around and looked at Sodom and Gommorah as they left; after all her heart was in the right place and I'm sure she was content with her decision...


----------



## Ronnie T

In many instances, in many Christian circles, there's a fear of putting too much stock in baptism.  Fear that it will take aways from the grace and mercy of God.
So, thru the centuries, for many groups it's been turned into a "thing" that Christians might do at some point in their Christian life.

But for me, and the Bible, baptism doesn't take anything from God's grace.  I believe baptism holds much of God's grace.

Noah was a man who was saved by his faith in God...... But he had to build that ark.  But, even in that, Noah didn't saved himself.  He wasn't saved by works.  He was saved by faith.
His faith allowed him to do something precisely the way God instructed him to.
Peter says baptism is an antitype of Noah and the flood.
Not the water of baptism, but the answer of a good conscience.

It is a "big" thing to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Huntinfool

> He now (and sadly has for centuries) has folks running around saying things like it doesn't matter if your baptized or not, or it doesn't matter how your baptized, or that baptism is an outward symbol of what christ has already done if their lives; or that their being baptized to join a church....Those first two things (accepting christ as their savoir and repentance of sins) are pretty hard to confuse, but man Satan has had a field day on baptism....Well for all those folks that think that it doesn't really matter if your baptized or how their baptized as long as their content with what they have already done, well maybe their right....the bible is full of instances where it really didn't matter in the end whether we obeyed the word of the lord as long as our heart was in the right place and we are content with our lives....ol Lots wife probably thought it really didn't matter if she turned around and looked at Sodom and Gommorah as they left; after all her heart was in the right place and I'm sure she was content with her decision...



Wow....that's all I've got right now.  Wow.




> What is your understanding of what 1Peter 3 is saying concerning baptism?



In response to this and to ol Tim up there....this is the note out of the ESV.  I think it does a much better job than I would do of explaining it.  Not that I'm tryng to shirk giving my own explanation.  But my own beliefs line up pretty perfectly with this and they did such a good job with it...

Hey Tim....you want me to line up phone numbers so you can tell all the biblical scholars that spent years pulling this together that Satan has deceived them?  Please note especially the part in red where Satan has really got them good.



> 1 Pet. 3:21 A comparison is drawn between salvation in the ark and baptism. In both instances, believers are saved through the waters of judgment, since baptism portrays salvation through judgment. The mere mechanical act of baptism does not save, for Peter explicitly says, “not as a removal of dirt from the body,” meaning that the passing of water over the body does not cleanse anyone. Baptism saves you because it represents inward faith, as evidenced by one’s appeal to God for the forgiveness of one’s sins (for a good conscience). Furthermore, baptism “saves” only insofar as it is grounded in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is a visual representation of the fact that Christians are clothed with Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27), and in union with Christ they share his victory over sin. Though Christians have disagreed about the proper mode of water baptism beginning in the early history of the church, Christians have generally agreed (irrespective of denominational differences) that water baptism is an outward sign of the inward reality of regeneration, which is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 3:5, 8; Titus 3:5), and which may be received only by grace through faith (see Eph. 2:8).


----------



## stringmusic

Who said that it doesn't matter if one is baptised or not?

After what should be a resounding "nobody", I would ask why the posts are shifting in that direction?


----------



## Huntinfool

> It is a "big" thing to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.



I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to post this in this thread.  But here goes....for the fourth time now.  I'm game if you guys are.

Baptism is a big deal.  It is not a big deal HOW you are baptized.  Because it is an outward expression of both obedience and of the inward reality of regeneration....the amount of water matters not.  

I'm ok if you disagree with that.  But let's not get into whether I've been deceived by Satan.  







I suppose since I'm not a studier nor believer in the Bible, I probably have been deceived....huh?


----------



## Huntinfool

stringmusic said:


> Who said that it doesn't matter if one is baptised or not?
> 
> After what should be a resounding "nobody", I would ask why the posts are shifting in that direction?



Because it was me who posted something that in no way resembles "baptism isn't a big deal"

...and right now there are a few folks who are not super thrilled with me.


----------



## stringmusic

Tim L said:


> It's sad the way Satan has been able to confuse the world since the days of the early church regarding christian baptism as it was practiced by the first century church.  We are commanded to accept christ as our personal savoir, repent, and be immersed in christian baptism.  Ol Peter was pretty clear about that...Well Satan would have a hard time confusing folks about whether or not they have to accept christ as their savoir and repent of their sins...However one of his greatest victories has been to confuse the world about christian baptism as it was taught by Peter in Acts 2:38.
> 
> He now (and sadly has for centuries) has folks running around saying things like it doesn't matter if your baptized or not, or it doesn't matter how your baptized, *or that baptism is an outward symbol of what christ has already done if their lives;* or that their being baptized to join a church....Those first two things (accepting christ as their savoir and repentance of sins) are pretty hard to confuse, but man Satan has had a field day on baptism....Well for all those folks that think that it doesn't really matter if your baptized or how their baptized as long as their content with what they have already done, well maybe their right....the bible is full of instances where it really didn't matter in the end whether we obeyed the word of the lord as long as our heart was in the right place and we are content with our lives....ol Lots wife probably thought it really didn't matter if she turned around and looked at Sodom and Gommorah as they left; after all her heart was in the right place and I'm sure she was content with her decision...



Public profession of faith, that is what I see it as. Is there something I am not seeing that I should?


----------



## stringmusic

Huntinfool said:


> ...and right now there are a few folks who are not super thrilled with me.



I'm thrilled!!  I only have like 2100 post though, so my thrillinessism (yep, I just made that word up, right on the spot too)might not hold much water.


----------



## centerpin fan

I really wanted to stay out of yet another baptism thread, but I did want to edit the ESV note to make it correct:



> "Most Protestant Christians have generally agreed (irrespective of denominational differences) that water baptism is an outward sign of the inward reality of regeneration ... Catholic, Orthodox, and some Protestant churches reject this teaching, however."


----------



## Huntinfool

...as long as it holds enough water to be submerged in I think you'll make everybody happy!


Cerp....I think the word "generally" covers what you edited.  And, yes, I think they were referring to protestant denominations.  Catholicism has a good number of beliefs that most protestant denoms don't hold.  But I don't think we're allowed to debate the merits of those anymore.


----------



## Ronnie T

Okay folks, I'm sorry for getting this started.
My bad.
I did it.  I deserve punishment.


----------



## Tim L

Ronnie T said:


> Okay folks, I'm sorry for getting this started.
> My bad.
> I did it.  I deserve punishment.



This is a tough one alright; otherwise similar sincere christians can have such different beliefs....only other subject that I am aware of that comes close is speaking in tongues; maybe female preachers..


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> In response to this and to ol Tim up there....this is the note out of the ESV.  I think it does a much better job than I would do of explaining it.



You must be using a different ESV than mine... I assume it's one with a commentary?  If so, I'm not surprised to read these comments.  They do, however, paint with a very broad brush when they say "Christians have generally agreed that water baptism is an outward sign of the inward reality of regeneration."

The early church fathers universally believed baptism was for salvation... and this is a conceeded point for many centuries after the church's establishment (that's why Catholics began sprinkling babies).  When modern scholars attempt to claim that "most have agreed" on this issue, they're referring to "most" since the period of the Reformation... when John Calvin's ideas primarily were adopted by many denominations.  

A gentleman earlier mentioned that Aenon doesn't have any pools of water today... today is not the question.  It is "what was present in Jesus' day?"  There are many cities listed in the OT which aren't located today... but does that mean they didn't exist?  I'll take the word of John 3:23 when it comes to conditions in NT times.

Another gentlemen mentioned the Greek word "baptizo" means "to merge."  I don't know of a Greek lexicon which agrees with that idea.  I'm not saying they don't exist, but I'd like to see it if there's one.

One thing that we'd do well to observe is both John 3:23 and Acts 8:38... even if one believes words/phrases are arbitrary, those two passages strongly imply baptism involves much more than sprinkling/pouring.


----------



## Huntinfool

ESV Study Bible.  Released last year I believe.  I'm fairly certain it's the same ESV you have...but with study notes.



> The ESV Study Bible was created by a team of 95 outstanding evangelical Bible scholars and teachers. They were chosen, first, because of their deep commitment to the truth, authority, and sufficiency of God’s Word; and, second, because of their expertise in teaching and understanding the Bible. The team of contributors comes from 9 countries, representing nearly 20 denominations and more than 50 seminaries, colleges, and universities.







> The early church fathers universally believed baptism was for salvation... and this is a conceeded point for many centuries after the church's establishment (that's why Catholics began sprinkling babies).



....and are you implying that they are correct in the belief that sprinkling saves babies?  Whether it was "universal" (that's an awefully big claim) is debatable.  Regardless, it is not now universally accepted that baptism is the means to salvation.  In fact, it is a minority position at this point (among protestant denoms).  Why?  I suppose you could make one of two arguments.  Either Satan has deceived us slowly over the ages, or our biblical understanding has developed into more correct positions over time.  


Sprinkle or dunk.  We can agree to disagree on that. 

Baptism being the means to salvation, you're gonna be here for a while if that's what you're trying to convince me of.


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> Okay folks, I'm sorry for getting this started.
> My bad.
> I did it.  I deserve punishment.



Is that an apology?  or are you just in denial of your misquoting?


----------



## rjcruiser

stringmusic said:


> Who said that it doesn't matter if one is baptised or not?



You didn't read RonnieT's (mis)quote of Huntinfool?  It was pretty obvious from that cherry-picked sentence that HF doesn't give any care about baptism.


----------



## THREEJAYS

grouper throat said:


> this is his clarifying sentence- the method is not of importance to me and i don't think that *one method is valid over another*.
> 
> it does tend to be somewhat confusing at first glance.
> 
> I'll be baptized myself this sunday



a big amen


----------



## JB0704

Tim L said:


> ....only other subject that I am aware of that comes close is speaking in tongues; maybe female preachers..



Wait a second, there is a problem with female preachers???

Kidding. That would be a crazy thread.....


----------



## JB0704

I do have a question for all of you, however......

....if you don't believe baptism will save you, but you get baptized because Jesus did, have you really been baptized?  I mean, are you still saved?  Just curious considering where the thread was going.


----------



## Sterlo58

Good Gravy...this kind of debate is what steered me away from the church. If sprinklin' versus dunkin' is what really matters...we have a very fickle God.


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> Wait a second, there is a problem with female preachers???
> 
> Kidding. That would be a crazy thread.....



It's been done....and done...and done

Go read it.  Read my posts especially.  I think you'll see why I say I see a lot of my old self in your posts.  I'm sure it won't surprise you to know that I pretty much have reversed my position since then.

...and yes...as I recall it was a CRAZY thread!


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> I do have a question for all of you, however......
> 
> ....if you don't believe baptism will save you, but you get baptized because Jesus did, have you really been baptized?  I mean, are you still saved?  Just curious considering where the thread was going.



I'm not actually sure I follow what you're asking.


I wasn't baptized because Jesus was baptized.  I was baptized because I'm told that I need to be baptized in scripture.

Obedience and an outward expression of inward regeneration IMO.  But I'm not sure I follow the "are you still saved" question.  Maybe we can talk about that tomorrow.


----------



## JB0704

Okay, for tomorrow, and I am not trying to take sides, but I will give a hypothetical:

Person A accepts Jesus.  Person A does not believe baptism is essential to salvation.  Person A gets baptized anyway.  Is it a "true baptism?"  Are they saved?

I guess the question is more applicable to those who believe it is essential to the salvation process.


----------



## Huntinfool

If someone doesn't think baptism isn't essential at all...then I think you've got a good question.

I don't think it's essential to salvation (meaning it is not the means to salvation).  But I do think it's essential for the reasons I stated earlier.

If you don't think it's necessary at all...and just do it for the heck of it, then I think you have a good question.


----------



## Ronnie T

JB0704 said:


> Okay, for tomorrow, and I am not trying to take sides, but I will give a hypothetical:
> 
> Person A accepts Jesus.  Person A does not believe baptism is essential to salvation.  Person A gets baptized anyway.  Is it a "true baptism?"  Are they saved?
> 
> I guess the question is more applicable to those who believe it is essential to the salvation process.



I personally think that as long as a person believes and has the necessary faith, their baptism is good with God.

Just one example:  Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 

In verse 16 there's two commands to abide by:  "believe" and "be baptized".
There's one blessing:  "will be saved".

I think if a person has faith in Christ, and are then baptized, they've done what needed to be done.
Even the Christians in Roman 6 didn't understand their baptism and what it did.  But it happened anyway.


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> ESV Study Bible.  Released last year I believe.  I'm fairly certain it's the same ESV you have...but with study notes...and are you implying that they are correct in the belief that sprinkling saves babies?  Whether it was "universal" (that's an awefully big claim) is debatable.  Regardless, it is not now universally accepted that baptism is the means to salvation.  In fact, it is a minority position at this point (among protestant denoms).  Why?  I suppose you could make one of two arguments.  Either Satan has deceived us slowly over the ages, or our biblical understanding has developed into more correct positions over time.
> 
> 
> Sprinkle or dunk.  We can agree to disagree on that.
> 
> Baptism being the means to salvation, you're gonna be here for a while if that's what you're trying to convince me of.



Not as debatable as you might think on the earlier church belief... finding any proof to the contrary is pretty difficult.  Didn't say the practice of baptizing babies was biblically correct... just that the belief was that baptism was the point of salvation.

If you want my belief on baptism in a nutshell... just look at Acts 2.  It was the first time the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord was heard... and it was the first time people responded to the message.  Believing people asked "what shall we do?" when they were cut to the heart by the message.

Peter didn't respond with "say a prayer" or "just believe in your heart"... and no one on that day stood up and said, "well, over in Romans 10:10, it says we are saved by confession" or "John 3:16 claims all we have to do is believe."  No... if you wanted to be saved that day, you'd have repented of your sins and been baptized - and in the words of the apostle Paul, your sins would have been washed away (Acts 22:16).

Change your mind about something you're already convinced about... been there and tried that in times past.  I'm not going to spend another two days going back and forth with you about any subject.  I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I realize the futility in that scenario.

No... I'm stating what I believe the Bible teaches.  Myself?  I'm going to do what they did on Pentecost. I believe that when I do what they did, I'll get what they got... salvation and membership into the body of Christ (2:41/47).  Why would I want to do anything else?


----------



## Huntinfool

You're isolating one passage in the face of the remainder of the evidence.

Belief and baptism are required of us.  We don't disagree on that.

The question is whether baptism is required for salvation.  As far as I'm concerned there is too much evidence in scripture that points to baptism being an act of obedience and solidarity rather than the means to salvation.

I've never hinted that baptism isn't required of believers.


----------



## rjcruiser

Bama4me said:


> No... I'm stating what I believe the Bible teaches.  Myself?  I'm going to do what they did on Pentecost. I believe that when I do what they did, I'll get what they got... salvation and membership into the body of Christ (2:41/47).  Why would I want to do anything else?



You have to be careful with applying Acts to the rest of all time as well.  You read the early chapters of Acts and there are a lot of interesting phenomons that occurred that hadn't previously ever occurred and some that didn't occur again.

For instance, when did you receive the Holy Spirit?  When you were saved?  When you were baptized?  Because there are cases for both in Acts.  What about the disciples?  Did they have the Holy Spirit before the Day of Pentecost?

Oh...the tangled web one can weave when they pull single verses out of context.  Right Ronnie?



Huntinfool said:


> The question is whether baptism is required for salvation.  As far as I'm concerned there is too much evidence in scripture that points to baptism being an act of obedience and solidarity rather than the means to salvation.



This.  And like I said before, look at the thief on the cross.  And don't say he was pre-resurrection.  People were being baptized pre-resurrection.  Also, if you say pre-rezz....does that mean God has changed his requirements for salvation pre/post rez?

I thought God didn't change?


----------



## Tim L

Bama4me said:


> Not as debatable as you might think on the earlier church belief... finding any proof to the contrary is pretty difficult.  Didn't say the practice of baptizing babies was biblically correct... just that the belief was that baptism was the point of salvation.
> 
> If you want my belief on baptism in a nutshell... just look at Acts 2.  It was the first time the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord was heard... and it was the first time people responded to the message.  Believing people asked "what shall we do?" when they were cut to the heart by the message.
> 
> Peter didn't respond with "say a prayer" or "just believe in your heart"... and no one on that day stood up and said, "well, over in Romans 10:10, it says we are saved by confession" or "John 3:16 claims all we have to do is believe."  No... if you wanted to be saved that day, you'd have repented of your sins and been baptized - and in the words of the apostle Paul, your sins would have been washed away (Acts 22:16).
> 
> Change your mind about something you're already convinced about... been there and tried that in times past.  I'm not going to spend another two days going back and forth with you about any subject.  I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I realize the futility in that scenario.
> 
> No... I'm stating what I believe the Bible teaches.  Myself?  I'm going to do what they did on Pentecost. I believe that when I do what they did, I'll get what they got... salvation and membership into the body of Christ (2:41/47).  Why would I want to do anything else?



