Baptism: How necessary is it?

[stvdv]

1. It is not my position that it is essential for Christians to be baptized. It is my position that baptism is part of becoming a Christian in the first place. Acts 11:26 disciples of Jesus were baptized immediately & these disciples were the ones called Christians.

Your verse is not very clear to me about baptism, so I googled and found these verses; much more clear to me. Seems from these verses you are right it's good to be baptized "For Christians"
List of Passages on Baptism in the Book of Acts

2. I disagree with
For those who believe Baptism to be essential, Baptism is essential
For those who believe Baptism not to be essential, Baptism is not essential

I am not a Christian, so I agree to disagree with you on this one

From a Biblical stand point, there's no option to decide for oneself whether or not it's essential. God is the one who makes that decision. If someone decides it's not essential because they don't care for these benefits, that's another matter.

I disagree with this:
There are many verses one can find to prove "To baptize or not to baptize"
As there are also many verses to prove "To be vegan or not to be vegan"
Makes sense to me, because I believe God "loves unconditional"
So there is quite some leniency from God's side
There seems to be less leniency from human's side

For me no need to go into more detail here. You are happy with your choice and I am happy with my choice.
So I agree to disagree on those few little details. Plenty of others we agree on, I rather focus on those.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I asked a Rabbi if their mikveh was merely a commemoration of the conversion to Judaism or part of the conversion itself, and he said very emphatically it's part of the conversion itself. I don't know of any literature, history, or any Jewish authority who would say it's just an identification. I don't know where anybody actually gets this idea.

This much is definitely not the purpose of baptism. ALL talk that it's a public identification with Jesus has always only been commentator driven. There has never been any Scripture using the word identification or any other synonym in the Bible given as an instruction, command, or description of anyone's baptism. Whenever anyone has tried to use a scripture to justify this idea, they always have to insert the word "identify" themselves. But it's not Biblical.

I'm glad you asked one rabbi their opinion. I'm a Jew, and the last thing a Gentile does in conversion is renounce any Gentile gods, including Jesus, and affirm/avow that only Yahweh is God, thus IDENTIFYING with Israel's God/and that Israel has One God only, then they can have that mikvah.

John's baptism and Jesus's had similar purposes, to wit:

· Why was Jesus Christ baptized in the Jordan?

o Baptism means “identification with, immersion within”

o Baptism began as a Jewish ritual

o Even today, the final step of commitment for a Gentile convert to Judaism is a baptism

o The convert must first renounce all gods but the God of Israel

· What is Christian baptism?

o Jewish baptism is one’s personal identification/testimony of the God of Israel

o Christian baptism is one’s personal identification/testimony that Jesus Christ is truly God

· What about John’s baptism of Jesus?

o John’s baptism identified people with repentance

o The Pharisees, who baptized their Gentile converts, would have been astonished to hear they didn’t deserve John’s baptism, being unrepentant

· Jesus said John’s baptism on Him would “fulfill all righteousness”

o Jesus’s baptism shows His identification as the true God, and as utterly righteous

o It identifies the triune God, present as Father, Spirit and Son at the Jordan

o It shows approval of John’s ministry

o It shows He would take on the sin of all of us in the world

o It shows He brings repentance to others

o John was of the Levite/priestly family, a priest must prepare each sacrifice

 

[e.r.m.]

Your verse is not very clear to me about baptism, so I googled and found these verses; much more clear to me. Seems from these verses you are right it's good to be baptized "For Christians"
List of Passages on Baptism in the Book of Acts

My position more clearly is that baptism is to be saved. If a person is already saved they don't need to be baptized again, as they would have already been baptized. I believe In general the term Christian baptism refers to the idea that a person is saved and then they get baptized, for which there is no biblical support.

I am not a Christian, so I agree to disagree with you on this one

Ok.

I disagree with this:
There are many verses one can find to prove "To baptize or not to baptize"
As there are also many verses to prove "To be vegan or not to be vegan"
Makes sense to me, because I believe God "loves unconditional"
So there is quite some leniency from God's side. There seems to be less leniency from human's side

in order to see this leniency that you're talking about, one has to read into the passages things that they don't say for themselves. Do you not think God also loves those who never be saved? We can't assume that passages like that mean whatever we want them to mean. Unless there's a passage that says a person has the option to be saved with or without baptism, you have no reason to believe that God thinks this way. It's Gis Word. And since it's God who put baptism fourth as a means of getting saved, why would you or anyone wish to resist that?

