Baptism: is it required to be baptized in water?

[Prov910]

I think baptism is a great idea! In fact, I chose to be baptized as a symbol of my faith. But I believe my salvation comes from the grace of God whom I have faith in. As much as I like my minister, I just don't think my salvation comes from him because he dunked me in a tub of water. /jmho

So, you think it is a great idea....? How gracious of you to think that Jesus' command is a great idea... and you CHOSE to be baptized. What a sacrifice you have made....

And, how denigrating of you to call the process that our Lord and Savior commanded, being "dunked in a tub of water".

This cavalier attitude toward something Jesus thought was important enough to make a part of his last words to his disciples on earth is just disgusting to me.

Let me get this straight, you think I have a cavalier attitude and you are disgusted by my *description* of baptism. Yet you would have us insert the clergyman into a necessary role in one's salvation by virtue of him performing a brief baptism ceremony. Are you a minister perhaps? Apparently it doesn't bother you to take away sole credit from God for salvation. You are making some preacher who gets his trousers wet standing in the baptismal for a few minutes a necessary component. And yet you are disgusted by me and my cavalier attitude. Funny that. Funny and sad.

I assume you call taking communion "chowing down on some crackers and grape juice".

And why did you feel it necessary to insert this unrelated barb about communion? Is this how you interact with others in real life? If someone asks you a hard question or raises a point you don't like, you make up something about them to denigrate their position? Vitriol much do you? Perhaps you should adopt a kinder and gentler tone as you interact with others on this message board.

I've said my piece on this topic. Now you can take as many potshots as you want without me calling you to task. Good day sir.

 

[notuptome]

Your dog is barking up the wrong tree.

You have no such scripture. What you have is esoteric knowledge. This is rather clear by your own words, "The baptism that remits sin is the Holy Spirit baptism". If you believe John 1:33 teaches this than I suggest you tone down the esoteric and get back to sola scriptura, if you ever were there.

You have no interest in what the scripture teaches only what you have learned from your church dogmas. Water baptism cannot save because it is earthly.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[DJ2]

well you have been, there is no other way to interpret what you are saying. You may not like it. But that is the way it is.

If the HS had the power to baptise you into the death and burial and body of Christ. You would give God credit where credit is due, and Then you would not try to say it is done only by your pastor.

So the Holy Spirit baptized "you into the death and burial and body of Christ" and you know this for a fact? It seems your faith in this baptism actually happening is more powerful then the scriptures themselves. In other words, your salvation is based not on scripture but your feeling that the Holy Spirit at some point in your past "baptized" you. And this spirit baptism is the point of forgiveness of sins.

I suggest you stop and rethink this theory. You are drowning in a sea of self-induced esoteric knowledge. Baptism implies being immersed in water much like to bathe or to take a shower implies water. Whenever the word "baptism" is used it should not be assumed to mean in a metaphoric sense unless stated as such. Do you think the word used for baptism in the New Testament is not speaking normally of water? If so, this is at the core of your confusion. With only a few exceptions, baptism is immersion in water.

Acts 2:38, 1st Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16 are about "water immersion", you do know this?

 

[DJ2]

You have no interest in what the scripture teaches only what you have learned from your church dogmas. Water baptism cannot save because it is earthly.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


For the cause of Christ
Roger

Since I do not have any esoteric knowledge, I certainly do have a interest in the scriptures. You on the other hand are deep into the world of the esoteric.

1. "Water baptism cannot save because it is earthly."
2. The Holy Spirit baptism being the point of remission of sins.

Be honest, did God teach you this or did you learn it from the Bible?

 

[preston39]

Is there salvation for people, not baptized, who have faith and have received the Holy Spirit? Or are they lost because they haven't gone through the water baptism ceremony?

P....,

No.

The irony is that no one of record has ever drowned...so why the reluctance.

We must follow G-d's law.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So the Holy Spirit baptized "you into the death and burial and body of Christ" and you know this for a fact?

Thats what God said would happen, If I do nt have faith God will do this, how can I claim I have faiht in God. Don;t you remember, Faith is the substance of things HOPED FOR, in things NOT SEEN.

I understand why you want to place you faith in things seen, But this is not biblical.

It seems your faith in this baptism actually happening is more powerful then the scriptures themselves. In other words, your salvation is based not on scripture but your feeling that the Holy Spirit at some point in your past "baptized" you. And this spirit baptism is the point of forgiveness of sins.

Your wrong, so very wrong.