Great points; you hit the nail on the head.  The "world" will refuse to believe it, but your exactly right.


----------



## StriperAddict

*my 2 pesos*

Here's your requirement,

"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness",

... and God is the same yesterday (OT times) as He is today, in reconciling the world thru Christ.



bye!


----------



## JB0704

Ok, but for those who believe it is essential:

If you only get baptized for the sake of obedience, not salvation, are you baptized?

Additionally, what makes one baptism different from the other.  For instance, one kid dunks another and yells "be baptized!"  Are there standards for who baptizes who, when?  I know tradition holds that it must be a pastor, but can it be a relative, elder, sibling, etc?


----------



## gordon 2

When people present themselves to be baptised or present family members to be baptised what are they getting into?

John's baptism was one of repentance for an old established people. People knew what they were getting into before they were in the water. The water of repentance was not new to them.

But christian baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in the name of Jesus, is a baptism for a new people. I see it not so much as an individual thing but rather the entry into the body of Christ, of a new spiritual people.

I suggest that salvation is due to the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that baptism, unlike John's, did not come to the apostles by emersion or sprinkle, but rather by the apostles meeting together in a room.

Salvation for the jews was the restoration of Isreal. They believed from their traditions.

And for the gentiles salvation was to drink from the cup of the anointed one. The Holy Spirit fell on them as Peter was "still speaking" to them. Not from immersion.

So what does it mean to believe? For the jews it was that Jesus was their saviour. For the gentiles it was that Jesus was the anointed one, the Son of God as Paul says.

And to what as individuals does our belief and baptism mean? 
How about this:  John 17 2-3 "2 ...let him give eternal life to all those you have entrusted to him.

3. And eternal life is this:

to know you,
 the only true God,
 and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

My favorite scripture of all....   romans 10:9,10

For if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and beileve in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

For with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


I we all should be baptized if we have the opportunity.  (to be submerged)


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

JB0704 said:


> Ok, but for those who believe it is essential:
> 
> If you only get baptized for the sake of obedience, not salvation, are you baptized?
> 
> Additionally, what makes one baptism different from the other.  For instance, one kid dunks another and yells "be baptized!"  Are there standards for who baptizes who, when?  I know tradition holds that it must be a pastor, but can it be a relative, elder, sibling, etc?



I believe any christian can baptize another.....    IMO, it's what it symbolizes (death with Christ and rising with Him) that is important, not who does it.


----------



## Madman

JB0704 said:


> Okay, for tomorrow, and I am not trying to take sides, but I will give a hypothetical:
> 
> Person A accepts Jesus.  Person A does not believe baptism is essential to salvation.  Person A gets baptized anyway.  Is it a "true baptism?"  Are they saved?
> 
> I guess the question is more applicable to those who believe it is essential to the salvation process.



"Any man who professes Christ yet refuses to be baptized, he is of questionable faith." 
                                       Tertullian


----------



## JB0704

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I believe any christian can baptize another......




I tend to agree with that, but am still uncertain of the eternal implications of the action.....it seems to be works based if baptism is essential.

If G2 is correct, "baptism," has different appications to different periods.  Maybe joining "the body" is baptism?  But then "the body" would have to be defined (I think it would simply mean believer).  But who knows.  There are a lot of good thoughts being given in both directions.


----------



## JB0704

Madman said:


> "Any man who professes Christ yet refuses to be baptized, he is of questionable faith."
> Tertullian



Who is Tertullian?  I am not implying the refusal of baptism, just asking what the implications are if you get baptised without faith in the salvation aspect of the action.  

It seems to me that is baptism is essential to salvation, then the motivation for the action would define the effects of the action.  Otherwise, a kid could jump in a lake and say he was baptised.....if that makes sense.....


----------



## Bama4me

rjcruiser said:


> You have to be careful with applying Acts to the rest of all time as well.  You read the early chapters of Acts and there are a lot of interesting phenomons that occurred that hadn't previously ever occurred and some that didn't occur again.
> 
> For instance, when did you receive the Holy Spirit?  When you were saved?  When you were baptized?  Because there are cases for both in Acts.  What about the disciples?  Did they have the Holy Spirit before the Day of Pentecost?
> 
> Oh...the tangled web one can weave when they pull single verses out of context.
> 
> 
> This.  And like I said before, look at the thief on the cross.  And don't say he was pre-resurrection.  People were being baptized pre-resurrection.  Also, if you say pre-rezz....does that mean God has changed his requirements for salvation pre/post rez?
> 
> I thought God didn't change?



Let me try to answer your ideas one at a time.  First, I agree we have to be careful about always applying Acts to our lives because of the unique circumstances which were often faced.  However, show me one person in the book of Acts that was saved before being baptized... and before you say Cornelius and his family, read chapter 11 and notice the reason why the Holy Spirit came upon he and his family before baptism.

Second, "pulling verses out of context?"  Acts 2 is a chapter about hearing/obeying the gospel... taking a verse or two from that chapter is NOT "pulling it out of context."  Nor is citing the fact that the inspired apostle Paul claimed his sins were "washed away" in baptism (Acts 22:16).  "Pulling verses out of context"... no sir, when you try to say Acts 2:36-41 isn't about salvation, you're ignoring the context. 

The thief on the cross?  He lived/died under a different code than we did... Colossians 2:14 claims Jesus nailed the law of Moses to His cross.  Furthermore, how does any of us know that the thief himself wasn't baptized in times past... many automatically assume he wasn't, but in the text notice he not only knew Jesus was innocent, but he also referred to the "kingdom".  A man who was totally unfamiliar with Jesus wouldn't have known these kinds of things.  I'm not saying he was baptized... but I am saying you can't prove that he wasn't either.  Jesus included baptism in both Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16 as requisites for becoming a disciple/salvation... ideas that would be principles His apostles would teach.

As far as God changing His requirements after Christ's resurrection, let me ask you a question.  Did God change the day of worship after the cross?  Prior to the cross, it is frequently stated that people observed the Sabbath... but after the cross, the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2).  As cited earlier, the law of Moses was nailed to the cross... signifying a change in whose authority was binding.  Hebrews 1:1 says we are under Christ's authority in our time.  To say God could change the day of worship but not change His requirements for salvation is to be inconsistent... it's not got anything to do with an unchanging God.

Again I say, "why would I want to do anything different than what the people on Pentecost did to be saved?"  If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me... especially when considered in light of what the entire New Testament teaches on the subject.  Simply put, the New Testament teaches that in baptism, we contact the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ (Acts 22:16; Revelation 1:5; Galatians 3:27 + Ephesians 1:7 "in Him").


----------



## Madman

JB0704 said:


> Who is Tertullian?  I am not implying the refusal of baptism, just asking what the implications are if you get baptised without faith in the salvation aspect of the action.



If you did that as an adult then I believe all you got was a bath.

The church has taught it to be several things:

Is it "Church" membership?
Is it "Christian" membership?
Is it "an outward and visable sign of an inward and spiritual grace"?
Does it mean you are now saved?


Or is it what the Holy Scripture defines it as?

Tertullian was a "Christian" author from the third century.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

rjcruiser said:


> For instance, when did you receive the Holy Spirit?  When you were saved?  When you were baptized?  Because there are cases for both in Acts.  What about the disciples?  Did they have the Holy Spirit before the Day of Pentecost?




I, and many people I know and throughout history, received the baptism in the Holy Ghost well after we were saved   

I do believe each believer receives the HG in a measure at salvation, though.

Anyway....not trying to derail.    Carry on


----------



## Bama4me

JB0704 said:


> Ok, but for those who believe it is essential:
> 
> If you only get baptized for the sake of obedience, not salvation, are you baptized?
> 
> Additionally, what makes one baptism different from the other.  For instance, one kid dunks another and yells "be baptized!"  Are there standards for who baptizes who, when?  I know tradition holds that it must be a pastor, but can it be a relative, elder, sibling, etc?



Good questions... all of them.  Would suggest a few passages that might shed some light on them.

In Acts 19:1-6, Paul encountered some men in Ephesus who had been baptized... and he baptized them again.  The purpose for the baptism had everything to do with why they needed to be baptized again.

In Acts, you might do a study on "who baptized who"... and add to that what you find in John 4:1-2 and what's written in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17.  Remember as you do that, Scripture was providing us actions most often done by apostles in spreading the word.  "Tradition"... while some religions might claim someone has to be baptized by certain people, the group I'm affiliated with doesn't have any such requirement.  Good luck searching.


----------



## Bama4me

JB0704 said:


> Who is Tertullian?  I am not implying the refusal of baptism, just asking what the implications are if you get baptised without faith in the salvation aspect of the action.
> 
> *It seems to me that is baptism is essential to salvation, then the motivation for the action would define the effects of the action.  Otherwise, a kid could jump in a lake and say he was baptised.....if that makes sense*.....



Spot on with this observation... the believing people in Acts 2 knew exactly why they needed to be baptized... as did the apostle Paul.


----------



## JB0704

Madman said:


> Or is it what the Holy Scripture defines it as?
> 
> Tertullian was a "Christian" author from the third century.



Thanks for the Tertullian info.  I don't keep up with that stuff, so any info is appreciated.

I have heard so many interpretations of what the scripture defines as baptism.  This thread is an great example.  So many people look at the Bible and see different things.  At the very least it is confusing.  One scripture says repent and be baptised, the other says confess and believe.

This being the case, what is your evidence, or what do you see the scripture defining baptism as.  And please understand, I am not stirring the pot, I am genuinely curious.


----------



## JB0704

Bama4me said:


> Spot on with this observation... the believing people in Acts 2 knew exactly why they needed to be baptized... as did the apostle Paul.



Ok.  So one would need to believe it is a necessity for salvation for it to be an effective baptism.

Like I said to madman, I am genuinely curious on this topic.  No pot stirring here.


----------



## JB0704

Bama4me said:


> In Acts, you might do a study on "who baptized who"... and add to that what you find in John 4:1-2 and what's written in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17.  Remember as you do that, Scripture was providing us actions most often done by apostles in spreading the word.  "Tradition"... while some religions might claim someone has to be baptized by certain people, the group I'm affiliated with doesn't have any such requirement.  Good luck searching.



Thanks for the info.  Interesting insight on the "re-baptism."

It is interesting that there is no concensus on who should baptize.  I think I still would be more comfortable with an elder, or preacher doing it.  Thats just me though, I don't think it is a requirement either because I do not see any definition or title being required.


----------



## Madman

JB0704 said:


> I have heard so many interpretations of what the scripture defines as baptism.  This thread is an great example.  So many people look at the Bible and see different things.  At the very least it is confusing.  One scripture says repent and be baptised, the other says confess and believe.
> 
> This being the case, what is your evidence, or what do you see the scripture defining baptism as.  And please understand, I am not stirring the pot, I am genuinely curious.



I can see that.  Historical church politics had a lot to do with that, the reformation had a lot to do with that also.

But what does the Word of God say about it?  When you read and study about baptism what do you see?

I know what I see and believe I can draft a reasonable argument for it.


----------



## centerpin fan

This "is baptism essential" debate reminds me of the "KJV versus the world" debate, not because they're both controversial, but because of the way they're argued and what gets ignored in these arguments.

In the KJV debates, KJV fans talk about how homosexuals translated modern versions and how modern versions are based on a corrupted Greek text, etc.  All the while, they ignore one glaring fact:  the KJV translators were not "KJV only".  To me, that ends the debate right there.  Everything else is just icing on the cake.

In the same way, the baptism debates become a matter of "dueling verses":  John 3:16 vs. Acts 2:38, Eph. 2:8-9 vs. 1 Peter 3:21, etc.  I have no problem with that, but that method also ignores an important fact:  that _everybody_ believed that baptism was essential to salvation prior to the Protestant Reformation.  The Catholics, Orthodox and Copts all believe this.  Even some of the early Protestants believed it.  In the last baptism thread, I even quoted Martin Luther as he disparagingly remarked that "... the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit."  

To me, the "what has the church always believed" argument trumps the "my verse is better than your verse" argument.


----------



## gtparts

Madman said:


> "Any man who professes Christ yet refuses to be baptized, he is of questionable faith."
> Tertullian



I appreciate much of what Tertullian wrote, however it is not Scripture and I would be hesitant to "hang my hat" on his say. 

For one thing, it appears to be a case where Tertullian calls into question the faith of anyone whose lack of action in regards to personal water baptism does not conform to his thinking, without the benefit of knowing the heart of the person. Scripture tells us that perfect love casts out all fear, but a new convert probably has a lifetime ahead of them to grow and be discipled into the sanctification that exhibits a perfect love. I have, over the years, known and seen quite a few who were deathly afraid of immersion, yet, in time, voluntarily submitted because they felt it was asked of them by their Lord and Savior. It was, for them, a very important, public confession of their trust in Jesus. Baptism is usually one of the first and most easily recognized examples of someone making public profession of new life in Christ, but it is not faith, but an action that comes from faith. If is a public profession, but not the only form that God recognizes. I don't know of any legitimate studies of the subject, but there are a number of examples where individuals have made repentance, confessed the Lord as their personal savior and committed all of their being to Christ and His service, who passed this life before water baptism could be accomplished. Are they to be excluded, given the circumstances, or is God's grace sufficient to give the assurance that Jesus gave a thief on a cross?

Baptism, if possible, should be a point of commemorating a marvelous spiritual truth, but it was never intended to be a "bone that the dogs fight over"!


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> To me, the "what has the church always believed" argument trumps the "my verse is better than your verse" argument.



Well done CP.  Excellent point (I mean that sincerely), except.....the church has been wrong on many, many things.  I am not syaing I disagree with you, I just think that starting at "zero" is the only way to get to the bottom of an argument.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> Like I said to madman, I am genuinely curious on this topic.  No pot stirring here.



There are lots of baptism threads in the archives.  Prepare to read for days.


----------



## JB0704

How 'bout this:  everybody apply Pascal's wager and get baptized anyway.  Just thinking......it can't hurt, right?


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> There are lots of baptism threads in the archives.  Prepare to read for days.



I have trouble finding stuff in the archives.  I tried to look up women preachers yesterday and had no luck finding the thread HF was talking about.


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> or is God's grace sufficient to give the assurance that Jesus gave a thief on a cross?




Be careful arguing for grace around here.....


----------



## rjcruiser

Bama4me said:


> Let me try to answer your ideas one at a time.  First, I agree we have to be careful about always applying Acts to our lives because of the unique circumstances which were often faced.  However, show me one person in the book of Acts that was saved before being baptized... and before you say Cornelius and his family, read chapter 11 and notice the reason why the Holy Spirit came upon he and his family before baptism.



Oh...okay...so...you can receive the Holy Spirit before salvation...as long as long as it is for a special reason?



			
				Bama4me said:
			
		

> Second, "pulling verses out of context?"  Acts 2 is a chapter about hearing/obeying the gospel... taking a verse or two from that chapter is NOT "pulling it out of context."  Nor is citing the fact that the inspired apostle Paul claimed his sins were "washed away" in baptism (Acts 22:16).  "Pulling verses out of context"... no sir, when you try to say Acts 2:36-41 isn't about salvation, you're ignoring the context.



Never said Acts 2:36-41 isn't about salvation.  But you have to look at more than just 5 verses to obtain a complete view.



			
				Bama4me said:
			
		

> The thief on the cross?  He lived/died under a different code than we did... Colossians 2:14 claims Jesus nailed the law of Moses to His cross.  Furthermore, how does any of us know that the thief himself wasn't baptized in times past... many automatically assume he wasn't, but in the text notice he not only knew Jesus was innocent, but he also referred to the "kingdom".  A man who was totally unfamiliar with Jesus wouldn't have known these kinds of things.  I'm not saying he was baptized... but I am saying you can't prove that he wasn't either.  Jesus included baptism in both Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16 as requisites for becoming a disciple/salvation... ideas that would be principles His apostles would teach.
> 
> As far as God changing His requirements after Christ's resurrection, let me ask you a question.  Did God change the day of worship after the cross?  Prior to the cross, it is frequently stated that people observed the Sabbath... but after the cross, the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2).  As cited earlier, the law of Moses was nailed to the cross... signifying a change in whose authority was binding.  Hebrews 1:1 says we are under Christ's authority in our time.  To say God could change the day of worship but not change His requirements for salvation is to be inconsistent... it's not got anything to do with an unchanging God.