For me no need to go into more detail here. You are happy with your choice and I am happy with my choice.
So I agree to disagree on those few little details. Plenty of others we agree on, I rather focus on those.

Ok.

 

[stvdv]

Unless there's a passage that says a person has the option to be saved with or without baptism, you have no reason to believe that God thinks this way

I would be surprised if I could not find such a passage in the whole Bible. But for now take your word on it. If I find, I will let you know (Deo Volente)

And since it's God who put baptism fourth as a means of getting saved, why would you or anyone wish to resist that?

We better be very specific here. God, as written in the Bible. I studied Hinduism, there is no baptism required. Obviously I need no baptism.

Note: I do not say that you don't need baptism. You decide for yourself to follow what is written in the Bible. I do not belittle this, nor do I claim that you won't reach your goal (whatever that is ... being with God or Jesus). I would even suggest "you better get baptized", because you showed me these verses. This I call respecting the other's faith. No judgment and no belittling at all. I do not believe my faith is better than yours. But also not less than yours. Again "100% respecting your faith".

 

[e.r.m.]

BilliardsBall,
I'm at work, will have to respond later.

 

[e.r.m.]

I would be surprised if I could not find such a passage in the whole Bible. But for now take your word on it. If I find, I will let you know (Deo Volente)

Ok. If you do, remember to look after Jesus's resurrection, when baptism in Jesus's name started.

We better be very specific here. God, as written in the Bible.

Fair enough.

I studied Hinduism, there is no baptism required. Obviously I need no baptism.

Note: I do not say that you don't need baptism. You decide for yourself to follow what is written in the Bible. I do not belittle this, nor do I claim that you won't reach your goal (whatever that is ... being with God or Jesus). I would even suggest "you better get baptized", because you showed me these verses. This I call respecting the other's faith. No judgment and no belittling at all. I do not believe my faith is better than yours. But also not less than yours. Again "100% respecting your faith".

Thank you for the respect, right back at you. Do you identify as Hindu, or just studying for now?

 

[stvdv]

Ok. If you do, remember to look after Jesus's resurrection, when baptism in Jesus's name started.

Oh, you make it easy for me. I can start at Luke 24, correct? (skipping like 75%; the old testament). I remember Philippians has good verses.
Philippians 2: 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves
That one is already coming close ... being humble ... telling others how they should read their Bible is the opposite of "value others above yourself
So believing we know better for others how they should read and understand their Bible is like "skating on thin ice" IMHO

That is why I always say "I will never debate another on his faith ... that is between him and God ... personal ... like marriage ... better stay out of it"

Thank you for the respect, right back at you. Do you identify as Hindu, or just studying for now?

No, I do not identify as Hindu. I spend 10 years with my Master in India. He taught us "you can stick to your own religion, I don't want nor need you to change ... I will guide you to become better in your own religion" ... and I just love that kind of respect. I stayed 10 years in sheds, with 100 or 200 people of all different religions (Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Humanists, Atheists, ...) and we never had any debates on religion ... we shared with each other, not debated. Unity in diversity. Love was the key, not wanting to be right or even convince others that my religion was a bit better etc. Those were the best years of my life.

"Sanathana Dharma" is the name my Master used. Translating Sanskrit words easily loses some of it's significance. Especially when the West likes to put everything in a box to understand by the mind, whereas this concept goes beyond the mind ... into "no mind" to be experienced.

For example "Consciousness" is completely different in Advaita then it is in the West. It's like the difference between "0" and "1" in binary counting

Some keywords are Satya (truth), Dharma (righteousness), Shanti (peace), Prema (Divine Love) and Ahimsa (non violence).

So I am not studying as in "in search for a religion". I found my way ... because the sky is the limit in spiritual life ... I have still lots to practise

 

[e.r.m.]

Oh, you make it easy for me. I can start at Luke 24, correct? (skipping like 75%; the old testament). I remember Philippians has good verses.
Philippians 2: 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves
That one is already coming close ... being humble ... telling others how they should read their Bible is the opposite of "value others above yourself
So believing we know better for others how they should read and understand their Bible is like "skating on thin ice" IMHO

That is why I always say "I will never debate another on his faith ... that is between him and God ... personal ... like marriage ... better stay out of it"

This doesn't address whether one can choose to be saved with or wothout baptism, this addresses more the overall topic of whether there are absolute right or wrongs, or standards in the Bible. And whether it's adherents are given authority to teach or correct another adherent. If so, then it will be stated in the Bible. If instead, a walk with Christ is meant to be more Hindu-like where it is much more subjective as you describe and there is little to know standard by which to measure, then it will be stated in the Bible as well. Key word is "stated", not inferred.
Jesus said things like
John 12:47-50 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. [48] He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him-the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. [50] And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."

