What say the scriptures?

exchemist said:

I should have thought baptism is, objectively, an example of a ritual: Definition of RITUAL

One does not need a scriptural reference to describe it as such.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. It can fit into our modern day thinking as a ritual. I'm just saying there's no evidence that this was their thinking on it. Baptism was just baptism. If someone backed a first century Christian against a wall, with a dictionary and a stern demeanor, they might get him/her to agree that baptism in Jesus's name can be defined as a ritual. But there's no evidence they went around thinking of it that way, like some groups do today. They never mentioned "the ritual of" baptism. Baptism was just "baptism".

In my congregation, a baptism is a very informal happy event. But I did attend a Christ Fellowship Church baptism once and they made it into a full blown ceremony, with all the bells and whistles. I think when people think of it as a ceremony, they turn it into one.

As for your last two statements, I find them strange. Can you offer an alternative explanation for the meaning of the words of Christ that I originally quoted to you? What did these instructions mean, in your opinion, if baptism was not part of the process of gaining new disciples?

Click to expand...

I'm not questioning that baptism was part of the process of gaining new disciples. I agree with that. If I understood you correctly, by "introducing new disciples", I saw it as a public proclamation, presenting a new disciple to the world event. Although that can happen as well at baptism, it's not listed as a purpose.

robocop (actually) said:

A little in the Bible. A lot elsewhere.

“What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf” (1 Cor. 15:29)?

Click to expand...

Inferring from an unclear scripture reference does not count as a written purpose. The best "bad" explanation I've found for this is that Paul was possibly referring to a non-Christian group nearby who were known to engage in this practice. There was a whole discussion about this sometime back, but the details have faded in my memory.
But without anything definitive, nothing can be built on top of this verse.

e.r.m. said:

Inferring from an unclear scripture reference does not count as a written purpose. The best "bad" explanation I've found for this is that Paul was possibly referring to a non-Christian group nearby who were known to engage in this practice. There was a whole discussion about this sometime back, but the details have faded in my memory.
But without anything definitive, nothing can be built on top of this verse.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if baptism for the dead is not found well in the Bible, but at least the members of my Church think it should make a lot of sense to everyone.

robocop (actually) said:

I'm sorry if baptism for the dead is not found well in the Bible, but at least the members of my Church think it should make a lot of sense to everyone.

Click to expand...

If they can discover it's meaning, then all power to them. That's a tough one.

e.r.m. said:

If they can discover it's meaning, then all power to them. That's a tough one.

Click to expand...

What's to discover? Vicarious baptism for those who didn't have the chance in Earth life, just like we are vicariously baptized in Christ's name so his atonement can apply to us.

robocop (actually) said:

What's to discover? Vicarious baptism for those who didn't have the chance in Earth life, just like we are vicariously baptized in Christ's name so his atonement can apply to us.

Click to expand...

What's to discover is why he said that because belief and baptism while alive is called for.
Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

e.r.m. said:

What's to discover is why he said that because belief and baptism while alive is called for.
Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Click to expand...

Baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) is often misunderstood by people to mean being baptized for a dead person. But in context Paul is arguing against those who denied the resurrection. Speaking of Jesus who (if there is no resurrection) is still dead and so whoever is baptized for Jesus is baptized for "the dead". But of course it's not true. Jesus rose from the dead and so baptism is not for "the dead" but the one who lives forevermore.

That's why Jesus is the "sure foundation" the "tried stone" and precious cornerstone. Jesus was once tested and "tried" and He overcame the grave. This is why anyone can have immortality by His name. He is the foundation of eternal life.

Whoever builds there house on the rock will stand the test and their house will survive forever because it has eternal foundations. Sand is symbolic of the temporal and whoever builds their house on the sand will see it fall.

e.r.m. said:

What's to discover is why he said that because belief and baptism while alive is called for.
Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Click to expand...

That verse is OK I think. It just means that people do most of their activity while alive, (we actually believe you can repent after death but that it's hard), but afterwards they get judged based on what they would have done had they had proper knowledge to decide from.