You must be dispensational.  I don't believe God or his method of salvation has changed.  The law still has the same purpose it always has had.  Our Faith is still how we are saved.  I'd say you need to re-read Hebrews and how the OT Saints were given salvation.  It wasn't for their works, it was for their faith.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> ....the church has been wrong on many, many things.



... but if they were wrong on the meaning of baptism, they were wrong on a central doctrine of the faith for 1,500 years.  I don't believe that is the case.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> I have trouble finding stuff in the archives.  I tried to look up women preachers yesterday and had no luck finding the thread HF was talking about.



Go to the second page of this forum.  Near the very top is a "is baptism essential" poll.

In the archives, "Lowjack" started a thread called "Water vs. Blood".  Also, Ronnie started a thread on "Acts 2".  All three of these threads were running concurrently awhile back.


----------



## rjcruiser

centerpin fan said:


> In the last baptism thread, I even quoted Martin Luther as he disparagingly remarked that "... the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit."
> 
> To me, the "what has the church always believed" argument trumps the "my verse is better than your verse" argument.



Not exactly true....but for instance, the ML quote.

I don't think any Protestant would say that Baptism is of no benefit.  Obedience is never without benefit.

I agree with ML and his quote above.  Baptism does have a benefit.  So does obedience.  Sanctification is the benefit....not Salvation.


----------



## Madman

JB0704 said:


> How 'bout this:  everybody apply Pascal's wager and get baptized anyway.  Just thinking......it can't hurt, right?



Because it is not a wager.  The sacrament of baptism has a very deep and spiritual purpose.


----------



## JB0704

Madman said:


> Because it is not a wager.  The sacrament of baptism has a very deep and spiritual purpose.



I was just tossing that out there.  I think Pascal's wager decides it is "safer" to believe in God than not, so it might be applicable to baptism.  I did not intend to make a statement with any depth to it.  PW gets hammered in the AAA.

I agree on the deep and spiritual aspect of Baptism.


----------



## centerpin fan

rjcruiser said:


> Sanctification is the benefit....not Salvation.



That's not what ML was saying.  Here's his entire treatise on baptism from his Large Catechism:


"We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ, of which also every Christian ought to have at least an ordinary, brief instruction, because without them there can be no Christian; although, alas! hitherto no instruction concerning them has been given. But, in the first place, we take up Baptism, by which we are first received into the Christian Church. However, in order that it may be readily understood we will treat of it in an orderly manner, and keep only to that which it is necessary for us to know. For how it is to be maintained and defended against heretics and sects we will commend to the learned.

In the first place, we must above all things know well the words upon which Baptism is founded, and to which everything refers that is to be said on the subject, namely, where the Lord Christ speaks in the last chapter of Matthew, v. 19:
Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Likewise in St. Mark, the last chapter, v. 16:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- .

In these words you must note, in the first place, that here stand God's commandment and institution, lest we doubt that Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men. For as truly as I can say, No man has spun the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer out of his head, but they are revealed and given by God Himself, so also I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat. For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend and fight chiefly, because the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit. But let it be ever so much an external thing here stand God's Word and command which institute, establish, and confirm Baptism. But what God institutes and commands cannot be a vain, but must be a most precious thing, though in appearance it were of less value than a straw. If hitherto people could consider it a great thing when the Pope with his letters and bulls dispensed indulgences and confirmed altars and churches, solely because of the letters and seals, we ought to esteem Baptism much more highly and more precious, because God has commanded it, and, besides, it is performed in His name. For these are the words, Go ye baptize; however, not in your name, but in the name of God.

For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do?

But here the devil is busy to delude us with false appearances, and lead us away from the work of God to our own works. For there is a much more splendid appearance when a Carthusian does many great and difficult works and we all think much more of that which we do and merit ourselves. But the Scriptures teach thus: Even though we collect in one mass the works of all the monks, however splendidly they may shine, they would not be as noble and good as if God should pick up a straw. Why? Because the person is nobler and better. Here, then, we must not estimate the person according to the works, but the works according to the person, from whom they must derive their nobility. But insane reason will not regard this, and because Baptism does not shine like the works which we do, it is to be esteemed as nothing.

From this now learn a proper understanding of the subject, and how to answer the question what Baptism is, namely thus, that it is not mere ordinary water, but water comprehended in God's Word and command, and sanctified thereby, so that it is nothing else than a divine water; not that the water in itself is nobler than other water, but that God's Word and command are added.

Therefore it is pure wickedness and blasphemy of the devil that now our new spirits, to mock at Baptism, omit from it God's Word and institution, and look upon it in no other way than as water which is taken from the well, and then blather and say: How is a handful of water to help the soul? Aye, my friend, who does not know that water is water if tearing things asunder is what we are after? But how dare you thus interfere with God's order, and tear away the most precious treasure with which God has connected and enclosed it, and which He will not have separated? For the kernel in the water is God's Word or command and the name of God which is a treasure greater and nobler than heaven and earth.

Comprehend the difference, then, that Baptism is quite another thing than all other water; not on account of the natural quality, but because something more noble is here added; for God Himself stakes His honor His power and might on it. Therefore it is not only natural water, but a divine, heavenly, holy, and blessed water, and in whatever other terms we can praise it, -- all on account of the Word, which is a heavenly, holy Word, that no one can sufficiently extol, for it has, and is able to do, all that God is and can do [since it has all the virtue and power of God comprised in it]. Hence also it derives its essence as a Sacrament, as St. Augustine also taught: Aocedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. That is, when the Word is joined to the element or natural substance, it becomes a Sacrament, that is, a holy and divine matter and sign.

Therefore we always teach that the Sacraments and all external things which God ordains and institutes should not be regarded according to the coarse, external mask, as we regard the shell of a nut, but as the Word of God is included therein. For thus we also speak of the parental estate and of civil government. If we propose to regard them in as far as they have noses, eyes, skin, and hair flesh and bones, they look like Turks and heathen, and some one might start up and say: Why should I esteem them more than others? But because the commandment is added: Honor thy father and thy mother, I behold a different man, adorned and clothed with the majesty and glory of God. The commandment (I say) is the chain of gold about his neck, yea, the crown upon his head which shows to me how and why one must honor this flesh and blood.

Thus, and much more even, you must honor Baptism and esteem it glorious on account of the Word, since He Himself has honored it both by words and deeds; moreover, confirmed it with miracles from heaven. For do you think it was a jest that, when Christ was baptized, the heavens were opened and the Holy Ghost descended visibly, and everything was divine glory and majesty?

Therefore I exhort again that these two the water and the Word, by no means be separated from one another and parted. For if the Word is separated from it, the water is the same as that with which the servant cooks, and may indeed be called a bath-keeper's baptism. But when it is added, as God has ordained, it is a Sacrament, and is called Christ-baptism. Let this be the first part regarding the essence and dignity of the holy Sacrament.

In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. But to be saved. we know. is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever.

Here you see again how highly and precious we should esteem Baptism, because in it we obtain such an unspeakable treasure, which also indicates sufficiently that it cannot be ordinary mere water. For mere water could not do such a thing, but the Word does it, and (as said above) the fact that the name of God is comprehended therein. But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it, Titus 3, 5.

But as our would-be wise, new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it. Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure?

Now, they are so mad as to separate faith and that to which faith clings and is bound though it be something external. Yea, it shall and must be something external, that it may be apprehended by the senses, and understood and thereby be brought into the heart, as indeed the entire Gospel is an external, verbal preaching. In short, what God does and works in us He proposes to work through such external ordinances. Wherever, therefore, He speaks, yea, in whichever direction or by whatever means He speaks, thither faith must look, and to that it must hold. Now here we have the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. To what else do they refer than to Baptism, that is, to the water comprehended in God's ordinance? Hence it follows that whoever rejects Baptism rejects the Word of God, faith, and Christ, who directs us thither and binds us to Baptism.

In the third place since we have learned the great benefit and power of Baptism, let us see further who is the person that receives what Baptism gives and profits. This is again most beautifully and clearly expressed in the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. That is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive profitably the saving, divine water. For, since these blessings are here presented and promised in the words in and with the water, they cannot be received in any other way than by believing them with the heart. Without faith it profits nothing, notwithstanding it is in itself a divine superabundant treasure. Therefore this single word (He that believeth) effects this much that it excludes and repels all works which we can do, in the opinion that we obtain and merit salvation by them. For it is determined that whatever is not faith avails nothing nor receives anything.

But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work, and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what then, becomes of faith? Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism, however, is not our work, but God's (for, as was stated, you must put Christ-baptism far away from a bath-keeper's baptism). God's works, however, are saving and necessary for salvation, and do not exclude, but demand, faith; for without faith they could not be apprehended. For by suffering the water to be poured upon you, you have not yet received Baptism in such a manner that it benefits you anything; but it becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God's command and ordinance, and besides in God's name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation. Now, this the fist cannot do, nor the body; but the heart must believe it.

Thus you see plainly that there is here no work done by us, but a treasure which He gives us, and which faith apprehends; just as the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross is not a work, but a treasure comprehended in the Word, and offered to us and received by faith. Therefore they do us violence by exclaiming against us as though we preach against faith; while we alone insist upon it as being of such necessity that without it nothing can be received nor enjoyed.

Thus we have these three parts which it is necessary to know concerning this Sacrament especially that the ordinance of God is to be held in all honor, which alone would be sufficient, though it be an entirely external thing like the commandment, Honor thy father and thy mother, which refers to bodily flesh and blood. Therein we regard not the flesh and blood, but the commandment of God in which they are comprehended, and on account of which the flesh is called father and mother; so also, though we had no more than these words, Go ye and baptize, etc., it would be necessary for us to accept and do it as the ordinance of God. Now there is here not only God's commandment and injunction, but also the promise, on account of which it is still far more glorious than whatever else God has commanded and ordained, and is, in short, so full of consolation and grace that heaven and earth cannot comprehend it. But it requires skill to believe this, for the treasure is not wanting, but this is wanting that men apprehend it and hold it firmly.

Therefore every Christian has enough in Baptism to learn and to practise all his life; for he has always enough to do to believe firmly what it promises and brings: victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, the grace of God, the entire Christ, and the Holy Ghost with His gifts. In short, it is so transcendent that if timid nature could realize it, it might well doubt whether it could be true. For consider, if there were somewhere a physician who understood the art of saving men from dying, or, even though they died, of restoring them speedily to life, so that they would thereafter live forever, how the world would pour in money like snow and rain, so that because of the throng of the rich no one could find access! But here in Baptism there is brought free to every one's door such a treasure and medicine as utterly destroys death and preserves all men alive.

Thus we must regard Baptism and make it profitable to ourselves, that when our sins and conscience oppress us, we strengthen ourselves and take comfort and say: Nevertheless I am baptized; but if I am baptized, it is promised me that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body. For that is the reason why these two things are done in Baptism namely, that the body, which can apprehend nothing but the water, is sprinkled, and, in addition, the word is spoken for the soul to apprehend. Now, since both, the water and the Word, are one Baptism, therefore body and soul must be saved and live forever: the soul through the Word which it believes, but the body because it is united with the soul and also apprehends Baptism as it is able to apprehend it. We have, therefore, no greater jewel in body and soul, for by it we are made holy and are saved, which no other kind of life, no work upon earth, can attain.

Let this suffice respecting the nature, blessing, and use of Baptism, for it answers the present purpose."


----------



## rjcruiser

centerpin fan said:


> That's not what ML was saying.  Here's his entire treatise on baptism from his Large Catechism:



Well then.  I'll have to say, I disagree with this writing of ML.  I guess it's a good thing I don't think the man is inerrant in his writings


----------



## Madman

JB0704 said:


> I was just tossing that out there.  I think Pascal's wager decides it is "safer" to believe in God than not, so it might be applicable to baptism.  I did not intend to make a statement with any depth to it.  PW gets hammered in the AAA.
> 
> I agree on the deep and spiritual aspect of Baptism.



I know what you meant.    Once again I will ask: Have you studied baptism form a Biblical prospective?

What does it mean to be baptized by the Holy Spirit?
And Fire?
The references to baptism go a lot deeper than just Acts.


----------



## centerpin fan

rjcruiser said:


> ... I don't think the man is inerrant in his writings



We agree on that.  

Thanks for taking the time to read the long post.


----------



## rjcruiser

centerpin fan said:


> We agree on that.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to read the long post.



np...I think he had a lot of good things to say in it.  And I agree with a ton of it.  Just don't think you can draw the fact that salvation lies in the balance.

But again, I don't want people to think that I believe Baptism is not important.  It is extremely important.  So important I think many in today's church don't give it the respect that it is due.


----------



## JB0704

Madman said:


> Have you studied baptism form a Biblical prospective?.



I have read the NT.  Acts several times.  Specifically studied baptism, no.  It is a subject I am confused on.  Primarily, I tend to view salvation through grace, and that being a given, understand it is probably not a "black and white" event.  For instance, between Christ's crucifixion (@29-33 A.D.) and the discovery of the "New World" (1492), and 1,490 years passed.  Millions of people lived and died during that time without knowing the intricacies of the "Romans road," they certainly would not be aware of baptism.  I do not believe they all went to he11.  There is a verse in Romans about nature being witness to the creator.  I believe God's grace allows a path outside of what is traditionally believed.  That is just my opinion.



Madman said:


> What does it mean to be baptized by the Holy Spirit?.



For now, my uneducated thoughts are that this is like being brought into "the body."  This is why I asked for your thoughts.



Madman said:


> And Fire?.



I am pretty certain that was metaphorically speaking.  I don't think we are to literally be immersed in fire.


----------



## stringmusic

rjcruiser said:


> But again, I want people to think that I believe Baptism is not important.    I don't give it the respect that it is due.


I quoted you and removed a few things, but my removing a few things does change the fact that I can read between the lines..... I think

You and ol' HF and your Baptising hatred...... will it ever end???


----------



## gtparts

At least in part, it appears that the issue revolves around water baptism and baptism by the Spirit. 

Can they (the two baptism) take place sequentially or are they always manifested concurrently? What does Scripture tell us?

For me, the answer is obvious in the reading of the Word, which brings me to the next question.

When reference is then made in Scripture concerning baptism, is the context water baptism or Spirit baptism?

On this, I am not clear on a verse-by-verse basis, but I am confident that John (the baptizer) knew them to be distinctly different. He was aware that he was not performing Spirit baptism, since he made specific comment concerning the baptism that the Messiah would initiate, as opposed to the water baptism he conducted.

It remains, then, for each to determine in his or her heart whether to submit to water baptism in obedience for the sake of salvation or whether salvation has already occurred and water baptism is symbolic in nature, a public testimony of faith in Christ and an act of obedience that follows on salvation.

For the sake of unity in Christ, I will not castigate anyone who personally holds to one truth or the other truth. As for what God finds acceptable, I cannot argue against either. I will not force the position I hold on my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Grace and peace to all, especially those who struggle with this theological point.
Just remember, theology is man's study of God, what man thinks. It does not always reflect the truth of how God moves and what He considers. The purpose of His Word, the incarnate Son, and the Holy Spirit is so that we can see Him as He is and worship Him.


----------



## rjcruiser

stringmusic said:


> I quoted you and removed a few things, but my removing a few things does change the fact that I can read between the lines..... I think
> 
> You and ol' HF and your Baptising hatred...... will it ever end???





You been hangin out with RonnieT?


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



gtparts said:


> At least in part, it appears that the issue revolves around water baptism and baptism by the Spirit.
> 
> Can they (the two baptism) take place sequentially or are they always manifested concurrently? What does Scripture tell us?
> 
> For me, the answer is obvious in the reading of the Word, which brings me to the next question.
> 
> When reference is then made in Scripture concerning baptism, is the context water baptism or Spirit baptism?
> 
> On this, I am not clear on a verse-by-verse basis, but I am confident that John (the baptizer) knew them to be distinctly different. He was aware that he was not performing Spirit baptism, since he made specific comment concerning the baptism that the Messiah would initiate, as opposed to the water baptism he conducted.
> 
> It remains, then, for each to determine in his or her heart whether to submit to water baptism in obedience for the sake of salvation or whether salvation has already occurred and water baptism is symbolic in nature, a public testimony of faith in Christ and an act of obedience that follows on salvation.
> 
> For the sake of unity in Christ, I will not castigate anyone who personally holds to one truth or the other truth. As for what God finds acceptable, I cannot argue against either. I will not force the position I hold on my brothers and sisters in Christ.
> 
> Grace and peace to all, especially those who struggle with this theological point.
> Just remember, theology is man's study of God, what man thinks. It does not always reflect the truth of how God moves and what He considers. The purpose of His Word, the incarnate Son, and the Holy Spirit is so that we can see Him as He is and worship Him.