Jesus play loosely with God's words. Jesus's followers echoed the same attitude that God expressed things how He wanted them expressed.

2 Peter 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, [21] for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

This is the importance of finding out God's intent by what's written and not adapting it to fit our viewpoint. God is God and we are not. Of course one can ask "Well, if you and someone else disagree on God's intent based on what's written, what makes you think you got it right, and the other person has it wrong?" and that is a valid question. But my point is in this paragraph that both people agree that they are seeking what God is originally conveying, not whatever they want it to say. And that God's will is found in what's written in the Bible. This is why I say, in regards to the one another question, we can find out how God sees things by what's stated.

Moses was considered the humblest person on the face of the earth Numbers 12:3, yet he delivered the ten commandments and all sorts of laws and ordinances. Not sure if you can make a case from the Bible that humble means it's inappropriate to teach and correct others.
I am aware of a bunch of scriptures where one person teaching and correcting another how to read the Bible is not only accepted but encouraged. Of course they didn't use the term Bible,

Acts 18:25-26 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. [26] He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Acts 19:1-5 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.

Romans 15:14 I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another.

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

2 Timothy 4:2-3 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage---with great patience and careful instruction. [3] For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Titus 1:9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Titus 2:1 You, however, must teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine.

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

I could go on.

There's plenty of precedent here that if someone is believing or teaching something in contradiction or incomplete, including with baptism, than another has the authority to teach them more adequately. It may not line up with Hindu teaching, or your master's teaching in the next section, but it is the "Biblical" way.
The focus of the New Testament of course is not on baptism, but on Jesus. The things addressed here is only a piece of the message of Jesus. Whether you like or dislike the Bible's message is completely your choice of course, but it's good to accept or reject the Bible's message, all the amazing and difficult things about Jesus's message, for what it is.

No, I do not identify as Hindu. I spend 10 years with my Master in India. He taught us "you can stick to your own religion, I don't want nor need you to change ... I will guide you to become better in your own religion" ... and I just love that kind of respect. I stayed 10 years in sheds, with 100 or 200 people of all different religions (Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Humanists, Atheists, ...) and we never had any debates on religion ... we shared with each other, not debated. Unity in diversity. Love was the key, not wanting to be right or even convince others that my religion was a bit better etc. Those were the best years of my life.

"Sanathana Dharma" is the name my Master used. Translating Sanskrit words easily loses some of it's significance. Especially when the West likes to put everything in a box to understand by the mind, whereas this concept goes beyond the mind ... into "no mind" to be experienced.

For example "Consciousness" is completely different in Advaita then it is in the West. It's like the difference between "0" and "1" in binary counting

Some keywords are Satya (truth), Dharma (righteousness), Shanti (peace), Prema (Divine Love) and Ahimsa (non violence).

So I am not studying as in "in search for a religion". I found my way ... because the sky is the limit in spiritual life ... I have still lots to practise

Thank you for sharing with me some of Sanathana Dharma's teaching. I enjoy learning new things. I as well, have a lifetime of spiritual growth to do. I imagine there is a degree of variety within Hinduism. I know almost next to nothing about their RigVidas and other Vidas, forgive me please if I mispell them.

 

[e.r.m.]

I'm glad you asked one rabbi their opinion. I'm a Jew, and the last thing a Gentile does in conversion is renounce any Gentile gods, including Jesus, and affirm/avow that only Yahweh is God, thus IDENTIFYING with Israel's God/and that Israel has One God only, then they can have that mikvah.

John's baptism and Jesus's had similar purposes, to wit:

· Why was Jesus Christ baptized in the Jordan?

o Baptism means “identification with, immersion within”

o Baptism began as a Jewish ritual

o Even today, the final step of commitment for a Gentile convert to Judaism is a baptism

o The convert must first renounce all gods but the God of Israel

· What is Christian baptism?

o Jewish baptism is one’s personal identification/testimony of the God of Israel

I have heard that during the conversion to Judaism at some point one inevitably identifies with the God of Isreal. Not so much via the mikveh. I asked another Jew recently about this and he had never heard of the identifying aspect of the Mikvah. He had only heard of the cleansing aspect, which is well-known. I'd need more evidence that the identifying aspect is the consensus belief in Judaism.

