Baptism?

[Katzpur]

The BLOOD of Christ cleanses us of our sins, water can't do a thing. Eph. 1:7, 2:13, Col. 1:14, 20, and many more say this.

Joe,

None of the scriptures you have listed even mention baptism. They certainly don't say that "water can't do a thing." Obviously, without Christ's Atonement, baptism would be pretty pointless. But nowhere do the scriptures even alude to the idea that "water can't do a thing."

Water refers to being born as a baby, like when the water breaks, Spirit is the 2nd birth.

So, I guess that Jesus was born of water twice -- once when He was born to Mary and a second time when He was baptized by John. Why do you think John was called to baptize in the first place, if being born of water referred to being physically born? If being born of water is symbolic of "when the water breaks," what kind of baptisms was John performing?

The verse in Mark was directed to Jews at that particular time, i.e. the Baptism of John, remember, Jesus had not died yet!!!

Sorry, I don't get your point. Surely you're not saying that this gospel account was written while Jesus was still alive.

There are many more verses that say He that believeth and nothing more.

And there are still more that say otherwise. But if you're comfortable ignoring them, it's not my place to condemn you.

It appears to me as if your understanding of what baptism is all about and mine are poles apart. Why don't we start by explaining what we think baptism accomplishes in the first place. Would you mind going first?

Kathryn

 

[Scott1]

If we dont get baptised? It is not a requirement of salvation, but it is an act of obedience to God.

Ok... what does John 3:5 mean?

A person who doesn't change much or do much once they are saved will not have the same rewards as one who does serve the Lord in love.

Please explain the difference in "rewards" please.

Thanks,
Scott

 

[Scott1]

What exactly are you wanting an explanation of?

What does baptism do?
"the purpose is to cleanse you of your sins. An appeal to God for a clean conscience."
What if the person has not sinned?
"Romans 3:23, Scott. Don't be silly."

OK... now..... please answer the question... what if a person has not sinned?
When is the "cut-off" for ya.... age 2....4.....10....18?

When, in your faith, is a person old enough to understand the Gospel and be saved?

Yet you still believe that an infant needs to be baptized?

An infant does not NEED to be baptized... we ALL need to be baptized.

The problem with this is no one seems to retain any information .... I've already covered baptism about 10 times..... all of the quotes given about repentance and what not are super.... but I've stated numerous times that the Sacrament of Confirmation completes baptism and is only done by a "believer".

I'm not trying to convert or convince anyone here to baptise their children... I'd appreciate it if everyone would stop trying to "win" a debate... I'm trying to learn about what each of you believe and it seems everyone is more concerned with trying to prove me wrong than explain their own beliefs.

Just a thought....

 

[joeboonda]

Ok I will try to answer 2 people at once. John 3:5-6, ...except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. He provides the answer to the 5th verse with the 6th verse: what is born of flesh is flesh (a baby, born once), and that born of the Spirit is spirit (born again, of the Holy Spirit when you believe in Christ and the spirit regerates you into a new creation.

Note that many verses will say He that believeth HATH eternal life. Not will have or might have or once you get dunked, or do some other rituals or works, but at the moment one believes, Christ's righteousness is imparted unto them.

I believe in baptism as I said, a symbolic act of a believer, signifying their death, burial, and ressurection in Christ, as an outward profession of faith and an act of obedience toward God.

John the Baptist and the disciples Baptized Jews, before Christ died for our sins, it was a different type of baptism than a believer has on the other side of the cross. I know there is confusion about all that, but my main point, is that we are saved by Christ's redemtive work on the cross, by trusting in his death to pay for all the sins of all the world for all time, he paid it all by his one great sacrifice. It is through his blood that we were bought and cleansed. Make sense?