I do appreciate your post GT.  When scriptures mention baptism(22 times) or baptize(d) (50 times), in many instances it is left up to the reader to determine, is it water baptism or Holy Spirit baptism or both.  So I do often have the same question! I tend toward both in cases where it is not obvious since I have concluded that no one can really be saved without repentance and without the witness of the Holy Spirit working in him.  Yet each believer must search and decide for himself!

Yet I am convinced, that whatever it may be, one or the other or both, it is absolutely essential for us to be saved. I say this from a purely scriptural perspective.

1) Matt 3:13-17 Jesus said this is fitting to fulfill all righteouseness. (Clearly John's baptism, except in addition you see the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus)
2) Mark 16:16  - Baptized will be saved, others condemmed.
3) Luke 7:28-30 Many receiving baptism, yet the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the purposes of God (i.e. Did not accept baptism) This was clearly John's baptism (repentance) so it can be concluded to be the purpose of God, or at the very least, one of those purposes.
4) Romans 6:3-4,Colossians 2:11-13 If you are not buried with Him in Baptism, can you be raised to walk in newness of life?
5) 1 Peter 3:21 -  Baptism is deemed synonymous with Salvation
6) Galatians 3:27 - the implication here is if you have not been baptised into Christ, you have not put on Christ in your life

Acts 2:38 sums it up for me -  Repent and be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit.

I personally desire everything God has for me and I don't want to miss any of it. I would encourage you all to do the same according to the hunger that rests in your spirit for the Kingdom of God.

God Bless!


----------



## Huntinfool

A few comments for all to consider I suppose...

If baptism is essential to salvation...what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?  I can't recall if that's been asked and answered.  If so, then nevermind.

If Acts 2:38 sums it up in a vacuum, then there is no faith required whatsoever.  All we need do is repent and be baptized.  The point is not that Act 2:38 is, somehow, wrong.  But it is incomplete when viewed alone and without the context of all of the other passages regarding salvation and baptism.

To sum up...baptism is for the saved...not for salvation.  It is of great importance.  But the act of going under water itself does nothing.  JB is on to something.  Baptism is only an act of going under water or being sprinkled.  The act is nothing.  The heart and mind in right relationship with Christ combined with the act of going under water is incredibly powerful and required of believers.  But water, by itself cleanses you of only one thing....dirt.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*

Can anyone repent without faith in God who forgives? Or be baptised without the same? Or receive the Holy Spirit?

Nothing of God comes without faith and this is obvious in scripture. Acts 2:38 is the culmination of the operation of faith of those who heard, who said, what shall we do!

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Romans 10:17
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> JB is on to something.



How 'bout that, thought I would never read this from you


----------



## Huntinfool

I knew you'd like that.


If it makes you feel any better.  It wasn't a point you directly made.  It just fit with where I was going.  

If I gave you credit, I officially revoke it!  Ha!


----------



## Bama4me

rjcruiser said:


> Oh...okay...so...you can receive the Holy Spirit before salvation...as long as long as it is for a special reason?  Never said Acts 2:36-41 isn't about salvation.  But you have to look at more than just 5 verses to obtain a complete view.  You must be dispensational.  I don't believe God or his method of salvation has changed.  The law still has the same purpose it always has had.  Our Faith is still how we are saved.  I'd say you need to re-read Hebrews and how the OT Saints were given salvation.  It wasn't for their works, it was for their faith.



No to your first question... Cornelius and his family were recipients of Holy Spirit baptism prior to salvation so the Jewish Christians would receive them - see chapter 11.  NO ONE else in the book of Acts received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism... see Acts 19:1ff as an example.

Since you seem to be resistant to the idea that Acts 2 is totally about salvation through Christ... what would you suggest is the "context."  It's very interesting that you go from "one verse" in your original post to "5 verses" in this response.  Exactly how long does a passage have to deal with salvation issues before you grant it the ok on being "in context?"

How do you define faith?  The Bible doesn't define it as simply trusting... it's trusting obedience.  If you do not agree with that assertion, I challenge you to look at the "heroes of faith" in Hebrews 11... their faith moved them to obey God.  That's exactly what James 2:14ff is all about... faith is demonstrated by works (action).  It's why Peter said in Acts 2:40, "save yourselves from this perverted generation"... because they had to obey for salvation to be granted.  Wait... I'm sure I shouldn't have used Acts 2:40 since that's "out of context."


----------



## mtnwoman

I don't happen to know anyone who has refused baptism that was truly saved. So I don't even get that point, and it's always brought up. 

I think most of us, not living in the supernatural, but living in the natural can understand/comprehend that baptism is being washed. Our sins are washed away, but only in a physical manner, representing the spiritual manner that our sins that are really washed away when we accept that the blood of Christ is what really washes our sins away. 

Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, buried with Christ in sin and resurrected into a new life.

It's a outward showing of an inward changing. We can get dunked or sprinkled forty eleven times and still not be saved. So anyone who believes that baptism is what saves you is incorrect in my book. The Lamb of God saved me by His blood.

When I ask my second husband if he was saved, he said 'of course, I was baptized'. So to teach that is leading folks astray.  He isn't saved....and I can't change his mind....he says well I'm a pretty good ol' boy. And he is, but he isn't saved. He has cancer and I'm worried about his salvation.
Approaching him, insults him.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Since you seem to be resistant to the idea that Acts 2 is totally about salvation through Christ



Not sure how you got that...when you actually quoted him saying this...



> Never said Acts 2:36-41 isn't about salvation.




Not to answer for him on the context question.  But here is my answer.  How many verses is "enough" to get context?  As many as it takes....and 5 is as good or better than one every time.


----------



## formula1

Huntinfool said:


> How many verses is "enough" to get context?



31,240 including the unnumbered ones. Sorry, could not resist.


----------



## StriperAddict

mtnwoman said:


> I don't happen to know anyone who has refused baptism that was truly saved. So I don't even get that point, and it's always brought up.
> 
> I think most of us, not living in the supernatural, but living in the natural can understand/comprehend that baptism is being washed. Our sins are washed away, but only in a physical manner, representing the spiritual manner that our sins that are really washed away when we accept that the blood of Christ is what really washes our sins away.
> 
> Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, buried with Christ in sin and resurrected into a new life.
> 
> It's a outward showing of an inward changing. We can get dunked or sprinkled forty eleven times and still not be saved. So anyone who believes that baptism is what saves you is incorrect in my book. The Lamb of God saved me by His blood.
> 
> When I ask my second husband if he was saved, he said 'of course, I was baptized'. So to teach that is leading folks astray. He isn't saved....and I can't change his mind....he says well I'm a pretty good ol' boy. And he is, but he isn't saved. He has cancer and I'm worried about his salvation.
> Approaching him, insults him.


 
Thanks for a great post.

I'll pray your ex gets a revelation of Jesus' mercy/grace & has a touch from above about his cancer too.


----------



## Ronnie T

mtnwoman said:


> I don't happen to know anyone who has refused baptism that was truly saved. So I don't even get that point, and it's always brought up.
> 
> I think most of us, not living in the supernatural, but living in the natural can understand/comprehend that baptism is being washed. Our sins are washed away, but only in a physical manner, representing the spiritual manner that our sins that are really washed away when we accept that the blood of Christ is what really washes our sins away.
> 
> Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, buried with Christ in sin and resurrected into a new life.
> 
> It's a outward showing of an inward changing. We can get dunked or sprinkled forty eleven times and still not be saved. So anyone who believes that baptism is what saves you is incorrect in my book. The Lamb of God saved me by His blood.
> 
> When I ask my second husband if he was saved, he said 'of course, I was baptized'. So to teach that is leading folks astray.  He isn't saved....and I can't change his mind....he says well I'm a pretty good ol' boy. And he is, but he isn't saved. He has cancer and I'm worried about his salvation.
> Approaching him, insults him.



I know that you'll be surprised to hear that at least some Bible students are being taught to down play baptism.
I'm not going to say which Bible college, but I've had the opportunity to hear more than one student talking about how it's nice to know that baptism doesn't have to be mentioned or discussed with a person who's accepted Jesus as their Savior, and have to be dealt with on a Sunday morning.  That discussion will come later!!!!
"The new Christian will usually let us know when they're ready to be baptized"!

And I agree.  I've never known anyone to refuse baptism when asked about it.


----------



## Banjo

"The early church fathers universally believed baptism was for salvation... and this is a conceeded point for many centuries after the church's establishment (that's why Catholics began sprinkling babies). When modern scholars attempt to claim that "most have agreed" on this issue, they're referring to "most" since the period of the Reformation... when John Calvin's ideas primarily were adopted by many denominations." 

I wasn't going to say a thing.....honestly, just sneak in and sneak out, but this takes the cake.  Catholics were not the ones who commanded the application of the sign of the Covenant to be placed upon believer's children.....God was.  Go back and read the Old Testament....the Abrahamic Covenant  (which is EVERLASTING).....then read the New Testament where the majority of the recorded instances of baptism were Covenantal/household (excepting Paul's and the eunuch's...well because they had no children.)   Even at Pentecost where the MEN had gathered and were baptized, there was a reminder that the promise was to them and their OFFSPRING.  

Okay...I am out again....I may check in, I may not.  Hope all you old timers are doing well!!


----------



## Huntinfool

Banjo!  Good to see ya lady!  Stop by more often....we miss you.


----------



## Bama4me

Banjo said:


> I wasn't going to say a thing.....honestly, just sneak in and sneak out, but this takes the cake.  Catholics were not the ones who commanded the application of the sign of the Covenant to be placed upon believer's children.....God was.  Go back and read the Old Testament....the Abrahamic Covenant  (which is EVERLASTING).....then read the New Testament where the majority of the recorded instances of baptism were Covenantal/household (excepting Paul's and the eunuch's...well because they had no children.)   Even at Pentecost where the MEN had gathered and were baptized, there was a reminder that the promise was to them and their OFFSPRING.
> 
> Okay...I am out again....I may check in, I may not.  Hope all you old timers are doing well!!




Don't agree with you on the Abrahamic covenant... if that covenant was everlasting, it would superceed Christ's.  The book of Hebrews totally upholds Christ's covenant as being the only one now in force.

If belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God is prerequisite to being baptized (as Jesus said it was in Mark 16:16), I ask you how a baby is able to believe?  And regardless of what you may claim, baptizing babies did begin with the Catholic church... long after the church fathers had died.


----------



## Madman

gtparts said:


> I appreciate much of what Tertullian wrote, however it is not Scripture and I would be hesitant to "hang my hat" on his say.
> 
> For one thing, it appears to be a case where Tertullian calls into question the faith of anyone whose lack of action in regards to personal water baptism does not conform to his thinking, without the benefit of knowing the heart of the person. Scripture tells us that perfect love casts out all fear, but a new convert probably has a lifetime ahead of them to grow and be discipled into the sanctification that exhibits a perfect love. I have, over the years, known and seen quite a few who were deathly afraid of immersion, yet, in time, voluntarily submitted because they felt it was asked of them by their Lord and Savior. It was, for them, a very important, public confession of their trust in Jesus. Baptism is usually one of the first and most easily recognized examples of someone making public profession of new life in Christ, but it is not faith, but an action that comes from faith. If is a public profession, but not the only form that God recognizes. I don't know of any legitimate studies of the subject, but there are a number of examples where individuals have made repentance, confessed the Lord as their personal savior and committed all of their being to Christ and His service, who passed this life before water baptism could be accomplished. Are they to be excluded, given the circumstances, or is God's grace sufficient to give the assurance that Jesus gave a thief on a cross?
> 
> Baptism, if possible, should be a point of commemorating a marvelous spiritual truth, but it was never intended to be a "bone that the dogs fight over"!



My Tertullian quote was simply that.  A quote.  As for what happens to ANYONE after death is for God to decide, not me.  My heart is the only one I know.

As for "Baptism, if possible, should be a point of commemorating a marvelous spiritual truth" that comes down to what you believe a sacrament is.  I believe it to be so much more than a commemoration.


----------



## Madman

Bama4me said:


> And regardless of what you may claim, baptizing babies did begin with the Catholic church... long after the church fathers had died.



I have looked for the chapter and verse where that can be found.

Still looking.

Can you help?


----------



## The Foreigner

Bama4me said:


> Don't agree with you on the Abrahamic covenant... if that covenant was everlasting, it would superceed Christ's.  The book of Hebrews totally upholds Christ's covenant as being the only one now in force.
> 
> If belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God is prerequisite to being baptized (as Jesus said it was in Mark 16:16), I ask you how a baby is able to believe?  And regardless of what you may claim, baptizing babies did begin with the Catholic church... long after the church fathers had died.



MArk 16:16 does not say that belief in Christ is a pre-requisite of baptism. You've committed the fallacy of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ - that is, because something appears before another thing it is the logical cause of it. That's simply a fallacy.

Now I'm not arguing that baptism is unnecessary, far from it. It is mandated by Christ and therefore of great importance. But your reading of the text is one where you presume the connection between faith and baptism, that faith is the pre-requisite of baptism. It's not, though it is entirely proper to baptize someone who has confessed their faith.  It's just not cause and effect. 

Furthermore, baptizing babies did not start with the Catholic church, and even if it did, again you argument is fallacious -_ ad hominem_ I believe - attacking something because of who said it, not because of the substance of the thing itself.  

Interestingly Peter and Paul, in the New Covenant, thought it was necessary to preach and practice the baptism of children, or more accurately, the baptism of households. Acts 2:39 "for the *promise is to you and your children *and for all who are afar off".  In Acts 16 we are told that Lydia believes and her household receives the sign of the covenant. Your position presumes that Lydia's household came to faith, but the text doesn't stipulate that.  The position that holds to infant / household baptism doesn't require such a presumption.


----------



## thedeacon

Ronnie T said:


> A lot of people, like me, might misunderstand a Christian making the above statement on that subject or any other subject spoken and proclaimed by Jesus Christ.
> 
> (Not to get into the subject again)





Sorry I can't let it pass I don't misunderstand what is being said here, I understand it completely I just don't get it, I find it funny that people think they can just cut out parts of the Bible they don't like. 

Baptism was a very important part of the early Christians and it is a command of God and it is very important to us.


----------



## Bama4me

The Foreigner said:


> MArk 16:16 does not say that belief in Christ is a pre-requisite of baptism. You've committed the fallacy of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ - that is, because something appears before another thing it is the logical cause of it. That's simply a fallacy.
> 
> Now I'm not arguing that baptism is unnecessary, far from it. It is mandated by Christ and therefore of great importance. But your reading of the text is one where you presume the connection between faith and baptism, that faith is the pre-requisite of baptism. It's not, though it is entirely proper to baptize someone who has confessed their faith.  It's just not cause and effect.
> 
> Furthermore, baptizing babies did not start with the Catholic church, and even if it did, again you argument is fallacious -_ ad hominem_ I believe - attacking something because of who said it, not because of the substance of the thing itself.
> 
> Interestingly Peter and Paul, in the New Covenant, thought it was necessary to preach and practice the baptism of children, or more accurately, the baptism of households. Acts 2:39 "for the *promise is to you and your children *and for all who are afar off".  In Acts 16 we are told that Lydia believes and her household receives the sign of the covenant. Your position presumes that Lydia's household came to faith, but the text doesn't stipulate that.  The position that holds to infant / household baptism doesn't require such a presumption.



It's not a fallacy to claim that belief comes prior to being baptized... in Acts 2, people believed Peter's message before they were baptized.  That's part of the meaning of the phrase "they were cut to the heart."  For them, the idea of belief certainly preceeded being baptized.  That's why Romans 10:10 claims "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

Actually, baptizing babies was present in pagan religions even in New Testament times.  However, the first time it is recorded as happening in a "Christiandom" was in the 200's.  Constantine, in 416 AD, decreed infant baptism as mandatory for people under Roman rule.  So, in a sense, you're right that it did not originate with the Catholic church... however, you won't find it elsewhere connected to the church prior to these events.

Children being baptized... that's one thing.  However, the idea of infant baptism simply can't be supported from the Scriptures.  To do so, you've got to ignore passages such as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38... passages which claim we must "couple" repentance and belief with baptism for it to lead to salvation.  To look at the idea of "households" and gather that infants were included is to lead us to a contradiction in God's word.