Scripture said I was baptised INTO the death of christ. It says I was baptised INTO himself. It says in col 2 I was circumcised by the HANDS OF GOD by being buried with him in baptism in the WORK OF GOD (two times it says this was done by God, not some pastor and water was NEVER mentioned) Not only this, It says I was washed NOT by works of righteousness whcih I have done (water baptism is a work of righteousness) But by HIS MERCY in th4e WASHING AND REGENERATION (cleansing and new birth) OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

So again, Your wrong

I suggest you stop and rethink this theory.

it is not a theory. It is fact. I suggest you stop listening to men, and take the word of God for what it says. Including the greek text. Because the english text has led y9ou astray.

You are drowning in a sea of self-induced esoteric knowledge. Baptism implies being immersed in water much like to bathe or to take a shower implies water. Whenever the word "baptism" is used it should not be assumed to mean in a metaphoric sense unless stated as such. Do you think the word used for baptism in the New Testament is not speaking normally of water? If so, this is at the core of your confusion. With only a few exceptions, baptism is immersion in water.

There is your first problem. The term baptism in the greek in the time of jesus did not have with it the implication of being immersed in water. You are being into a man made theory that every time you see the word baptism, it means immerse in water.

Lets see just one aspect of this theory to show you how ridiculous this sounds.

When we see the word baptised. It means immersed in water, that is your view.

So rom 6 says literally.. DO you not know you have been “baptised in water” in his dead, and “baptised in water” in his burial?

And in 1 cor 12, we were “Baptised in water” into christ.

This makes no sense whatsoever, because it is not true.

The means of baptism in romans 6 is the death and burial of christ. NOT WATER, and in 1 cor 12. It is Christ Not water.

but you will continue to twist the word to continue with your works based Gospel.. Thats on you my friend.

Acts 2:38, 1st Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16 are about "water immersion", you do know this?

Acts 2 says to be baptised BECAUSE you had recieved remission of sin, not in order to gain it (it can only be translated this way in the greek)

1 Peter says water baptism, LIKE the waters of the flood, are figures of what saves us, It does not remove sin, it is the answer of a good consciousness towards god.

Mark 16 at best says he who believes and is baptised (spiritually) is not condemned.

Twist the word of God all you want my friend, Thats on you!


Again, Faith is the substance of things HOPE FOR, the EVIDENCE of things NOT SEEN. Good luck in your so called faiht in things seen, I will continue to trust God and the things I can not see. Because it is HIS Hand doing the work.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

P....,

No.

The irony is that no one of record has ever drowned...so why the reluctance.

We must follow G-d's law.

amen, we must follow Gods commands.

But not to get saved, but BECAUSE we are saved.

 

[hornetguy]

There is your first problem. The term baptism in the greek in the time of jesus did not have with it the implication of being immersed in water. You are being into a man made theory that every time you see the word baptism, it means immerse in water.

That is categorically wrong.

In every context in the New Testament, the term "baptizo" (transliterated into baptize) means to be immersed in water.

The only exceptions are when the apostles go out of the norm to explain the fact that when we are baptized, we are also being "baptized" or immersed in the Holy Spirit.

The first century folks had no other concept of what that word meant... it meant to immerse in water, unless you were making pickles, or dying cloth. BOTH of which included immersing in a liquid.

When Peter told the Jews at Pentecost to repent and be baptized, they knew EXACTLY what he was talking about.... being immersed in water.

 

[hornetguy]

Let me get this straight, you think I have a cavalier attitude and you are disgusted by my *description* of baptism. Yet you would have us insert the clergyman into a necessary role in one's salvation by virtue of him performing a brief baptism ceremony. Are you a minister perhaps? Apparently it doesn't bother you to take away sole credit from God for salvation. You are making some preacher who gets his trousers wet standing in the baptismal for a few minutes a necessary component. And yet you are disgusted by me and my cavalier attitude. Funny that. Funny and sad.


And why did you feel it necessary to insert this unrelated barb about communion? Is this how you interact with others in real life? If someone asks you a hard question or raises a point you don't like, you make up something about them to denigrate their position? Vitriol much do you? Perhaps you should adopt a kinder and gentler tone as you interact with others on this message board.

I've said my piece on this topic. Now you can take as many potshots as you want without me calling you to task. Good day sir.

I didn't realize that responding to your approach to baptism was "taking shots" at you.

I apologize if you are offended. I thought we were simply having a vigorous discussion.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That is categorically wrong.

In every context in the New Testament, the term "baptizo" (transliterated into baptize) means to be immersed in water.

This is just plain wrong.

Baptism is translated as ceremonial washings according to jewish tradition. We have a baptism of the HS. We have jesus being baptised that he had to be baptised in (the cross) in which he said we would also participate in. We have baptism into moses. Non of those mean to be immersed in water.

The only exceptions are when the apostles go out of the norm to explain the fact that when we are baptized, we are also being "baptized" or immersed in the Holy Spirit.