o Christian baptism is one’s personal identification/testimony that Jesus Christ is truly God

Again, there's much "written" association after Jesus's resurrection between baptism and absolvement of sin, whether the term be forgiven, washed away, freed from, etc. There's no written verbiage or discussion about baptism being an identification with..., or any sort of testimony. In the New Testament, there's a lot of discussion on the topic of baptism, and baptism was a huge thing, yet if identification was the purpose for it they failed to mention it, even once. Even if there was an identifying aspect with the Mikvah, that part of it didn't carry over. Even if in the New Testament some people happen to find out about someone's conversion via their baptism, at the most it was incidental, "Hey, look at Onesimus over there getting baptized for the forgiveness of his sins, boy this Jesus thing is growing", but it was never the reason people got baptized.

What about John’s baptism of Jesus?

o John’s baptism identified people with repentance

o The Pharisees, who baptized their Gentile converts, would have been astonished to hear they didn’t deserve John’s baptism, being unrepentant

· Jesus said John’s baptism on Him would “fulfill all righteousness”

o Jesus’s baptism shows His identification as the true God, and as utterly righteous

o It identifies the triune God, present as Father, Spirit and Son at the Jordan

o It shows approval of John’s ministry

o It shows He would take on the sin of all of us in the world

o It shows He brings repentance to others

o John was of the Levite/priestly family, a priest must prepare each sacrifice

I have learned that when someone holds a belief, they tend to superimpose that belief over the wording of previous literature that don't use that wording.

The New Testament wording isn't "John’s baptism identified people with repentance"

You also have to show what His intent was, not just what might have incidentally resulted from His actions. Having John baptize Him to fulfill all righteousness is one of the most unexplained and difficult to decipher of all his actions. Jesus may have incidentally "shown" all those things you mentioned, but it doesn't explain "why" he did it.
If I may ask, are you a Jew who subscribes to evangelical Christianity, or do you subscribe to Judaism only? I will believe you if it's the latter. Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have heard that during the conversion to Judaism at some point one inevitably identifies with the God of Isreal. Not so much via the mikveh. I asked another Jew recently about this and he had never heard of the identifying aspect of the Mikvah. He had only heard of the cleansing aspect, which is well-known. I'd need more evidence that the identifying aspect is the consensus belief in Judaism.

Again, there's much "written" association after Jesus's resurrection between baptism and absolvement of sin, whether the term be forgiven, washed away, freed from, etc. There's no written verbiage or discussion about baptism being an identification with..., or any sort of testimony. In the New Testament, there's a lot of discussion on the topic of baptism, and baptism was a huge thing, yet if identification was the purpose for it they failed to mention it, even once. Even if there was an identifying aspect with the Mikvah, that part of it didn't carry over. Even if in the New Testament some people happen to find out about someone's conversion via their baptism, at the most it was incidental, "Hey, look at Onesimus over there getting baptized for the forgiveness of his sins, boy this Jesus thing is growing", but it was never the reason people got baptized.

I have learned that when someone holds a belief, they tend to superimpose that belief over the wording of previous literature that don't use that wording.

The New Testament wording isn't "John’s baptism identified people with repentance"

You also have to show what His intent was, not just what might have incidentally resulted from His actions. Having John baptize Him to fulfill all righteousness is one of the most unexplained and difficult to decipher of all his actions. Jesus may have incidentally "shown" all those things you mentioned, but it doesn't explain "why" he did it.
If I may ask, are you a Jew who subscribes to evangelical Christianity, or do you subscribe to Judaism only? I will believe you if it's the latter. Thank you.

Again, the last thing immediately before the mikveh, an avowal, is the renunciation of all other gods and an affirmation of the God of Israel. The second cannot happen in the absence of the first, as witnessed by a rabbi. What is that besides identification? A Catholic convert, for example, might say, "I've studied and adhered to all the precepts of Judaism as best I can, with all my heart, today, I affirm that Jesus is not God and that God is not a trinity, God is the monotheist God of Israel," identification with the God of Israel as truth.

And what is John asking people to do? Be baptized for repentance--baptism MUST have a witness, since one cannot baptize oneself, not even Jesus Christ. The witness hears "I do hereby repent", and Christian baptism is a witness hearing, "I do hereby proclaim the Father, Son and Spirit"--identification again.

Your claim that identification with God is incidental to baptism doesn't align with the Great Commission of Matthew 28--"Make disciples, immersing them in my Name... teaching them all I've taught you..."