John, the rewards deal, is mentioned throughout the old testament, people who are saved, but their works are burnt up, and some who come out with gold, silver and precious stones. Jesus said lay up treasure in Heaven, there is the Judgement Seat of Christ where we will be judged for our works, for reward, yet some will suffer loss, yet still be saved. Do those sound familiar, or would you like the actual verses? Then there is the millenial kingdom, or thousand year reign of Christ as found in revelation, wherein we will rule and reign with him, I believe that what we do now will greatly affect our position in that kingdom and our rewards in Heaven. There are also 5 crowns spoken of that we can earn, a pastor's crown, a soul winners crown, a crown of righteousness, etc. So, yes there are rewards. In the end God wipes away all tears from our eyes, etc. and we have our new heaven and earth and it will all be cool

 

[Scott1]

Thanks Joe!

 

[Melody]

I want to thank you all -- Ryan for bringing up the subject and the rest for your opinions. When this thread started, I believed what I was taught by the various denominations I've attended which said that baptism was merely symbolic. Since I don't see the point in "symbolically" doing anything when God knows what is in my heart, I was not baptized when I became a Christian.

After reading the posts in this thread, praying and studying, I've come to believe that it is more than just symbolic. It is a requirement of salvation.

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16

Jesus didn't say "He who believes is saved". He said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." True, it is the believing that saves us, not the baptism...but it is the baptism that shows we have faith and are willing to submit to God's will.

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. 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.
John 12:48-49

By rejecting the second half "AND is baptized", are we not ignoring God's command?

But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
Luke 11:28

 

[joeboonda]

I hope you dont get hit by a car on the way to get Baptized, just kidding, lol. But what if? Would you not be saved, would you lose it? Oh my! Hey, I got Baptized and think its great, but not a requirement for salvation, but I agree to disagree, peace!

 

[Melody]

I hope you dont get hit by a car on the way to get Baptized, just kidding, lol. But what if? Would you not be saved, would you lose it? Oh my! Hey, I got Baptized and think its great, but not a requirement for salvation, but I agree to disagree, peace!

Joe,
God knows what is in my heart and I'm going to bank on His loving mercy that He knows I was trying to obey. If I keep putting it off....I don't know...but it's something I'm not going to test.

When I became I Christian, I agreed to submit to God's will. If I put off being baptized indefinitely now that I believe it is essential, I'm basically telling God, "yeah, I understand you said to do it but I'd do it in my time...not yours." That's not submitting to God's will.

 

[joeboonda]

Joe,
God knows what is in my heart and I'm going to bank on His loving mercy that He knows I was trying to obey. If I keep putting it off....I don't know...but it's something I'm not going to test.

When I became I Christian, I agreed to submit to God's will. If I put off being baptized indefinitely now that I believe it is essential, I'm basically telling God, "yeah, I understand you said to do it but I'd do it in my time...not yours." That's not submitting to God's will.

Yeah, it is the right thing to do, we want to obey the Lord in all things, and that is usually the first step. I accepted Christ when I was 8, and yes I knew what I was doing, and was scared to death of going to Hell. When I was 14, I moved, and the church I went to made sure I understood what it meant to accept Christ, and had me pray the sinner's prayer again, and I was baptized. I haven't been perfect, but I know I am forgiven and loved, because of what Jesus did for me, Praise God!

 

[true blood]

To be baptized in someone's name sets a person apart from the masses. When the children of Israel were baptized "in the cloud and in the sea", they were sanctified, separated out from the Egyptians and were identified in that baptism with Moses. The same pattern can be found today. When one is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, one is sanctified, separated out from the unbelievers who are not saved, making one a member of the Church, and one is then identified with Christ and all the authority His Name represents, just as Israel was identified with Moses. So it's seen that water baptism was indeed instituted by God, but only for Israel and the kingdom, and then only for a limited period of time.

Since the day of Pentecost every person who desires to be born again by God's Spirit must believe on Jesus Christ. At that moment he is given something far greater than the benefits of water baptism: righteousness, justification, sanctification and redemption. To be born again is to have Christ within; He is the hope of glory; He cleanses us from all sin. It's a spritual baptism.