So they go out of their way huh? We must not read the same bible.. I did not see them go out of their way, Peter mentions the baptism of people BEFORE he even commanded them to be baptised in water. So again. You are wrong.

The first century folks had no other concept of what that word meant... it meant to immerse in water, unless you were making pickles, or dying cloth. BOTH of which included immersing in a liquid.

Oh is this so? You need to study more, there is all kinds of greek literature which would have been popular in the first century which uses the word baptism, and very little of it had anything to do with water, In fact, a baptized was a person who baptized clothing garments to given them color as they immersed the garment in the dye which changed the fabric.


First century documents show baptism used in ways also to mean overwhelmed (you have to much on your plate) ceremonial allusions, To be flooded or immersed.

Jesus we are told will come with his robed dipped in blood using a derivative of the greek word baptism (bapto)

So I do not know what to tell you other than you should maybe study some more?

When Peter told the Jews at Pentecost to repent and be baptized, they knew EXACTLY what he was talking about.... being immersed in water.

Yep he did know what he was talking about. And he told all of them to repent, and if they did they would recieve The gift of the HS, and he told them to be bpatized on the fact they had recieved remission of sin.

Sorry, You can not get away from acts 2. it does not say what you claim it says, the english translation is flawed. Period.

 

[Metternich]

There are 3 types of baptism. Baptism of desire happens when after having been given the grace of faith but you die before you have a chance to be baptized in water. An exanple is the thief on the cross. Then there is water baptism. Finally there is baptism of blood. If you are martyred for Christ you receive baptism. The effect of all 3 is the same: the remission of sin.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There are 3 types of baptism. Baptism of desire happens when after having been given the grace of faith but you die before you have a chance to be baptized in water. An exanple is the thief on the cross. Then there is water baptism. Finally there is baptism of blood. If you are martyred for Christ you receive baptism. The effect of all 3 is the same: the remission of sin.

You forgot the baptism of the HS, and the baptism of fire, which John said shall never be quenched. Both of which John said would be a baptism of Jesus Christ. Unlike his baptism of water.

 

[preston39]

There are 3 types of baptism. Baptism of desire happens when after having been given the grace of faith but you die before you have a chance to be baptized in water. An exanple is the thief on the cross.

The thief may have already been baptized and had fallen away.


Then there is water baptism. Finally there is baptism of blood. If you are martyred for Christ you receive baptism. The effect of all 3 is the same: the remission of sin.

M...,

Having said that ......G-d can extend special dispensation to anyone at any time.

 

[hornetguy]

This is just plain wrong.

Baptism is translated as ceremonial washings according to jewish tradition. We have a baptism of the HS. We have jesus being baptised that he had to be baptised in (the cross) in which he said we would also participate in. We have baptism into moses. Non of those mean to be immersed in water.


So they go out of their way huh? We must not read the same bible.. I did not see them go out of their way, Peter mentions the baptism of people BEFORE he even commanded them to be baptised in water. So again. You are wrong.



Oh is this so? You need to study more, there is all kinds of greek literature which would have been popular in the first century which uses the word baptism, and very little of it had anything to do with water, In fact, a baptized was a person who baptized clothing garments to given them color as they immersed the garment in the dye which changed the fabric.


First century documents show baptism used in ways also to mean overwhelmed (you have to much on your plate) ceremonial allusions, To be flooded or immersed.

Jesus we are told will come with his robed dipped in blood using a derivative of the greek word baptism (bapto)

So I do not know what to tell you other than you should maybe study some more?



Yep he did know what he was talking about. And he told all of them to repent, and if they did they would recieve The gift of the HS, and he told them to be bpatized on the fact they had recieved remission of sin.

Sorry, You can not get away from acts 2. it does not say what you claim it says, the english translation is flawed. Period.

I assume reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Or, perhaps you were in such a hurry to disagree with me that you agreed with me in your answer without knowing.

What was said about John, Jesus' cousin? The whole geographical area had heard about John, and what he was doing....

Did everyone have to be taught, "hey, that prophet John is out there dunking people in the river.... they call it something new... it's called BAPTIZING" ? How silly.

Everyone of that time knew what "baptizo" meant. What they had NO concept of, was Jesus' statement that we would also be baptized with fire. How in the world do you immerse someone in fire?

When the apostles at Pentecost told the people to repent and be baptized, there was no responding outcry "BAPTIZED? What is THAT? You mean you are going to dip me in a vat of dye? Or, you are going to PICKLE me?"

Come on, you know better than that. Or, you should. You've never struck me as being particularly obtuse..

 

[DJ2]

This is just plain wrong.

Baptism is translated as ceremonial washings according to jewish tradition. We have a baptism of the HS. We have jesus being baptised that he had to be baptised in (the cross) in which he said we would also participate in. We have baptism into moses. Non of those mean to be immersed in water.