BTW, the word translated "children" in Acts 2:39 is not always intended to mean "immediate children.  In Romans 9:7, the nation of Israel is called "Abraham's children."  Not that they literally were his immediate children... but his descendants.  But even with that, there is a difference between a child who has reached the age where he/she sins and an infant.


----------



## Bama4me

Madman said:


> I have looked for the chapter and verse where that can be found.
> 
> Still looking.
> 
> Can you help?



No chapter and verse because infant baptism was not practiced in the New Testament.  Now if you're wanting some proof of when infant baptism began to widely be practiced in the Catholic church, check 416 AD and the mandate of Constantine.

Earlier, people like Origen (185-254) made statements along the following lines.
_“Little children are baptized for the remission of sins. Whose sins are they? When did they sin? Or how can this explanation of the baptismal washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the interpretation we spoke of a little earlier? No man is clean of stain, not even if his life upon the earth had lasted but a single day” (Homilies in Luke, xiv.5; Lienhard, 1996, 58)._


----------



## Ole Crip

In the beginning there was one church.The problem is us we cannot see eye to eye so therefore we start several different churchs with our own beliefs.Why can't we just respect someone who is taking a closer step in faith no matter how they are baptized.


----------



## Ronnie T

emerson said:


> In the beginning there was one church.The problem is us we cannot see eye to eye so therefore we start several different churchs with our own beliefs.Why can't we just respect someone who is taking a closer step in faith no matter how they are baptized.



It happens because we begin listening to the teachings of man rather than the teachings of God's word.

There are no New Testament instructions concerning the baptism of anyone in the name of Jesus Christ who didn't have faith in Jesus.  You can wet them, but they won't be washed.


----------



## Ole Crip

Ronnie T said:


> It happens because we begin listening to the teachings of man rather than the teachings of God's word.
> 
> There are no New Testament instructions concerning the baptism of anyone in the name of Jesus Christ who didn't have faith in Jesus.  You can wet them, but they won't be washed.


Explain you can wet them but they won't be washed please.


----------



## Ronnie T

A person or child who does not believe in Jesus as God's son can be submerged in water, but that won't make them baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


----------



## Ole Crip

Gotcha thanks.


----------



## Madman

Bama4me said:


> No chapter and verse because infant baptism was not practiced in the New Testament.  Now if you're wanting some proof of when infant baptism began to widely be practiced in the Catholic church, check 416 AD and the mandate of Constantine.
> 
> Earlier, people like Origen (185-254) made statements along the following lines.
> _“Little children are baptized for the remission of sins. Whose sins are they? When did they sin? Or how can this explanation of the baptismal washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the interpretation we spoke of a little earlier? No man is clean of stain, not even if his life upon the earth had lasted but a single day” (Homilies in Luke, xiv.5; Lienhard, 1996, 58)._



So ther is no Scripture against infant baptism, even though there is Scripture speaking of baptizing whole families. ERGO you say no infant baptism. 

Also we can take the writings of Origen and many others who were probably taught by the deciples and throw their writing and beliefs in the trash.  These writings are the very reason Banjo and others, like me say that the early church most likely baptised infants.


----------



## Madman

Ronnie T said:


> A person or child who does not believe in Jesus as God's son can be submerged in water, but that won't make them baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.



If the priest baptizes them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it does, wheather they are dunked sprinkled or splashed.


----------



## StriperAddict

Madman said:


> If the priest baptizes them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it does, wheather they are dunked sprinkled or splashed.


 
So an unbeliever goes for the baptism (for whatever reason, parents insistence, being part of the "in church" crowd, etc), and they partake of the cross that way?  They are washed "in the renewing of the Holy Spirit"?

Cannot be...  a house divided against itself will fall. If I have no call of the Lord to put my faith in the cross and in Christ's resurrection, no amount of works, baptism or otherwise, will do it.  You can't have His nature (the "New man in Christ") imparted to you by church baptismal washing.


----------



## Ronnie T

Madman said:


> If the priest baptizes them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it does, wheather they are dunked sprinkled or splashed.



The New Testament doesn't support that, so I don't either.
No where does it say a young, unbelieving child was baptized just because the rest of the family way.

Biblically, only believers were baptized.

I'm aware that Catholic doctrine contains things not contained in the New Testament, but I'm talking New Testament.


----------



## Bama4me

Madman said:


> So ther is no Scripture against infant baptism, even though there is Scripture speaking of baptizing whole families. ERGO you say no infant baptism.
> 
> Also we can take the writings of Origen and many others who were probably taught by the deciples and throw their writing and beliefs in the trash.  These writings are the very reason Banjo and others, like me say that the early church most likely baptised infants.



Yes... there are scriptures against infant baptism.  When Mark 16:16 says "he who believes and is baptized will be saved", that excludes infants.  When Acts 2:38 says, "repent and be baptized", that excludes infants.  Why?  Because infants cannot believe nor repent... they don't have the capacity.  

For the record, Origen was one of very FEW who endorsed the practice... and there are others who are on record as being against it.  Origen believed as he did because he believed children inherited the sins of their mother and father... an idea that totally contradicts the clear teachings of Ezekiel 18.


----------



## Madman

Ronnie T said:


> The New Testament doesn't support that, so I don't either.
> No where does it say a young, unbelieving child was baptized just because the rest of the family way.
> 
> Biblically, only believers were baptized.
> 
> I'm aware that Catholic doctrine contains things not contained in the New Testament, but I'm talking New Testament.



This is where you will differ.  Most take the Scripture in total not just the New Testament.


----------



## Ronnie T

Madman said:


> This is where you will differ.  Most take the Scripture in total not just the New Testament.



I don't think I follow.
The Old Testament doesn't speak to New Testament baptism into Christ, I don't think.


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> It happens because we begin listening to the teachings of man rather than the teachings of God's word. *Absolutely!!*
> 
> There are no New Testament instructions concerning the baptism of anyone in the name of Jesus Christ who didn't have faith in Jesus.  You can wet them, but they won't be washed.


 Amen!!

No one is saved by baptism of any type. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward rebirth unto Christ. 

To think that people actually believe that a baby sprinkled at 1 month old is saved, is well....... sounds like part of some other type of reformation. I'm not saying not to do it, I'm just saying it isn't salvation rendering. Of course if the baby wasn't preselected, they're in for a hot afterlife anyway...

Lord HELP us!!!!


----------



## The Foreigner

Ronnie T said:


> A person or child who does not believe in Jesus as God's son can be submerged in water, but that won't make them baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.



Ronnie T... is correct. Whether you baptize infants or adults (and Presbyterians do both on the command of Christ) - neither guarantees salvation. I know plenty of baptists as well as people baptized as infants who, having been baptized into the Triune God, have defected from the faith.  That's why baptism is no guarantee of saving faith.

And comments that link infant baptism in the protestant tradition (not you Ronnie T) to the Roman tradition simply haven't read their theology books. The Sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper were one of the principal areas over which the Reformation differed with Rome.

I am thankful that Paul relegated baptism to a secondary matter (I came not to baptize). Otherwise we'd all be at odds.


----------



## centerpin fan

The Foreigner said:


> I am thankful that Paul relegated baptism to a secondary matter (I came not to baptize). Otherwise we'd all be at odds.



We are at odds.  Just read some of the other baptism threads.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

The Foreigner said:


> _*MArk 16:16 *_does not say that belief in Christ is a pre-requisite of baptism. You've committed the fallacy of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ - that is, because something appears before another thing it is the logical cause of it. That's simply a fallacy.
> 
> Now I'm not arguing that baptism is unnecessary, far from it. It is mandated by Christ and therefore of great importance. But your reading of the text is one where you presume the connection between faith and baptism, that faith is the pre-requisite of baptism. It's not, though it is entirely proper to baptize someone who has confessed their faith.  It's just not cause and effect.
> 
> Furthermore, baptizing babies did not start with the Catholic church, and even if it did, again you argument is fallacious -_ ad hominem_ I believe - attacking something because of who said it, not because of the substance of the thing itself.
> 
> Interestingly Peter and Paul, in the New Covenant, thought it was necessary to preach and practice the baptism of children, or more accurately, the baptism of households. Acts 2:39 "for the *promise is to you and your children *and for all who are afar off".  In Acts 16 we are told that Lydia believes and her household receives the sign of the covenant. Your position presumes that Lydia's household came to faith, but the text doesn't stipulate that.  The position that holds to infant / household baptism doesn't require such a presumption.


Mark 16:16 was not in the original text. It was added because of the abrupt ending to Mark. I guess some good ole scribe thought that he would fix it. 16:8 is the true end to Mark. Funniest thing that those snake handling zealots actually believed that God said that.


----------



## JB0704

1gr8bldr said:


> Mark 16:16 was not in the original text. It was added because of the abrupt ending to Mark.



I have not studied this so much, but, out of curiosity, what is your source on that?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

JB0704 said:


> I have not studied this so much, but, out of curiosity, what is your source on that?


It's widely known. You should be able to google it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Yea, it's all over the place, Google "ending of Mark"


----------



## JB0704

1gr8bldr said:


> It's widely known. You should be able to google it.



Ok, I remember you talking about something similar on the AAA, but the conversation went elsewhere so I didn't bring it up.

Anyway, I want to know as much as possible about the original text, but I am too lazy to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.  I will google this.

I wonder, if it was added later, would everybody still consider it inspired?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

JB0704 said:


> Ok, I remember you talking about something similar on the AAA, but the conversation went elsewhere so I didn't bring it up.
> 
> Anyway, I want to know as much as possible about the original text, but I am too lazy to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.  I will google this.
> 
> I wonder, if it was added later, would everybody still consider it inspired?


Most will not believe the evidence that it was added later. Then they would realize that other things have happened as well. Like Matt 28:19


----------



## 1gr8bldr

JB0704 said:


> Ok, I remember you talking about something similar on the AAA, but the conversation went elsewhere so I didn't bring it up.
> 
> Anyway, I want to know as much as possible about the original text, but _*I am too lazy to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.  *_I will google this.
> 
> I wonder, if it was added later, would everybody still consider it inspired?



Yea, me too, I use a "parallel" interlinear.


----------



## mtnwoman

JB0704 said:


> Anyway, I want to know as much as possible about the original text, but I am too lazy to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.  I will google this.



I'm pretty sure there have been men in the past that could translate Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic correctly into English eh? That's why I don't have too much of a problem with an English written Bible.

It's not like these languages have been impossible to translate.


----------



## mtnwoman

JB0704 said:


> I wonder, if it was added later, would everybody still consider it inspired?



 Perhaps the writer was under conviction of the Holy Spirit and tried to correct something. I have faith in the Holy Spirit, that no matter what some scriptures seem to mean, especially pulled out of context, that our HS will rightly divide the word for us, if we ask. 

I'm always asking for wisdom. I have maybe 10% wisdom on the Bible. But I'm simple, and try to keep my belief simple....For God so loved the world.....and that's how I testify/witness to others. It just isn't hard...Jesus yoke is light.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

mtnwoman said:


> I'm pretty sure there have been men in the past that could translate Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic correctly into English eh? That's why I don't have too much of a problem with an English written Bible.
> 
> It's not like these languages have been impossible to translate.



I'm glad that I can check stuff for myself. There is so much that is not right. For example. My NIV puts an exclamation point after the so called "I am" claim. There is nothing in the greek that would indicate such a thing. Tons of stuff


----------



## mtnwoman

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm glad that I can check stuff for myself. There is so much that is not right. For example. My NIV puts an exclamation point after the so called "I am" claim. There is nothing in the greek that would indicate such a thing. Tons of stuff



Wonder if it's the same in KJV, I'll look. Do you recall the verse? 
Well that's sort of what I'm saying, I depend mostly on the Holy Spirit for discerment.....dividing assunder soul and spirit....there's a fine line there to divide that....soul is me and my bright ideas, and my spirit is the part of me that is connected to God. I need less soul and more spirit 

I'm sure there's a ton of stuff now...just pick a few verses and create a whole new doctrine out of it. And then it's now become a doctrine, within a doctrine, within a docrine, within a doctrine.

I'll stick with For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosever believeth in Him should no perish.....I then, can get there, from here.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

mtnwoman said:


> Wonder if it's the same in KJV, I'll look. Do you recall the verse?
> Well that's sort of what I'm saying, I depend mostly on the Holy Spirit for discerment.....dividing assunder soul and spirit....there's a fine line there to divide that....soul is me and my bright ideas, and my spirit is the part of me that is connected to God. I need less soul and more spirit
> 
> I'm sure there's a ton of stuff now...just pick a few verses and create a whole new doctrine out of it. And then it's now become a doctrine, within a doctrine, within a docrine, within a doctrine.
> 
> I'll stick with For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosever believeth in Him should no perish.....I then, can get there, from here.



An example for you from your KJ would be 1 John 5:7. It clearly does not say this. I bumped an old thread in the AAA, What did Jesus claim. The bumped post is about 1 John 5:7 . This would have surely been a perfect proof text. The "Early Church Fathers" while fighting to win "orthodox" would have surely used this one. They wrote scripture after scripture as proof for their beliefs. 1John 5:7 was not used. It first showed up as a proof text in the 8 century [not sure of the century, but it was for sure later than the 5th century]


----------



## 1gr8bldr

mtnwoman said:


> Wonder if it's the same in KJV, I'll look. Do you recall the verse?
> Well that's sort of what I'm saying, I depend mostly on the Holy Spirit for discerment.....dividing assunder soul and spirit....there's a fine line there to divide that....soul is me and my bright ideas, and my spirit is the part of me that is connected to God. I need less soul and more spirit
> 
> I'm sure there's a ton of stuff now...just pick a few verses and create a whole new doctrine out of it. And then it's now become a doctrine, within a doctrine, within a docrine, within a doctrine.
> 
> I'll stick with For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosever believeth in Him should no perish.....I then, can get there, from here.




John 8:58


----------



## JB0704

mtnwoman said:


> I'm pretty sure there have been men in the past that could translate Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic correctly into English eh?




Yea, but look at how much Christians argue over these translations.

I'm with you on John 3:16, and 3:17.  Interesting thing about that verse, there is debate over whether Jesus said it or if John added it later as he recalled the conversation.  My wife has a very simple faith, and I envy that because I over-analyze things.  But, they have to make sense to me.  This is why I want to learn as much as possible, that way, I elliminate as many logical problems as possible that I had when I was younger.


----------



## Madman

Ronnie T said:


> I don't think I follow.
> The Old Testament doesn't speak to New Testament baptism into Christ, I don't think.



I understand that you don't follow.  Ultimately the question is; “what do you believe about sacraments and who do you believe saves”, is it God or is it man?

Since I am not of an Armenian bent, I believe God is in charge of it all.

Trust me; I understand protest-antism pretty well.


----------



## Bama4me

1gr8bldr said:


> Mark 16:16 was not in the original text. It was added because of the abrupt ending to Mark. I guess some good ole scribe thought that he would fix it. 16:8 is the true end to Mark. Funniest thing that those snake handling zealots actually believed that God said that.



This is far too broad a statement to prove.  If you say, "it's not in some of the earliest manuscripts," then you'd be correct.  But to say "Mark 16:16 was not in the original text" is adding your spin to it... because there are a number of scholars which believe it was inspired.  Some of their names are Scrivener, Burgon, & Lenski.

However, even if one takes Mark 16:16 out of the discussion on infant baptism, one still has to ask how an infant is capable of repentance from Acts 2:38... or how one refute the examples of many in Acts who believed?  Again, how can an infant believe the gospel?


----------



## Bama4me

Madman said:


> Ultimately the question is; “what do you believe about sacraments and who do you believe saves”, is it God or is it man?



From different angles, the answer is both God and man.

From the eternal angle, man has never been able to save himself because of the problem of sin.  God, in His grace and mercy, has offered us salvation through His Son.  In that sense, God saves us... and passages like Ephesians 2:1-10 bears that out plainly for all to see.

However, from the earthly perspective, mankind has to respond to God's offer of salvation through "faith" (see Ephesians 2:8).  That is, we must be willing to obey the Lord in order to receive salvation.  In that way, we are involved in the salvation of our souls... hence passages such as Acts 2:40 (save yourselves) and Philippians 2:12 (work out your salvation).

Understand, man could never accomplish his salvation without God first acting on his behalf... but when God offers us salvation, we have to receive it in the way He specifies... and continue to "walk in the light" after we receive that cleansing blood in our lives (1 John 1:7).