74x12 said:

Baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) is often misunderstood by people to mean being baptized for a dead person. But in context Paul is arguing against those who denied the resurrection. Speaking of Jesus who (if there is no resurrection) is still dead and so whoever is baptized for Jesus is baptized for "the dead". But of course it's not true. Jesus rose from the dead and so baptism is not for "the dead" but the one who lives forevermore.

That's why Jesus is the "sure foundation" the "tried stone" and precious cornerstone. Jesus was once tested and "tried" and He overcame the grave. This is why anyone can have immortality by His name. He is the foundation of eternal life.

Whoever builds there house on the rock will stand the test and their house will survive forever because it has eternal foundations. Sand is symbolic of the temporal and whoever builds their house on the sand will see it fall.

Click to expand...

Thank you.
& sorry, I've never heard of 'baptized for Jesus'.

e.r.m. said:

Thank you.
& sorry, I've never heard of 'baptized for Jesus'.

Click to expand...

I think Paul means as in for your faith in Jesus. If you had no faith in Jesus you wouldn't be baptized in his name.

74x12 said:

I think Paul means as in for your faith in Jesus. If you had no faith in Jesus you wouldn't be baptized in his name.

Click to expand...

Thank you and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I just think it's a lot to draw from that one verse unless you're also going to other sources, which I'd be open to seeing.

e.r.m. said:

Thank you and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I just think it's a lot to draw from that one verse unless you're also going to other sources, which I'd be open to seeing.

Click to expand...

That's a fair point. I agree. But, the context strongly implies that Paul is speaking of Jesus.

Just read 1 Corinthians 15:12-17. Here Paul points out that if there is no resurrection(as some people were saying) then Jesus didn't rise from the dead either.

So that brings us to verse 29 where Paul mentions people being "baptized for the dead". This to me means he is continuing his argument about Jesus' resurrection. Basically; why be baptized in Jesus name if Jesus is still dead? You would be baptized for a dead man. But since we know Jesus is risen; then baptism is not in vain.

I know that many modern translations agree with the Mormon interpretation. But, that doesn't mean they're correct. A literal translation like Young's Literal Translation doesn't agree or disagree with the Mormon interpretation. Basically it can be read either way. But, I believe the context is the best evidence that it is speaking about baptism for Jesus rather than baptism on behalf of dead people.

But, by all means study it out for yourself and see if you agree or not.

e.r.m. said:

The difference there would be in Acts 2 & in Acts 10, this outpouring came directly from Jesus. In Acts 8:17 it doesn't actually say outpouring but what they did receive, they received via the laying on of hands. Peter said in
Acts 11:15-16 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. [16] Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

Peter skipped over what happened in Acts 8:17 (and Peter was there) and went back to Pentecost as the last time he remembered the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. This is indicative that he saw the two differently.

No, the newness of life along with water baptism (in Jesus' name) does not occur independently of the gift of the Hily Spirit, it is given at baptism Acts 2:38 that being the Holy Spirit dwelling inside as in Romans 8:9.

Do you know of a scripturally viable alternative to the purpose of baptism in Jesus's name?, which is in water Acts 10:47-48.

Click to expand...

Ephesians 4:4-6. 'There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.'

The problem with making a distinction between the Holy Spirit given 'directly from Jesus' and 'by the laying on of hands' is that you create two different baptisms, or an A class and a B class of believer. This is not what Ephesians teaches us. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul teaches that there is only one baptism (a baptism in water and in the Spirit).

Jesus was not on earth to lay hands on the hundred and twenty on the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was shed forth (Acts 2:33) from the Father and Son . You might say that this was Jesus' 'laying on of hands'.

Thereafter, we have Peter and Paul 'laying on hands' that believers might receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 19:1-7 is a good example. It would be wrong to say that just because the Holy Spirit was received in this way that it was somehow second class, or not able to give new life.