So they go out of their way huh? We must not read the same bible.. I did not see them go out of their way, Peter mentions the baptism of people BEFORE he even commanded them to be baptised in water. So again. You are wrong.



Oh is this so? You need to study more, there is all kinds of greek literature which would have been popular in the first century which uses the word baptism, and very little of it had anything to do with water, In fact, a baptized was a person who baptized clothing garments to given them color as they immersed the garment in the dye which changed the fabric.


First century documents show baptism used in ways also to mean overwhelmed (you have to much on your plate) ceremonial allusions, To be flooded or immersed.

Jesus we are told will come with his robed dipped in blood using a derivative of the greek word baptism (bapto)

So I do not know what to tell you other than you should maybe study some more?



Yep he did know what he was talking about. And he told all of them to repent, and if they did they would recieve The gift of the HS, and he told them to be bpatized on the fact they had recieved remission of sin.

Sorry, You can not get away from acts 2. it does not say what you claim it says, the english translation is flawed. Period.

the english translation is flawed. Period.

"the" english translation is flawed?? Which translation? All of them? Every English translation is flawed? What about the German, Spanish, French and Dutch they also don't translate it as "because of", so are all translations wrong?

 

[notuptome]

That is categorically wrong.

In every context in the New Testament, the term "baptizo" (transliterated into baptize) means to be immersed in water.

The only exceptions are when the apostles go out of the norm to explain the fact that when we are baptized, we are also being "baptized" or immersed in the Holy Spirit.

The first century folks had no other concept of what that word meant... it meant to immerse in water, unless you were making pickles, or dying cloth. BOTH of which included immersing in a liquid.

When Peter told the Jews at Pentecost to repent and be baptized, they knew EXACTLY what he was talking about.... being immersed in water.

The Greek NT uses two different words translated into the English word baptize. Baptizo does mean to dip and is applied to water baptism. The other word is bapto which means to submerge and is applied to Holy Spirit baptism. The difference in these two words was discovered through a pickle recipe where both words were used to describe the process of baptizo dipping to wash the pickles and bapto placing the pickles into the pickling solution and leaving them there until they were ready for consumption.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[preston39]

[h=1]Matthew 3:13-17 New International Version (NIV)[/h][h=3]The Baptism of Jesus[/h][FONT=&quot]13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16 As soon as Jesus was baptized......a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased[/FONT]

 

[DJ2]

The Greek NT uses two different words translated into the English word baptize. Baptizo does mean to dip and is applied to water baptism. The other word is bapto which means to submerge and is applied to Holy Spirit baptism. The difference in these two words was discovered through a pickle recipe where both words were used to describe the process of baptizo dipping to wash the pickles and bapto placing the pickles into the pickling solution and leaving them there until they were ready for consumption.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

"The other word is bapto which means to submerge and is applied to Holy Spirit baptism"

The highlighted part is contrived, in other words you made it up.

 

[notuptome]

"The other word is bapto which means to submerge and is applied to Holy Spirit baptism"

The highlighted part is contrived, in other words you made it up.

Not true. The problem is that you just don't like the truth.

Why do you kick against the goads?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I assume reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Or, perhaps you were in such a hurry to disagree with me that you agreed with me in your answer without knowing.

What was said about John, Jesus' cousin? The whole geographical area had heard about John, and what he was doing....

Did everyone have to be taught, "hey, that prophet John is out there dunking people in the river.... they call it something new... it's called BAPTIZING" ? How silly.

Everyone of that time knew what "baptizo" meant. What they had NO concept of, was Jesus' statement that we would also be baptized with fire. How in the world do you immerse someone in fire?

When the apostles at Pentecost told the people to repent and be baptized, there was no responding outcry "BAPTIZED? What is THAT? You mean you are going to dip me in a vat of dye? Or, you are going to PICKLE me?"

Come on, you know better than that. Or, you should. You've never struck me as being particularly obtuse..

All this is conjecture. Not proof. It is your view, and this is about all.

No I do not have a reading problem. I have studied this subject quite deeply (how do you think I understood how the word was used back then)

The issue you have is the term “baptised into Christ” is no person. No matter who they are. Would have ASSUMED the means of baptism was water. They would have KNOWN the means of baptism was CHRIST (namely the body of Christ) The same goes with the term Death and Burial. People in first century were not so unlearned that when they saw the words “baptised into moses” they would think, well this must mean water. No, They would have used the word as interpreted in their day to know that it means they were placed into vital Union with moses.. And then used the SAME means to interpret baptised into Christ, His death and burial etc etc.

So you continue to follow your beliefs based on what you THINK people said. And I will continue to not only use the laws of language interpretation. But what the word of God plainly says.