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Bama4me said:


> This is far too broad a statement to prove.  If you say, "it's not in some of the earliest manuscripts," then you'd be correct.  But to say "Mark 16:16 was not in the original text" is adding your spin to it... because there are a number of scholars which believe it was inspired.  Some of their names are Scrivener, Burgon, & Lenski.
> 
> However, even if one takes Mark 16:16 out of the discussion on infant baptism, one still has to ask how an infant is capable of repentance from Acts 2:38... or how one refute the examples of many in Acts who believed?  Again, how can an infant believe the gospel?


I have not been apart of the baptism debate, only pointed out that Mark 16 should not be allowed


----------



## Bama4me

1gr8bldr said:


> I have not been apart of the baptism debate, only pointed out that Mark 16 should not be allowed



Your opinion.


----------



## Ronnie T

Madman said:


> I understand that you don't follow.  Ultimately the question is; “what do you believe about sacraments and who do you believe saves”, is it God or is it man?
> 
> Since I am not of an Armenian bent, I believe God is in charge of it all.
> 
> Trust me; I understand protest-antism pretty well.



I'm lost again.  Honestly, and I hope you won't think me ignorant, but I don't speak Armenian.  And if you understand 'protest-antism' you understand something I don't.
For 45 years I've tried to only speak the language of the Gospel.  Now, that leaves me out of a lot of theology discussions, but I spect I haven't miss much.

I do know a little Greek, and I know a little Hebrew.
The little greek owns a restaurant and the little hebrew runs a tailor shop.

I'm about as simple minded as a person can get.
I've worked very hard to stay that way.


----------



## Madman

Ronnie T said:


> I'm lost again.  Honestly, and I hope you won't think me ignorant, but I don't speak Armenian.  And if you understand 'protest-antism' you understand something I don't.
> For 45 years I've tried to only speak the language of the Gospel.  Now, that leaves me out of a lot of theology discussions, but I spect I haven't miss much.
> 
> I do know a little Greek, and I know a little Hebrew.
> The little greek owns a restaurant and the little hebrew runs a tailor shop.
> 
> I'm about as simple minded as a person can get.
> I've worked very hard to stay that way.



  Then lets two brothers in Christ leave it there.


----------



## Ronnie T

Madman said:


> Then lets two brothers in Christ leave it there.



You got it brother.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Bama4me said:


> Your opinion.



I'm not sure what the debate is; Children baptismal, sprinkling or whether you have to be baptized.??? Either way, I don't think we have enough scripture to prove our points. That's why I have never taken a stand either way.


----------



## StriperAddict

Ronnie T said:


> I do know a little Greek, and I know a little Hebrew.
> The little greek owns a restaurant and the little hebrew runs a tailor shop.


 
Lol... classic .  Maybe we know the same restaruant


----------



## Ronnie T

*Speaking of Baptism.*

Speaking of baptism, if I do a Bible study on baptism what is the Bible (New Testament) going to teach me concerning it?
Not what you believe.
Not what your church teaches.
Not what your pastor teaches.

What does the Bible teach in regard to baptism?????


----------



## Bama4me

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm not sure what the debate is; Children baptismal, sprinkling or whether you have to be baptized.??? Either way, I don't think we have enough scripture to prove our points. That's why I have never taken a stand either way.



Again, your opinion.  I believe the Bible gives plenty of evidence to understand babies should not be baptized, baptism consists of immersion, and people have to be a baptized believer to be saved.  I'll end where I started on this thread... if it was good enough for the first folks who heard/obeyed Peter's message in Acts 2, it's good enough for me when I compare it with what the rest of the New Testament says on the subject.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Bama4me said:


> Again, your opinion.  I believe the Bible gives plenty of evidence to understand babies should not be baptized, baptism consists of immersion, and people have to be a baptized believer to be saved.  I'll end where I started on this thread... if it was good enough for the first folks who heard/obeyed Peter's message in Acts 2, it's good enough for me when I compare it with what the rest of the New Testament says on the subject.



This is why I try to stay out of the debates that no one can win. Because one verse cancels out another and we all just spin our wheels. An example applied to your point. The thief on the cross was not baptized.


----------



## JB0704

1gr8bldr said:


> Because one verse cancels out another and we all just spin our wheels......



....then you get into debates over context, then history, and on it goes.

I haven't reached an place where I can avoid the lose-lose debates.  But I do think this is why folks should be very careful claiming "God's command" on things.


----------



## Ronnie T

1gr8bldr said:


> This is why I try to stay out of the debates that no one can win. Because one verse cancels out another and we all just spin our wheels. An example applied to your point. The thief on the cross was not baptized.



One verse must never cancel out another verse.
It should rather marry the other verse!

Agree????


----------



## Ronnie T

Ronnie T said:


> Speaking of baptism, if I do a Bible study on baptism what is the Bible (New Testament) going to teach me concerning it?
> Not what you believe.
> Not what your church teaches.
> Not what your pastor teaches.
> 
> What does the Bible teach in regard to baptism?????



Come on, what does the Bible teach in regard to baptism?


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



Ronnie T said:


> Come on, what does the Bible teach in regard to baptism?



Good Morning Ronnie:

I thought I did a pretty good job in Post #98 answering that one. Maybe my communication skills are a bit off! Or maybe I'm a bit off!


----------



## gordon 2

I read my post way back in here and it started out at the gate pretty good, but peter'd out before the end and avoided the question itself. I guess it was not a good answer at all....by my own standards...

This has to be in part what the bible teaches us, (since I have been "impressed" by these verses 1 Peter chapter 3, 19-22  just recently--here goes.)

1 Peter chapter 3, 21

Corresponding to that , baptism now saves you-- not the remouval of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,... (KJV)

That water is a type of the baptism which save you now,  and which is not the washing off of physical dirt but a pledge made to God for a good conscience , through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,... (JB)

It is a pledge or an appeal to God by a believer.

I am certain that there is lots more.... Peace....


----------



## Bama4me

1gr8bldr said:


> The thief on the cross was not baptized.



We do not know he wasn't baptized... but had he been, it would not have mattered because he lived/died under the law of Moses... not the Law of Christ (Colossians 2:13-14).  If you say the thief on the cross had to have been baptized to be saved, you'd also have to claim that Moses, Joshua, David, etc. would have to have been baptized to be saved also.  

I am greatly disturbed that many on this site seems to adopt the opinion of "we can't know" the truth about a subject.  The text of John 8:31-32 is critical to having a relationship with Jesus Christ... in order to truly be His disciples, we MUST abide in His word.  Furthermore, it's imperative that we seek the truth He provides... which He referred to in the very next verse.  To follow that, 1 Corinthians 14:33 says God is not an author (originator) of confusion.

I cite those things to say (1) God tells us in the pages of the New Testament how to be saved and (2) the method of salvation is the same for every single person.  To say otherwise makes God a confusing God... and would lead people to wonder "am I saved" or simply make them have to rely on feelings to know it.  1 John 5:13 claims we can KNOW that we have eternal life... not feel or think it.  However, getting to truth requires something that a lot of people are not willing to do... stop taking the word of a preacher or church in a matter.  Rather, devote time and effort to personally investigating these matters.

Me?  I'm not going to base my salvation on what is said by my preacher or church... because they can be wrong.  My soul salvation is FAR too important for me to entrust to the hands of fallible people... give me God's word and His word alone!


----------



## Randy

WOW.  I started this threead with a joke and pages later it is a debate.


----------



## JB0704

Randy said:


> WOW.  I started this threead with a joke and pages later it is a debate.



And if we can't convince each other, how do we convince anybody else?  My vote is stick with the simplicity of grace, I believe it is sufficient.


----------



## Bama4me

JB0704 said:


> And if we can't convince each other, how do we convince anybody else?  My vote is stick with the simplicity of grace, I believe it is sufficient.



What does "grace" include?  Also... just for the record, Jesus wasn't succesful in convincing everyone either.


----------



## Ronnie T

formula1 said:


> Good Morning Ronnie:
> 
> I thought I did a pretty good job in Post #98 answering that one. Maybe my communication skills are a bit off! Or maybe I'm a bit off!



Ha!  Either I missed it or forgot it.
But I've read it and agree that you did a pretty good job in # 98.

Here's some questions I often ask concerning New Testament baptism into Jesus Christ:

1.  Who instituted it?
2.  Why was it instituted?
3.  Are there specific things that occur during one's baptism that come from God rather than the person being baptized?  In other words, according to scripture, what are the spiritual fruits of baptism?
4.  Does scripture say baptism is a work of human might, or God's work that He accomplishes during the physical act?  Or neither?  What does the scripture say?
5.  Do some research.  In 1Peter 3:21 what is this phrase saying:   "baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
What is "an appeal to God for a good conscience"?

*Lots of people either defend baptism or oppose baptism but have never really studies the subject for themselves.

You have.


----------



## gordon 2

Ronnie T said:


> Ha!  Either I missed it or forgot it.
> But I've read it and agree that you did a pretty good job in # 98.
> 
> Here's some questions I often ask concerning New Testament baptism into Jesus Christ:
> 
> 1.  Who instituted it?
> 2.  Why was it instituted?
> 3.  Are there specific things that occur during one's baptism that come from God rather than the person being baptized?  In other words, according to scripture, what are the spiritual fruits of baptism?
> 4.  Does scripture say baptism is a work of human might, or God's work that He accomplishes during the physical act?  Or neither?  What does the scripture say?
> 5.  Do some research.  In 1Peter 3:21 what is this phrase saying:   "baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
> What is "an appeal to God for a good conscience"?
> 
> *Lots of people either defend baptism or oppose baptism but have never really studies the subject for themselves.
> 
> You have.





Hey!!!!!!!!!!! I what a smiley face also, even just for encouragement. As a matter of fact I think we should all get  a smiley face and friday afternoon we forego classes and go outside and play baseball....


----------



## Tim L

JB0704 said:


> And if we can't convince each other, how do we convince anybody else?  My vote is stick with the simplicity of grace, I believe it is sufficient.



Like I said earlier; there are three topics guranteed to spark debate (or interest; which isn't a bad thing); Baptism, Speaking in Tongues, and Women Preachers...


----------



## Ronnie T

gordon 2 said:


> Hey!!!!!!!!!!! I what a smiley face also, even just for encouragement. As a matter of fact I think we should all get  a smiley face and friday afternoon we forego classes and go outside and play baseball....


----------



## JB0704

Bama4me said:


> What does "grace" include?  Also... just for the record, Jesus wasn't succesful in convincing everyone either.



Grace, from my perpective, is demonstrated through the adulteress woman (I know I mention it once a week, sorry).  She was in sin, caught red-handed, and Jesus did not condemn her.  He demonstrated love and forgiveness.  I do not see why she was any different than any of us.  Would we not get the same treatment?

Then, we can toss in the whole "love one another," "do unto others," "feed the poor," the beattitudes, etc.

Sure, not everybody will be convinced, you are right, folks who saw Jesus' miracles still failed to believe, but I would rather talk about the loving nature of God.  I know thats what drew me in.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> Grace, from my perpective, is demonstrated through the adulteress woman (I know I mention it once a week, sorry).  She was in sin, caught red-handed, and Jesus did not condemn her.  He demonstrated love and forgiveness.



... and told her to repent.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> ... and told her to repent.



Oh good grief, he was asking about grace.  I skipped the pharisees too.  Repentence is a response, I believe, to grace.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> Oh good grief, he was asking about grace.  I skipped the pharisees too.  Repentence is a response, I believe, to grace.



Not trying to give you a hard time.  It's just that the repentance part gets left out a lot.  I would say most of the time.


----------



## mtnwoman

Tim L said:


> Like I said earlier; there are three topics guranteed to spark debate (or interest; which isn't a bad thing); Baptism, Speaking in Tongues, and Women Preachers...



And I'd say yes to all, except I do believe that a woman preacher needs a man headship above her. Most women preachers I know have a male preacher that is headship over them. Even Joyce Meyers. I guess I'd consider them teachers, but technically, I believe as I said about being an underling of a head preacher.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> Not trying to give you a hard time.  It's just that the repentance part gets left out a lot.  I would say most of the time.



I get it.  If you would like, every time I mention that story, and it will be often if history is an indicator, I will make sure we all know that I know that repentance was part of the conversation.


----------



## Israel

JB0704 said:


> And if we can't convince each other, how do we convince anybody else?  My vote is stick with the simplicity of grace, I believe it is sufficient.



We could suppose something about the Lord that we may agree on; he knows us better than we know ourselves.
In all the Lord's commands/instructions/exhortations it often becomes an obvious consideration to us..."how does this affect anything" or in other cases, "how does this at all benefit the Lord's kingdom?"

I, for one, am convinced that the Lord, knowing the heart of man, well understands our propensity toward seeing what's the least we can do in certain areas. Something about wanting to minimalize requirements/instructions that seems to give us a sense of power. I believe there's a principle involved, that must first be recognized, and adequately dealt with...that being the principle of rebellion.

We simply do not like being told what to do...and especially in matters in which we can see no obvious benefit, unless of course, the benefit is to undo something that is not at all obvious to us at all, and that being...the dealing with that rebellious thing from the outset. In almost every case where we see baptism being practiced...we find it preceded by this cry "What must I/we do to be saved...?" 

There is, it seems, if the scriptures are testifying of genuine repentance, an immediate desire to "do" something relative to this sudden change of heart. It would appear a converted heart has a desire to show obedience...or is also demonstrating its newness and enquires of the Lord or disciples "What should I do now?". 


Now, I am not saying there is "nothing" that happens in baptism, as though it is an empty ritual given to us as something to just "do"...to satisfy our need. I do see much as described in the scriptures that it references...death, burial and resurrection, cleansing and regeneration. 


But I also believe because we abide in temples of flesh still, the Lord has allowed touchstones of experience, spiritual practices...not unlike the altars of old, upon which we build, and from which we progress. Eventually, as we persevere, we all grow to the understanding there is not ONE thing the Lord asks of us that is not a gift to us. Everything is a favor done for us...even what may seem the most demanding and strident command to "love not our own life".


God knows which of these things are done in faith, for without it, a baptism is little more than a soaking...but for the heart that sincerely seeks to please the Lord, and first discovers upon repentance a great desire to respond to that grace with a demonstration, I believe a disciple would be hard pressed to be kept away from the waters. He will find the Lord waiting for him there.


----------



## mtnwoman

Israel said:


> God knows which of these things are done in faith, for without it, a baptism is little more than a soaking...but for the heart that sincerely seeks to please the Lord, and first discovers upon repentance a great desire to respond to that grace with a demonstration, I believe a disciple would be hard pressed to be kept away from the waters. He will find the Lord waiting for him there.



Great post, especially this part.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Bama4me said:


> We do not know he wasn't baptized... but had he been, it would not have mattered because he lived/died under the law of Moses... not the Law of Christ (Colossians 2:13-14).  _*If you say the thief on the cross had to have been baptized to be saved, you'd also have to claim that Moses, Joshua, David, etc. would have to have been baptized to be saved also.  *_
> I am greatly disturbed that many on this site seems to adopt the opinion of "we can't know" the truth about a subject.  The text of John 8:31-32 is critical to having a relationship with Jesus Christ... in order to truly be His disciples, we MUST abide in His word.  Furthermore, it's imperative that we seek the truth He provides... which He referred to in the very next verse.  To follow that, 1 Corinthians 14:33 says God is not an author (originator) of confusion.
> 
> I cite those things to say (1) God tells us in the pages of the New Testament how to be saved and (2) the method of salvation is the same for every single person.  To say otherwise makes God a confusing God... and would lead people to wonder "am I saved" or simply make them have to rely on feelings to know it.  1 John 5:13 claims we can KNOW that we have eternal life... not feel or think it.  However, getting to truth requires something that a lot of people are not willing to do... stop taking the word of a preacher or church in a matter.  Rather, devote time and effort to personally investigating these matters.
> 
> Me?  I'm not going to base my salvation on what is said by my preacher or church... because they can be wrong.  My soul salvation is FAR too important for me to entrust to the hands of fallible people... give me God's word and His word alone!



I'm not sure which side your on. Have to be baptized or do not have to be baptized.???? Your response made me wonder if I have misunderstood you.  My point in the thief is that I lean toward"do not have to".


----------



## mtnwoman

I do not believe that not being baptized will keep you out of heaven, just like just being baptized will get you into heaven. 

The only thing we have to do for salvation, is to accept/respond to/believe that Jesus is who He says He is and that He did what God told/ask Him to do for our salvation.

Like I said before I've never heard of anyone refusing baptism that was truly saved. So that seems like a mute stance.

Perhaps you're a death bed convert, or you're getting ready to die in the twin towers, and someone leads you to salvation thru Christ....I don't see how not being baptized would unsave you.