Perhaps we can clarify if you'll tell me what you think baptism is, if not identification with God. One MUST identify the true God to have a Jewish conversion mikveh, and most Christian baptisms REQUIRE one to proclaim the trinity or Jesus as God before baptism, both are done in presence of witnesses.

I'm a Messianic Jew, thanks for asking.

 

[Muffled]

My first thought is "Yes very much needed for Christians; they still preach they are born in sin and are sinners. Then they need tons of water IMO"

I believe the water does nothing a Peter says but it is the sign of a good confession of faith in Jesus as Savior.

 

[Muffled]

We don't want our Christians brothers and sisters drowning! I do wonder if its benefit today is little more than carrying a rabbits foot round for good luck!

I believe for me it was a testimony before the church that I was saved. My salvation came seven years earlier but I had never testified of it before. So for me it was not a good luck charm.

 

[Muffled]

Strange verse. Easily to interpret "If I belief nothing is unclean of itself then to kill (in Gods name) is also not unclean"

(I did ask a preacher once "You condemned Boedhists/Muslims/etc just now. So you believe you can kill someone IF you use the Bible?". He said YES. This is a true story, it happened to me 2 years ago. So I told him "I never talk to you again". He tried for one year to talk to me, then he gave another talk on Islam and he changed 180 degrees. Not 1 bad word [I was even thinking "hey man I didn't mean you should go so soft on them"]).

I believe the definitive phrase is "by itself." The original intention and for all further intents it is God who decides what is clean or unclean and an action without God's approval is unclean in my book.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe the water does nothing a Peter says but it is the sign of a good confession of faith in Jesus as Savior.

Peter never says that. Only commentators say that.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe for me it was a testimony before the church that I was saved. My salvation came seven years earlier but I had never testified of it before. So for me it was not a good luck charm.

In the New Testament, the only announcement expected is preaching the word of God, acknowledging our faith in Christ if asked, and living the life. Matthew 10:32 never refers to a Christian coming out event. We just announce the most recent baptisms at each service, because a public testimony type of event that one has been saved is not expected in the Bible.

 

[stvdv]

My first thought is "Yes very much needed for Christians; they still preach they are born in sin and are sinners. Then they need tons of water IMO"

I believe the water does nothing a Peter says but it is the sign of a good confession of faith in Jesus as Savior.

In Holland, if people don't wake up (from being brainwashed by born in sin), they throw a bucket of water over his head, few drops is not sufficient.

 

[stvdv]

I believe the definitive phrase is "by itself." The original intention and for all further intents it is God who decides what is clean or unclean and an action without God's approval is unclean in my book.

Hypothetical Christian God is true

Exactly "God decides". Arrogant Christians (99% I meet) pretend to be God "talk as if they know what God thinks or approves of (by reading Bible)".
Bible calls this behavior Blasphemy (which should be punished by death). Just do what Bible says, don't pretend to know what God thinks.

Are you one of those Christians?

 

[stvdv]

So in Romans 14:14 , Paul writes: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean

Also in Titus1:15 Paul writes “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

Do you agree that, if this is true (it is the Bible after all), then this is Bible Proof that "none are born in sin"

 

[stvdv]

After Christ, the apostles including Peter and Paul, permitted the use of animal food forbidden by the Bible, except the eating of those animals which had been strangled, or which were sacrificed to idols, and of blood. They forbade fornication. Afterward, Paul even permitted the eating of strangled animals, those sacrificed to idols, and blood, and only maintained the prohibition of fornication. So in Romans 14:14 , Paul writes: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” Also in Titus1:15 Paul writes “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

To me it is quite a stretch to call something clean and just simple decide "now I can eat it".

Cutting pieces out of someone is clean ... when done by a doctor
Cutting pieces out of someone is debatable ... when done by a cannibal

So to me "nothing is unclean of itself" does not give permission to eat it.
To be more precise "nothing is unclean of itself" ... "humans are clean" ... "eat humans" is one step too far (especially when it's me ... skinny anyway)

 

[e.r.m.]

Hypothetical Christian God is true

Exactly "God decides". Arrogant Christians (99% I meet) pretend to be God "talk as if they know what God thinks or approves of (by reading Bible)".
Bible calls this behavior Blasphemy (which should be punished by death). Just do what Bible says, don't pretend to know what God thinks.

Are you one of those Christians?

Do you mean when someone refers to the Bible, "According to God's word this is not something he approves of"? Or do you mean someone who gets in people's faces and says things like "God is not happy with you right now!" ?