Since that day of Pentecost, we are indeed free from the law; and part of that law was water baptism. According to Galatians 5:1, we are to "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage". Jesus Christ paid it all and we are now perfectly equipped in Him for His service, for we are baptized with holy spirit in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[joeboonda]

Yeah, that's good, like in corinthians 12:13 where it says: For by one SPIRITare we ALL baptised into one body...The Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ at the moment we believe, thats spiritual baptism of anyone the moment they trust Christ as Saviour.

Say, what is Duolos?

 

[Scott1]

Well said Melody... it's easy for some to look to Scripture and take comfort in a "spiritual" baptism... all it takes is the ability to ignore a few other verses.... Acts 8:17-18 for instance.

Peace be with you,
Scott

 

[true blood]

Well said Melody... it's easy for some to look to Scripture and take comfort in a "spiritual" baptism... all it takes is the ability to ignore a few other verses.... Acts 8:17-18 for instance.

Peace be with you,
Scott

Exactly. We either believe the many verses teaching the spiritual baptism and ignore the few verses that don't, or we ignore the many and adhere to the few. But it's like Jesus said " For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost". In other words, with the coming of the greater (holy spirit), the lesser (water) came to an end. This replacement was initiated on Pentecost. On Pentecost the replacement first applied. Galatians 3:27,28 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." This shows that the "baptism" changed from the old physical element of water, into a new spiritual element of holy spirit. Baptism is a washing, a cleaning. Christ has done the cleansing for us. "...and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" In the Old Testament, the outward cleansing of the flesh by washing or baptism was to symbolize spiritual cleanliness. Entrance into the tabernacle was conditioned by baptism which meant the cleansing of the flesh at the laver by merely dipping to indicate ceremonial washing or cleansing (Exodus 30:18-24). It is interesting that the laver of the tabernacle was not given dimensions or proportions but simply states what it was for. The fact that the details are missing regarding the laver emphasizes the fact that it was not an integral part of the completed structure and that something better would come to replace it. It was then the temple of Solomon replacing the tabernacle. Instead of having just one laver, this temple had instead the sea and the ten lavers, five on each side of the house (I Kings 7:23, 38, 39). The ten lavers were used to wash the offering and they were set on bases each having "four brasen wheels". The wheels indicate easy disposal. They could roll out of the way for something more important. Now, the temple of Ezekial, which is yet to come to pass in the future, the lavers and the sea will be removed and in their place, issuing from under the threshold of the house, will flow the river of living water (Ezekiel 47:1-5). Ezekiel's temple will not have water in containers, but a moving, living river, deepening as if flows (Ezekiel 47:3-5). Thus, in the course of God's plan we see that the lavers are all alike until finally lost in the river of living water. So...the laver of the tabernacle, the sea and the ten lavers of Solomon's temple, and the river of Ezekiel are all applicale to Israel. The first two under the Old Testament and the latter in the future when paradise is reestablished on earth. The question thus becomes: What about baptism in the period of time between the law and the new paradise, between the time of Solomon's temple and the river of Ezekiel? The only cleansing that can be done is by the blood of Christ, thus the spiritual baptism is in effect.

Joe, Doulos is a bonded servant of the Lord.

 

[Katzpur]

The problem with this is no one seems to retain any information .... I've already covered baptism about 10 times.

I'm not trying to convert or convince anyone here to baptise their children... I'd appreciate it if everyone would stop trying to "win" a debate... I'm trying to learn about what each of you believe and it seems everyone is more concerned with trying to prove me wrong than explain their own beliefs.

Hi, Scott.