----------



## Bama4me

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm not sure which side your on. Have to be baptized or do not have to be baptized.???? Your response made me wonder if I have misunderstood you.  My point in the thief is that I lean toward"do not have to".



Sorry to be confusing.  My point about the thief was that he lived/died accountable to the law of Moses... not the law of Christ.  The law of Moses wasn't abolished until Jesus died on the cross (Colossians 2:14).

Thus, just like Moses/Joshua/David, the thief will be judged by the law of Moses... a law not including the idea of baptism.  BTW, people seem to assume the thief was not ever baptized because it's not mentioned in the text.  He DID know something about the kingdom though... and if he knew information about the kingdom, it's at least possible he also knew about the idea of baptism.


----------



## Madman

Bama4me said:


> No chapter and verse because infant baptism was not practiced in the New Testament.  [/I]



A belief based on what is "not" in the Scripture.




> BTW, people seem to assume the thief was not ever baptized because it's not mentioned in the text. He DID know something about the kingdom though... and if he knew information about the kingdom, it's at least possible he also knew about the idea of baptism.



Another belief based on what is not in the Scripture.

Seems to be a conflict in how to use Scripture.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*

A quote I have heard and thought of many times:

'The Bible cannot mean what it has not meant!'

It's a good standard to think of in our interpretation of scripture!


----------



## Bama4me

Madman said:


> A belief based on what is "not" in the Scripture. Another belief based on what is not in the Scripture.
> 
> Seems to be a conflict in how to use Scripture.



Then show me FROM Scripture where you know infants were baptized... and don't go to the "household" idea because it's just as arbitrary as what I suggested about the thief on the cross.  I can show you where folks who were saved believed... and Jesus indicated as such was necessary.  I'm also able to show you where people who were saved repented... and Jesus also endorsed that idea as well.  Again, show me how an infant can do either of those two things and I'll be happy to embrace your belief system.


----------



## Madman

Bama4me said:


> Then show me FROM Scripture where you know infants were baptized... and don't go to the "household" idea because it's just as arbitrary as what I suggested about the thief on the cross.  I can show you where folks who were saved believed... and Jesus indicated as such was necessary.  I'm also able to show you where people who were saved repented... and Jesus also endorsed that idea as well.  Again, show me how an infant can do either of those two things and I'll be happy to embrace your belief system.



Didn't mean to get your dander up.  I simply noticed a flaw in your logic.


----------



## Bama4me

Madman said:


> Didn't mean to get your dander up.  I simply noticed a flaw in your logic.



It's not a flaw in logic when you allow one passage to help provide a framework to understand another passage.  The New Testament clearly implies a person must believe and repent in order to have salvation.  As such, when Acts says "household," I have to conclude no one in the household incapable of belief/repentance was saved.  Otherwise, you render useless the passages that indicate we all must believe and repent.


----------



## Madman

Bama4me said:


> BTW, people seem to assume the thief was not ever baptized because it's not mentioned in the text.  He DID know something about the kingdom though... and if he knew information about the kingdom, it's at least possible he also knew about the idea of baptism.



Here is the flaw.  

Using your logic the thief was not baptized because the Scriptures do not specifically say that he was, therefore it is not an assumption on the part of "people" to say that he was not, it is not Biblical.


----------



## Bama4me

Madman said:


> Here is the flaw.
> 
> Using your logic the thief was not baptized because the Scriptures do not specifically say that he was, therefore it is not an assumption on the part of "people" to say that he was not, it is not Biblical.



I did not say one way or the other... I simply claimed we do not know for certain whether or not he was baptized.  The assumption of many is that he wasn't... but one can't make a 100% assertion to that fact.  

We DO, however, know that he knew something about the kingdom... per his request in Luke 23:42.  The Lord Himself linked baptism with the kingdom in John 3:5... "Unless one is born of the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

My assertion is that since he knew something about the kingdom, he MAY have known about baptism.  And, if he knew about it, he could have been baptized.  But again, it's not a pertinent matter because he lived/died being accountable to a law that did not require baptism.


----------



## Ronnie T

Matt 11:11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! 
Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 

The thief on the cross was no better than John the baptist.  What Jesus said to the thief has no merit to me or anyone else.
The fact that Jesus raised the widows son from the dead even as her son was about to be buried doesn't mean it will happen for your son.
The thief on the cross was not saved by the blood of Jesus.  He couldn't have been.  The thief never experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  The thief died as John the baptist died!  
And Jesus, at that time had not been raised as our Lord and Savior.  Jesus had not sent His apostles out with their great commission.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ had not come to pass.

The thief was touch by the love of Jesus, but what occurred to him is not a lesson for disciples of Jesus today....... unless you want to live without all the things that come with the resurrection of Jesus.

The kingdom of heaven began in Jerusalem at Acts 2.  Not with Jesus alive on Calvary's cross.
I choose to be saved by the blood of the resurrected Savior.  Not the thief on the cross.


----------



## speedcop

excellent post there R  T


----------



## win270wsm

I Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
You've got to rightly divide the word of Truth!
http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1017954587.html


----------



## centerpin fan

win270wsm said:


> You've got to rightly divide the word of Truth!
> http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1017954587.html



I've asked before, and I'll ask again:  do the people in the link above not baptize believers in water?  I read through the site before and couldn't come to a definite conclusion, but "Fact No. 4" from the link above makes it sound like they don't baptize people in water.  Am I missing something or do they actually believe that?  Here is what they write (emphasis mine):

_FACT NO. 4—That the Bible definitely teaches that water baptism was and is a part of Israel's religion (Heb. 6:1,2; 9:10). It was for the remission of sins and was by sprinkling (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; Ezek. 36:25). 

In this age there is only ONE baptism, not two: "One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM" (Eph. 4:5). This baptism is the placing of the Christian into the Church, the Body of Christ, by the Holy Spirit: "For by one SPIRIT are we all BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (I Cor. 12:13). This baptism takes place once for all at the time of salvation. 

The Apostle Paul was not sent to baptize with water: "For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE but to preach the gospel..." (I Cor. 1:17). Only a change in God's purpose would necessitate a statement like this. There is no importance attached to water baptism, today. It is not a part of Christianity and only causes confusion. _

Not a part of Christianity?   Regardless of your opinion on the purpose and necessity of water baptism, how can anyone say that it is not a part of Christianity?   Water baptism is practiced throughtout the NT and by every modern church that I know of.


----------



## Ronnie T

win270wsm said:


> I Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
> You've got to rightly divide the word of Truth!
> http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1017954587.html



You've got to stop assuming that Paul's comment above mean that he didn't believe in baptism.

Acts 19:1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 There were in all about twelve men.

Rightly dividing the word of God.
I don't think I would allow Paul's words in 1 Cor 1:17 to convince me to ignore all the Bible says about baptism.


----------



## Randy

Man God works in wonderful ways.  I started this with a joke and now we are studying the Bible.  I somehow feel responsible for this teaching...
Carry on.


----------



## Ronnie T

win270wsm said:


> I Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
> You've got to rightly divide the word of Truth!
> http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1017954587.html



There's much on the berean site that I take very serious issue with.


----------



## centerpin fan

Ronnie T said:


> There's much on the berean site that I take very serious issue with.



Same here.  That website has a definite "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" ring to it.


----------



## Bama4me

win270wsm said:


> I Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
> You've got to rightly divide the word of Truth!
> http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1017954587.html



Will double the question of Ronnie's... why is Acts full of people that Paul baptized if this passage supposedly teaches that Paul was against baptizing?


----------



## centerpin fan

Bama4me said:


> Will double the question of Ronnie's... why is Acts full of people that Paul baptized if this passage supposedly teaches that Paul was against baptizing?



Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## mtnwoman

centerpin fan said:


> Inquiring minds want to know.



Me, too.


----------



## Madman

Randy said:


> Man God works in wonderful ways.  I started this with a joke and now we are studying the Bible.  I somehow feel responsible for this teaching...
> Carry on.



Hey Randy!!!

Start another one.  Tell us a joke!!!!  We'll turn it into a "heated" discussion.


----------



## centerpin fan

Madman said:


> Hey Randy!!!
> 
> Start another one.  Tell us a joke!!!!  We'll turn it into a "heated" discussion.




Yeah, make a joke about Bible versions!


----------



## hummerpoo

win270wsm said:


> I Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
> You've got to rightly divide the word of Truth!
> http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1017954587.html



have not read the replies, have not read the link, don't need to.....

 10.  Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
 11.  For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's {people,} that there are quarrels among you.
 12.  Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
 13.  Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14.  I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
 15.  so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16.  Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
 17.  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

Context, Context, Context...no interpretation needed.


----------



## win270wsm

Its easier for you to go through that site than it is for me to explain. The thing is you are holding on to what you've been taught(religion) versus what the word actually says. I'm not trying to debate,just pointing out that alot assume they have to be water baptized when it is not even for this present dispensation of grace! If it were,then the finished work of Christ at Calvary would be made non-effect!


----------



## win270wsm

This is the whole reason why I've never commented on these issues! If the "body of Christ" can't agree on the simple issues,Then how are we supposed to win over the "unbelievers" if we can't get it right ourselves! Lord help us all! And may God's will be done and not mine!


----------



## centerpin fan

win270wsm said:


> Its easier for you to go through that site ...



Been there, done that -- and I still have no idea where they're coming from.

Back to my original question, do you believe that Christians today should be baptized in water ... for whatever reason?

And, to echo a question posed by someone else, if Paul was not called to baptize, why did he baptize?

I'm also not trying to debate.  I'm really trying to understand what you believe, and that website is not helping.


----------



## win270wsm

Ok. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles..I.E. anyone that was not born a Hebrew. he first went to the Israelites trying to get them to "repent " of their ways and the crucifixion of their king Jesus Christ. They would have none of it. So he then went (as instucted By Christ) to offer the gentiles salvation by grace through faith.So in essence no Paul did not believe in the water baptism that many hold to today! this is why he states there is only 1 baptism (baptism of the holy spirit at the time of salvation) that is recorded in Ephesians 4:5. So many times that the Word of God seems to contradict itself based on mans belief of what they are  taught. Rather than "rightly dividing the word of truth!" I know the web site that I pointed you to seems a little off,is only because you have to study it a little closer! Read more than just what I linked,It will show alot more than I can explain. I am no Bible scholar.But God's word made more sense when I studied it in the context in which it was written!


----------



## Bama4me

win270wsm said:


> Ok. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles..I.E. anyone that was not born a Hebrew. he first went to the Israelites trying to get them to "repent " of their ways and the crucifixion of their king Jesus Christ. They would have none of it. So he then went (as instucted By Christ) to offer the gentiles salvation by grace through faith.So in essence no Paul did not believe in the water baptism that many hold to today! this is why he states there is only 1 baptism (baptism of the holy spirit at the time of salvation) that is recorded in Ephesians 4:5. So many times that the Word of God seems to contradict itself based on mans belief of what their taught. Rather than "rightly dividing the word of truth!" I know the web site that I pointed you to seems a little off,is only because you have to study it a little closer! Read more than just what I linked,It will show alot more than I can explain. I am no Bible scholar.But God's word made more sense when I studied it in the context in which it was written!



If what you claim is true, then Paul disagreed with Jesus when He said, "Unless one is born of the WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:5).  The same Paul you claim did not endorse baptism was baptized himself (Acts 22:16), baptized other people (Acts 19:5 among many examples in Acts), and referred in his inspired writings to folks being baptized (Galatians 3:27 among several examples).

I'm sorry... "rightly dividing the word of truth" in a way that is balanced means we take the MANY times Paul is obviously in favor of baptism vs. the ONE time it seems he is not.  You take your one verse... I'll take the many... and the words of Christ Himself in John 3:5.


----------



## win270wsm

Bama4me said:


> If what you claim is true, then Paul disagreed with Jesus when He said, "Unless one is born of the WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:5).  The same Paul you claim did not endorse baptism was baptized himself (Acts 22:16), baptized other people (Acts 19:5 among many examples in Acts), and referred in his inspired writings to folks being baptized (Galatians 3:27 among several examples).
> 
> I'm sorry... "rightly dividing the word of truth" in a way that is balanced means we take the MANY times Paul is obviously in favor of baptism vs. the ONE time it seems he is not.  You take your one verse... I'll take the many... and
> the words of Christ Himself in John 3:5.


But who was Christ's audience in the verse you speak of?


----------



## win270wsm

Bama4me,let me ask you this question...Do  the words written in red hold more meaning or are they more important than the words that are not?


----------



## centerpin fan

win270wsm said:


> Ok. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles..I.E. anyone that was not born a Hebrew. he first went to the Israelites trying to get them to "repent " of their ways and the crucifixion of their king Jesus Christ. They would have none of it. So he then went (as instucted By Christ) to offer the gentiles salvation by grace through faith.So in essence no Paul did not believe in the water baptism that many hold to today! this is why he states there is only 1 baptism (baptism of the holy spirit at the time of salvation) that is recorded in Ephesians 4:5. So many times that the Word of God seems to contradict itself based on mans belief of what they are  taught. Rather than "rightly dividing the word of truth!" I know the web site that I pointed you to seems a little off,is only because you have to study it a little closer! Read more than just what I linked,It will show alot more than I can explain. I am no Bible scholar.But God's word made more sense when I studied it in the context in which it was written!



So ... if a person becomes a Christian (and receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit as in Eph 4:5)  and comes to you and says, "OK, when do I get baptized in water," you would say, "Water baptism is for the Jews, not Christians.  There is no need for you to be baptized in water."

Am I understanding that correctly?


----------



## hummerpoo

win270wsm said:


> Its easier for you to go through that site than it is for me to explain. The thing is you are holding on to what you've been taught(religion) versus what the word actually says. I'm not trying to debate,just pointing out that alot assume they have to be water baptized when it is not even for this present dispensation of grace! If it were,then the finished work of Christ at Calvary would be made non-effect!



Thanks for the advice, but I'll stick with Scripture and Spirit.
With them I have not so far had to add a dispensation.


----------



## JB0704

Bama4me said:


> "Unless one is born of the WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:5).



Not to take sides (because I honestly don't know which way to believe on this), but, growing up in a baptist Church, this scripture was taught as if the water was the physical birth and the spirit was the spiritual birth.  Is your position that the water is an actual baptism?  I only ask because this is the first I had considered it from this angle.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> Is your position that the water is an actual baptism?



The traditional position is that "born of water" is water baptism, not physical birth.


----------



## Bama4me

win270wsm said:


> Bama4me,let me ask you this question...Do  the words written in red hold more meaning or are they more important than the words that are not?



When Jesus said "unless" or "except", that means that there are not going to be any exceptions to that idea in the rest of New Testament Scripture.  Forget the idea of "who was He talking to" in John 3:5, because He is on record in Matthew 28:19 as saying, "go into all the world and baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."  That command wasn't just "go to the Jews in the world."


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> The traditional position is that "born of water" is water baptism, not physical birth.




Traditional?  All the Baptists I heard claim it was physical birth.  I am not saying they were right, just that it is how I have heard many, many preachers explain it.  Y'all know I am not one to put a lot of stock there, just pointing out the other angle. 

Before this thread I was completely a baptism is a "first step as a believer" believer.  The other side definitely has me looking at it all again.  Good thread.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> All the Baptists I heard claim it was physical birth.  I am not saying they were right, just that it is how I have heard many, many preachers explain it.  Y'all know I am not one to put a lot of stock there, just pointing out the other angle.



I am very familiar with the "other angle".  I grew up Baptist, and that's all I heard as well.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> I am very familiar with the "other angle".  I grew up Baptist, and that's all I heard as well.




I am glad you are familiar with both sides.  What convinced you your Baptist upbringing was incorrect on this issue?  The reason I ask is because you would know how ingrained the interpretation of that one scripture is within that denomination.  I am not a Baptist anymore.  I think this is the first time I have ever really given baptism as part of the salvation process a second look though.

I always responded with the thief on the cross.


----------



## Bama4me

JB0704 said:


> Not to take sides (because I honestly don't know which way to believe on this), but, growing up in a baptist Church, this scripture was taught as if the water was the physical birth and the spirit was the spiritual birth.  Is your position that the water is an actual baptism?  I only ask because this is the first I had considered it from this angle.



Ask yourself this question... what reason would Christ have had to remind Nicodemas that a person had to have been physically born to enter the kingdom of heaven?  It has always been interesting to me that right after Jesus' conversation with Nicodemas, John 4:1-2 indicates Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.