Interestingly, the passage from Ephesians also ends with the words, 'One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.'

Why would it say 'in you all', if it was referring to only part of the body of Christ?

74x12 said:

So that brings us to verse 29 where Paul mentions people being "baptized for the dead". This to me means he is continuing his argument about Jesus' resurrection. Basically; why be baptized in Jesus name if Jesus is still dead? You would be baptized for a dead man. But since we know Jesus is risen; then baptism is not in vain.

Click to expand...

What makes you think this is speaking specifically about Jesus' resurrection? I would say that it's more likely to be speaking of the resurrection of all mankind. I mean why would anyone feel the need to be baptized "for Jesus"? Jesus had already been baptized. (Sometimes the most straightforward interpretation of the sentence is the most correct one. There's no need to complicate things.)

Katzpur said:

What makes you think this is speaking specifically about Jesus' resurrection? I would say that it's more likely to be speaking of the resurrection of all mankind. I mean why would anyone feel the need to be baptized "for Jesus"? Jesus had already been baptized. (Sometimes the most straightforward interpretation of the sentence is the most correct one. There's no need to complicate things.)

Click to expand...

I understand. But, you're baptized for Jesus as in for your faith in Jesus. Not as if Jesus needs baptism. I think that is what is meant.

If Jesus wasn't resurrected (as some people were saying) then baptism in Jesus name (Acts 2:38) is pointless because no one will be resurrected if Jesus wasn't. I believe this is the most straightforward interpretation due to the context. That's why I disagree with the Mormon interpretation of it.

74x12 said:

I understand. But, you're baptized for Jesus as in for your faith in Jesus. Not as if Jesus needs baptism. I think that is what is meant.

If Jesus wasn't resurrected (as some people were saying) then baptism in Jesus name (Acts 2:38) is pointless because no one will be resurrected if Jesus wasn't. I believe this is the most straightforward interpretation due to the context. That's why I disagree with the Mormon interpretation of it.

Click to expand...

We're clearly at an impasse, then.

e.r.m. said:

It says
"...the Holy Spirit came 'on' all who heard the message." not indwelling.

Doesn't say water baptism "for obedience". That's not a written purpose.

It's not "written" that they're saved.

No one besides God knows the state of his heart before he got baptized. Peter had said 'repent and be baptized' Acts 2:38 and he may not have repented.
No different than the scenario of someone saying the sinners prayer superficially.

Do you know of a scripturally viable alternative purpose for baptism in Jesus name?, which is in water.

Click to expand...

not obedience?
It seems it is a purpose as Peter 'commanded' they be baptized.
not to mention Jesus

I could see one 'obeying' the command as a fruit of salvation.

74x12 said:

I understand. But, you're baptized for Jesus as in for your faith in Jesus. Not as if Jesus needs baptism. I think that is what is meant.

If Jesus wasn't resurrected (as some people were saying) then baptism in Jesus name (Acts 2:38) is pointless because no one will be resurrected if Jesus wasn't. I believe this is the most straightforward interpretation due to the context. That's why I disagree with the Mormon interpretation of it.

Click to expand...

Jesus was partly baptized because he 'identified with sinners' not because he had sin

whirlingmerc said:

Jesus was partly baptized because he 'identified with sinners' not because he had sin

Click to expand...

Also an act of humility on His part.

74x12 said:

Also an act of humility on His part.

Click to expand...

In part yes.

The Holy Spirit is said to be a seal of salvation in Ephesians 1 and the Holy spirit came upon the Jewish church in Acts at Pentecost and came on the gentile Cornelius and came on the Samaritans at other times than water baptism.

I think it's a mistake to make water baptism a work essential for causing salvation, similar to the Galacian error of making a work of circumsccion necessary for salvation. It can be part of the fruit of obedience that follows salvation. For example Zachias promised to 'turn a new leaf' in giving back anything he overchanrged and Jesus said it was evidence that Salvation can into his house today. Not the root but can be part of the fruit