I guess all I can say is that I sympathize with you. I know you're frustrated because it really must seem to you as if you keep explaining yourself and we're either not paying attention or just don't seem to be able to get it. But in all honesty, I feel the same way. I have tried to reason with you concerning infant baptism and I feel as if I'm just :banghead3 . I've gone over the same things time and time again, trying to convince joeboonda that baptism isn't optional! The result? More :banghead3 . She probably feels the same way. I think we're just in an infinite loop on this topic, so I'm going to exit the debate at this point. I know you would prefer that everyone stop trying to "win" a debate, but this is, after all, the debate forum. Debate is what it's all about over here and you know that as well as I do. Since I've stated my position (numerous times), I'm going to let it go for now. A month from now, there will be a whole new thread on the same subject anyway.

Kathryn

 

[Scott1]

Exactly. We either believe the many verses teaching the spiritual baptism and ignore the few verses that don't, or we ignore the many and adhere to the few.

Not "exactly" .... the frequency of verses should not be a major factor in determining doctrine.... it is quite unscholarly to think that Christians should "count verses" do determine what the Lord intended....

.... maybe we should not ignore any verses.... how's that sound?

This brings to light one of the major differences between Catholic and Protestant theology....Catholics have a "both-and" rather than the limited "either-or" philosophy. A complete faith should embrace both the physical and spiritual, just as we are both... and Christ became both.

The only cleansing that can be done is by the blood of Christ, thus the spiritual baptism is in effect.

I am not doubting spiritual baptism.... but the "mode" of said baptism.... and the Apostles most certainly used the physical means (water baptism) to effect the spiritual... this sacramental theology has been the foundation of Christianity from the begining.... and that brings to mind the old addage "if it aint broke...."

 

[Scott1]

I have tried to reason with you concerning infant baptism and I feel as if I'm just

What I'm saying is that yes... this is a debate forum.... but we should at least try to learn from each other.... and stop answering questions with the intent to prove another wrong... it limits the amount of effort that we (yes, me included) spend trying to teach each other about OUR beliefs.

I just want to understand why you believe what you do.... it's just a matter of learning why.... I don't think there is a right or wrong to infant baptism... that's the point.... I do believe all the points that you and Linus (among others) are quite valid.... but we "handle" these points with the Sacrament of Confirmation that "completes" baptism.... but I still trying to learn what is behind your neo-gnostic theology.

Thanks for the help,
Scott

 

[joeboonda]

I can get baptised as many times as I want, I can know every tadpole in the creek by name, but if I have not accepted the substitutionary death of Christ to pay for my sins, then it is all in vain. One must first believe, at that moment you are saved. Then as we are saved "unto good works", (not by them), we are baptised in obedience to the Lord. Now if you believe that salvation comes by something more than Christ's death, if you believe something additional and want to take away from his great sacrifice and make it mean less, and you want to say Christ plus the sacrements, or Christ plus good works, or Christ plus the church, or Christ plus baptism, or anything else, then I must disagree with you. PEACE

 

[Katzpur]

I'm still trying to learn what is behind your neo-gnostic theology.

Okay... you lost me. What's a neo-gnostic theology?

 

[Scott1]

Now if you believe that salvation comes by something more than Christ's death,

... but you do joe... I don't know why you can't see that.

Christ's sacrafice is not enough for you.... it is your acceptance of that sacrafice that saves you.

Okay... you lost me. What's a neo-gnostic theology?

Hehe... forget it... like I said in that other thread, I'm not having much luck communicating with LDS members... we'll just have to move on.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Joe, let's look at the first conversion: Acts 2

It began with a sermon that was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Peter helped them see that they were responsible for Jesus' death:

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" NIV

Now notice that they were truly convicted: "they were cut to the heart". Then they asked Peter what the next logical question; "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Now read the passage closely and note carefully the highlighted portion.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." NIV

You see, once you believe, you ask and then DO what God wants of you. Once you obey his simple request, you get the Holy Spirit. Not a gift FROM the Holy Spirit, but a gift OF the Holy Spirit. This was so different from John's baptism in that you recieved salvation as well as the Holy Spirit as a seal of that salvation.

Now, as an exercise, go and find a SINGLE example of conversion in the New Testament that does not include baptism. Just one, and that will convince me that baptism is "optional".