When people are tied to religious tradition that excludes water baptism as essential to salvation, they have got to find an alternative meaning to John 3:3/3:5... because it is very convicting.  Sorry to say it in those ways... but I have heard MANY attempts over the years to try to pin alternative meanings to passages like:
*  "Unless one is born of water/Spirit" (John 3:5)
*  "Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16)
*  "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)
*  "We were buried with Christ in baptism" (Romans 6:4)
*  "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38)
*  "As many as have been baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27)

At some point, the attempts start bordering on the state of ridiculous.  I understand how many can miss several ideas in Scripture... but IMO it takes a lot of creativity to miss the picture of baptism the New Testament paints.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> What convinced you your Baptist upbringing was incorrect on this issue?



A lot of reading, particularly in the areas of church history and the ante-Nicene fathers.


----------



## JB0704

Bama4me said:


> Ask yourself this question... what reason would Christ have had to remind Nicodemas that a person had to have been physically born to enter the kingdom of heaven?  It has always been interesting to me that right after Jesus' conversation with Nicodemas, John 4:1-2 indicates Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.



I guess the reason for that interpretation would be that Nicodemus asks if he has to enter the womb the second time.  Then he would be born of water.  I don't know.  Like I said previously, I am not sure where I stand on this one.  

Not to sound "wishy-washy," but I have never really given any honest consideration to this position, so I have no set opinion on the subject.

This is why I asked a few pages back if somebody got baptized as a "first step" would it be a real baptism.  Because that was the context of mine and my son's baptism.  Y'all got me to thinking......


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> A lot of reading, particularly in the areas of church history and the ante-Nicene fathers.



I believe you said you are Orthodox, which I assume means that you put a lot of weight on Church history.  So would that indicate that the history of the church adds context to your interpretation?  I hope you understand that I am not setting any "traps" here, and am asking you these questions honestly.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> So would that indicate that the history of the church adds context to your interpretation.



Absolutely.




JB0704 said:


> I hope you understand that I am not setting any "traps" here, and am asking you these questions honestly.



I understand.


----------



## centerpin fan

win270wsm said:


> Its easier for you to go through that site than it is for me to explain.



From their doctrinal statement:


_Baptism

All saved persons have been made members of the Body of Christ by one divine baptism (I Cor. 12:13).  By this one baptism, every member of the Body of Christ is identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.  In light of the statement concerning the one baptism in Ephesians 4:5, the statements concerning baptism in Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:3,4, and Paul’s statement in I Corinthians 1:17 that “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” we affirm that water baptism has no place in God’s spiritual program for the Body of Christ in this Dispensation of Grace_

http://www.bereanbibleinstitute.org/What We Believe.html


I've heard a lot of interesting ideas on baptism over the years, but this is the first time I've ever heard this.


----------



## Bama4me

All I can say to that CF is "wow".  One of the things that I have noticed in the baptism discussions is that being saved by grace makes baptism void.  Made me go back in the New Testament to see if there are any links between the two.

The first I found was the Corinthians in Acts 18-19.  In 18:8, we read that many Corinthians "hearing Paul believed and were baptized."  In the next chapter, when Apollos went to Achaia (Corinth), "he greatly helped those who through grace believed."  

The second I found was the Roman letter.  Romans 5:2 claimed the brethren had obtained "access by faith into this grace."  A chapter later, in 6:4, we read they had been "baptized into Christ Jesus."

The third I found was in Galatians.  In 1:6, we learn the Galatians were "called in the grace of Christ."  In 3:27, we read they had been "baptized into Christ."

The fourth I found was 1 Peter.  According to implication of 1:10, these brethren possessed God's grace.  In 3:21, we read "baptism saves you."

I don't know how anyone can look at this evidence and conclude that grace somehow nullifies baptism... and it certainly cannot be argued that baptism nullifies grace.  Can it be that many people misunderstand grace and/or baptism... since Scripture clearly links the two together?


----------



## The Foreigner

Good observations Bama4me. How can two aspects of God's work in salvation (baptism and grace) be set in odds with each other.

The nicodemus incident is interesting: the water and spirit produces much debate - but if you go back to the prophecy of Ezekiel (something Nicodemus should have understood being "THE" teacher of Israel) we see that the Lord promises cleansing and his Spirit as part of his new covenant. Ez 36:25 "I will sprinkle clean water on you and you shall be clean from all uncleanness" - a picture of baptism in the new cov; and also Ez 36:27 and all of Ez 37 point to the need to be reborn by the Spirit. Indeed Ex 37 speaks of the human state as dead dry bones that do not have life.  And so Christ was teaching Nicodemus et al in language he would have understood - strike that - "should" have understood, as he clearly didn't.

Peace.


----------



## Ronnie T

Bama4me said:


> All I can say to that CF is "wow".  One of the things that I have noticed in the baptism discussions is that being saved by grace makes baptism void.  Made me go back in the New Testament to see if there are any links between the two.
> 
> The first I found was the Corinthians in Acts 18-19.  In 18:8, we read that many Corinthians "hearing Paul believed and were baptized."  In the next chapter, when Apollos went to Achaia (Corinth), "he greatly helped those who through grace believed."
> 
> The second I found was the Roman letter.  Romans 5:2 claimed the brethren had obtained "access by faith into this grace."  A chapter later, in 6:4, we read they had been "baptized into Christ Jesus."
> 
> The third I found was in Galatians.  In 1:6, we learn the Galatians were "called in the grace of Christ."  In 3:27, we read they had been "baptized into Christ."
> 
> The fourth I found was 1 Peter.  According to implication of 1:10, these brethren possessed God's grace.  In 3:21, we read "baptism saves you."
> 
> I don't know how anyone can look at this evidence and conclude that grace somehow nullifies baptism... and it certainly cannot be argued that baptism nullifies grace.  Can it be that many people misunderstand grace and/or baptism... since Scripture clearly links the two together?




Yes, I fear that many cannot say baptism and grace in the same sentence.  But as you say, they aren't contradictory.


----------



## Ronnie T

While traveling out of town this morning I passed a church building who's marque had the following statement:

"Repent and be converted for
the forgiveness of your sins."

I don't believe I've ever come accross that verse.
And why did that church feel the need to lie!!!!!!
Why change what the Gospel says?
Is that not apostacy?  Or am I a Bible thumping overreactor?


----------



## The Foreigner

Ronnie T

What kind of church was it? That might be informative in terms of their theology of baptism / conversion.


----------



## win270wsm

The word baptize or baptism means to be identified with or placed into. Most, always assume that it has to do with water.
I'm sorry if any of you do not agree with my beliefs. The OP asked a question and I answered to the best of my knowledge.I know that everyone will not see eye to eye over doctrinal truth but,My honest opinion shouldn't be met with "your wrong sir"! I grew up in a Pentecostal church only to become a member of a Baptist church when I was older.Only to find that the Holy Bible didn't make sense to me the way it should have. Not trying to argue or debate with any of you.But, I have my opinions and you have yours. I just wish that you all would keep an open mind instead of trying to "prove I'm wrong"!Remember...there is a difference between what you were brought up(taught) believing and the Holy Scriptures the way God intended!


----------



## win270wsm

centerpin fan said:


> So ... if a person becomes a Christian (and receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit as in Eph 4:5)  and comes to you and says, "OK, when do I get baptized in water," you would say, "Water baptism is for the Jews, not Christians.  There is no need for you to be baptized in water."
> 
> Am I understanding that correctly?


No need for water baptism! ok how is salvation achieved?
Some scriptures say repent and be baptized,some say believe,confess with thy mouth,and some say just believe. which one is correct?


----------



## centerpin fan

win270wsm said:


> No need for water baptism! ok how is salvation achieved?
> Some scriptures say repent and be baptized,some say believe,confess with thy mouth,and some say just believe. which one is correct?



I completely understand that not everyone agrees on the purpose of baptism.  That is obvious from the multiple baptism threads.

Since I had never heard that teaching before, I actually read quite a bit on the site to try to understand what they were saying.  I obviously disagree with their position.

Is there any article on the site that explains why Peter baptized Gentiles in water in Acts 10:46-48?


----------



## JB0704

CP, everything I have ever read or heard (my church history  ) on post resurrection Baptism was to demonstrate following Jesus, as he was baptized in water, and obedience.  

I guess, looking back, that might have been an "implicit" case I had not yet noticed, and I try to avoid banking on them.


----------



## Bama4me

win270wsm said:


> The word baptize or baptism means to be identified with or placed into. Most, always assume that it has to do with water.
> I'm sorry if any of you do not agree with my beliefs. The OP asked a question and I answered to the best of my knowledge.I know that everyone will not see eye to eye over doctrinal truth but,My honest opinion shouldn't be met with "your wrong sir"! I grew up in a Pentecostal church only to become a member of a Baptist church when I was older.Only to find that the Holy Bible didn't make sense to me the way it should have. Not trying to argue or debate with any of you.But, I have my opinions and you have yours. I just wish that you all would keep an open mind instead of trying to "prove I'm wrong"!Remember...there is a difference between what you were brought up(taught) believing and the Holy Scriptures the way God intended!



Several things here... first, show me a source where the Bible clearly says baptism means what you claim.  There is no Greek lexicon or collection of NT passages that I know of that agrees with your definition.  Second, there's a reason why people connect baptism with water... because the Bible connects them.  

Third, regarding "keeping an open mind," the Bible says we should not keep "an open mind" when people teach things that are not found in God's word... 2 John 9-11 is extremely clear about that subject.  Finally, you seem to believe others automatically believe what they came up believing.  Respectfully, you're assumption doesn't apply to me... I believe what I believe because God's word is what guides me... not a church, preacher, etc.


----------



## Bama4me

JB0704 said:


> CP, everything I have ever read or heard (my church history  ) on post resurrection Baptism was to demonstrate following Jesus, as he was baptized in water, and obedience.
> 
> I guess, looking back, that might have been an "implicit" case I had not yet noticed, and I try to avoid banking on them.



Just a question... have you ever searched through the NT at every time the subject of baptism is mentioned?  I am thinking your curiosity might become greater.


----------



## Ronnie T

win270wsm said:


> No need for water baptism! ok how is salvation achieved?
> Some scriptures say repent and be baptized,some say believe,confess with thy mouth,and some say just believe. which one is correct?



All of them.


----------



## hummerpoo

> Just a question... have you ever searched through the NT at every time the subject of baptism is mentioned?  I am thinking your curiosity might become greater.



JB, I can save you the trouble if like, just PM me.  When this thread started I built a word doc of all of them, with immediate context.


----------



## JB0704

Bama4me said:


> Just a question... have you ever searched through the NT at every time the subject of baptism is mentioned?  I am thinking your curiosity might become greater.




Honestly, I have not.  I will now, though.  The last thing I honestly searched on was church structure, how the modern church compares to the early church.  However, I try to avoid reading commentaries.  My problem there is that everybody approaches the Bible with a bias.  I do it too. 

I'll look into it.


----------



## gemcgrew

I read this today and thought of this thread.


"A friend wrote to me the other day asking, "Where is a single verse to be found in the Bible that forbids the baptism of infants?" Immediately, I thought of a local fiasco in which men and women had their pets "baptized" at a special service held at one of the local "churches" called "a pet dedication service." So I wrote to my friend, "The baptism of infants is forbidden in the verse just below the one that forbids animal baptism!" Once men and churches allow the practice of anything not expressly forbidden in the Scriptures, there is no end to the inventions they will make and incorporate into the worship of God. It takes no more than a visit to a Roman Catholic or Episcopal Church to confirm that fact. The basis of our faith and practice is not what the Bible does not say, but what it does say. It is as much a denial of the authority of Holy Scripture to introduce non-biblical practices into the worship of God as it is to openly deny the Scriptures (Rev. 22:18-19). Baptism (immersion) is to be administered to believers only (not believers and their children) for these two reasons:The Scriptures forbid the baptism of any who are not believers (Acts 8:36-37). All who were baptized in the New Testament were immersed as a personal profession of faith in Christ and identification with him, his people, and his gospel (Rom. 6:4-6). There is absolutely no evidence in the Word of God that John the Baptist, our Lord Jesus Christ, or any of his disciples ever baptized any children. And baptism was always performed where there was plenty of water, by immersion. Baptism is a burial, or immersion; and it takes a lot of water to bury an adult."


----------



## centerpin fan

gemcgrew said:


> The basis of our faith and practice is not what the Bible does not say, but what it does say.



I would just add that, over the centuries, there has been as much mischief made of what the Bible _does_ say as there has for what it _does not _say.


----------



## mtnwoman

I was raised and still am a baptist....baptist as in baptism....I've never heard that born of water was original birth from your mama. Even other members of my family, (nondenominational) thought we should be baptized.

Buried with Christ, (dunk), up outta the water, resurrected with Christ unto a new life. The old man washed away and we are a new man. We still ain't gonna be perfect...just professing that we've received Christ as our Saviour. Just like communion, we aren't really drinking blood nor eating flesh, it's symbolic.

Besides I've never heard anybody refuse to be baptized.
I have heard quite a few say they are saved because they have been baptized or sprinkled....so there ya go. You are not saved just because you're baptized and I suspect not being baptized is not salvation rendering.  But I'm good either way. No saved person I know of has not been baptized nor refused baptism.

Maybe this is a mute point....do any of you know anyone who is saved refusing baptism?
Do you know of anyone who has been sprinkled or baptized believe they are saved because of it?
How about y'all?

Round 2 ding ding...lol


----------



## hawglips

win270wsm said:


> So in essence no Paul did not believe in the water baptism that many hold to today! this is why he states there is only 1 baptism (baptism of the holy spirit at the time of salvation) that is recorded in Ephesians 4:5.



Methinks you are misunderstanding Paul.

Paul did believe in water baptism -- he was baptized himself, for example -- and in Ephesians he was trying to correct the errant thinking of those who were baptized by a certain individual and differentiated themselves from each other accordingly.   His point was that there is only the baptism -- Christ's -- not a baptism of Paul or Titus or Apollos or anyone else who actually baptized them.

Baptism is a commandment, and has always been an outward sign of our inward conversion to Christ.  In and of itself, it's meaningless.  But necessary nonetheless.  If we intentionally disobey that commandment, then by our willful refusal to obey, we have demonstrated that our conversion is incomplete, and that our faith in Christ is subordinate to our inner pride.  And therefore our eternal soul is in peril.


----------



## hawglips

mtnwoman said:


> No saved person I know of has not been baptized nor refused baptism.



There you go.


----------



## thedeacon

hawglips said:


> Methinks you are misunderstanding Paul.
> 
> Paul did believe in water baptism -- he was baptized himself, for example -- and in Ephesians he was trying to correct the errant thinking of those who were baptized by a certain individual and differentiated themselves from each other accordingly.   His point was that there is only the baptism -- Christ's -- not a baptism of Paul or Titus or Apollos or anyone else who actually baptized them.
> 
> Baptism is a commandment, and has always been an outward sign of our inward conversion to Christ.  In and of itself, it's meaningless.  But necessary nonetheless.  If we intentionally disobey that commandment, then by our willful refusal to obey, we have demonstrated that our conversion is incomplete, and that our faith in Christ is subordinate to our inner pride.  And therefore our eternal soul is in peril.




Very well put.


----------



## Big7

*One more time.*

One more time.

Scroll on down to IX. Baptism.

Rest of it might help too.

Go look HERE: 

http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-XVI-Last

Have fun with this one .... again.


----------



## Big7

centerpin fan said:


> We are at odds.  Just read some of the other baptism threads.


_
There you go!_

Listen up folks..

Off topic a little but...  The Baptist deal on OSAS
is that if you are "saved" you can not lose your salvation..

That has led a many to the "wide gates". That's another thread. I know.


----------



## proudfather2

Ronnie T said:


> A lot of people, like me, might misunderstand a Christian making the above statement on that subject or any other subject spoken and proclaimed by Jesus Christ.
> 
> (Not to get into the subject again)



Well I think if you read his WHOLE post and not just pick that one line you would understand and was it not Jesus that told the thief on the cross that " today you will be with me in paradise". Luke 23:43.


----------



## Big7

centerpin fan said:


> Yeah, make a joke about Bible versions!



I'll get in on that one._ Versions_
 Just to be clear.. Not verses, but I can do that too...


----------



## hawglips

proudfather2 said:


> ...was it not Jesus that told the thief on the cross that " today you will be with me in paradise". Luke 23:43.



I think we have to be careful about what we assume.  We don't know anything about the thief other than what is written about him in a few verses.  

And since we know that Jesus did not return to the Father that day, if the thief was with Jesus, then we know the thief didn't go to the Father either.  So, it begs the question, where and what is paradise (in the context that Jesus used)?


----------



## SkeeterEater

I Baptised my cat


----------



## mtnwoman

SkeeterEater said:


> I Baptised my cat



Poor kitty ;(


----------

