Baptism

[Thunderrr-mental]

You mocking not me

Comandment-receive the Holy Spirit

And baptism spiritual changing for water baprism

yes ok

 

[obertarti]

yes he was sent to suffer for Christ name sake, for being a naughty donkey he was made the donkey of burden.

He was sent to preach gospel in Spirit not in water

 

[obertarti]

yes ok View attachment 263425

The truth difficult for many to listen already not to accept

Accept not possible

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

The truth difficult for many to listen already not to accept

Accept not possible

It always more difficult for those who have an answer for everything.

Especially those who don't wait for an answer.

 

[Wansvic]

Apostle Paul was not sent by God to baptize in water

This is the point

What did Paul mean by his comment that he was not sent to baptize? (1Cor. 1:17) Various scriptures prove Paul’s comment has been taken out of context by many.

It is clear that Paul’s statement points to his primary ministry being to preach the gospel. And water baptism in the name of Jesus is part of that message: Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 8:35-40, 10:44-48, 16:14-15, 16:28-33, 18:6-10, 19:1-6, 22:16. Ananias commanded Paul to be baptized to wash away his sins. (Acts 22:16) In addition, Paul rebaptized the Ephesians in water even though they had previously been water baptized by John. That's because the NT water baptism was to be done in the name of Jesus. (Acts 19:1-6) This happened 20+ years after the command was first given at Pentecost. These records indicate Paul understood water baptism was part of the gospel message. Paul’s comment then could not have been intended to mean what some mistakenly believe.

Scripture informs us that Paul preached about water baptism but rarely performed actual water baptisms himself.

Paul mentions Crispus by name as one he did personally baptize. (1 Cor. 1:14) A careful study of the baptism of Crispus gives insight. The scripture reference is Acts 18:6-10. The record shows that Crispus AND ALL of those of his household and MANY Corinthians believed Paul's message and were baptized. (verse 8) This verse alone confirms Paul’s message included the need to be baptized in water. So of the entire group, the chief ruler of the synagogue, Crispus, was the only one that Paul actually baptized himself. (see 1 Cor. 1:14) Clearly, someone else was with Paul and performed the other water baptisms. Further it should be noted that on that very night the Lord gave Paul a vision. He told him to continue speaking/sharing the message without fear. (Acts 18:9-10)



Acts 18:6-10
And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (Paul’s comments in 1 Cor. 1:14 establish that this was water baptism.)

Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

 

[Wansvic]

When priests were baptized it was a symbolic cleansing before they assumed their duties,
commanded by God. I don't really see that as being different. Water does not wash away
people's sins. Jesus certainly had no sins to wash away. His baptism fulfilled all righteous
because the law commanded priests be baptized, and Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of
the law. Baptism did not originate with Christians or with John. To add to what I have said,
I will include something GQ says: Jews practiced baptism as a traditional act of purification
and the initiation of converts to Judaism long before the coming of the Messiah.

The difference is OT washings were symbolic as you mentioned. Whereas obedience to the NT command of water baptism in the name of Jesus actually remits sin as stated within scripture. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

 

[Magenta]

The difference is OT washings were symbolic as you mentioned. Whereas obedience to the NT command
of water baptism in the name of Jesus actually remits sin as stated within scripture. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

I believe the shed righteous blood of Jesus Christ cleansed me of sin, reconciled me to God, and
attained life ever after for me, via grace through faith, and I also believe Scripture makes that plain.

Water is simply symbolic of cleansing, baptism being the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

 

[obertarti]

What did Paul mean by his comment that he was not sent to baptize? (1Cor. 1:17) Various scriptures prove Paul’s comment has been taken out of context by many.

It is clear that Paul’s statement points to his primary ministry being to preach the gospel. And water baptism in the name of Jesus is part of that message: Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 8:35-40, 10:44-48, 16:14-15, 16:28-33, 18:6-10, 19:1-6, 22:16. Ananias commanded Paul to be baptized to wash away his sins. (Acts 22:16) In addition, Paul rebaptized the Ephesians in water even though they had previously been water baptized by John. That's because the NT water baptism was to be done in the name of Jesus. (Acts 19:1-6) This happened 20+ years after the command was first given at Pentecost. These records indicate Paul understood water baptism was part of the gospel message. Paul’s comment then could not have been intended to mean what some mistakenly believe.

Scripture informs us that Paul preached about water baptism but rarely performed actual water baptisms himself.

Paul mentions Crispus by name as one he did personally baptize. (1 Cor. 1:14) A careful study of the baptism of Crispus gives insight. The scripture reference is Acts 18:6-10. The record shows that Crispus AND ALL of those of his household and MANY Corinthians believed Paul's message and were baptized. (verse 8) This verse alone confirms Paul’s message included the need to be baptized in water. So of the entire group, the chief ruler of the synagogue, Crispus, was the only one that Paul actually baptized himself. (see 1 Cor. 1:14) Clearly, someone else was with Paul and performed the other water baptisms. Further it should be noted that on that very night the Lord gave Paul a vision. He told him to continue speaking/sharing the message without fear. (Acts 18:9-10)



Acts 18:6-10
And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (Paul’s comments in 1 Cor. 1:14 establish that this was water baptism.)

Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

Apostle Paul doesn't have teaching about water baptism

Baptism into Christ is spiritual not by water

---

Baptism into name of Christ is to be called christian

Baptism into Christ not to be called but to be in Christ

 

[Chaps]

I also am thankful for your gracious manner of discourse. And I'm not against widening any discussion. Invariably a good discussion will branch out in many directions.
I generally don't use terms like election and predestination in my discussions of salvation. From a biblical perspective, I'm not opposed to doing so. They are biblical terms. From a practical perspective, they are hot button words and often lead to emotional responses rather than rational ones. I don't believe this is so with you, but in an open forum like this I hardly imagine you alone are reading through this thread.
You employ a very emotionally laden example designed to move the reader to compassion. I do believe it's an accurate depiction of what actually happens, in many regards. Helpless people have brought on their own destruction, and God alone is able to help. And the implication is that if he does not, how can He truly desire all men to be saved? I would offer an actual scenario. In the OT, God chose one nation out of all the nations of the earth to call His own. He does this purposefully to the exclusion of every other nation. Do you find God's desire for all mankind disingenuous because of this? Did God's desire that all be saved only begin with the onset of the new covenant? How do you reconcile God's desire and His actual behavior towards mankind?
As far as who made this choice, who was it? Did the nations have a say in this? To which nation does God say...come let us reason together? I read of only one. So it seems to me that God has always acted sovereignly in the affairs of men doing His good pleasure...Daniel 4:35. Noah found grace in the sight of the LORD...Genesis 6:8. And it has always been God who has initiated relationship with man and not the other way around.
So the question arises: is there unrighteousness with God? And the answer is found in Romans 9. And in my view, it is difficult for many to wrap their head around the idea that God is different than who they have believed He is. And the reason I believe is this: people can easily imagine that God is glorified in His exercise of love and mercy and grace, but stumble that He is equally glorified in the exercise of sovereignty and justice and vengeance.. It's not that they don't give intellectual assent to it, but believe that God's love will override His justice. But God's actual behavior says otherwise. 200,000 people die everyday. I imagine most die without the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, God hasn't unchained them from the wall.

Thanks for your response. That is a good question and example of Israel. However, I believe the OT and NT teaches that God desired the nation of Israel to be a “light to the nations.” God was not restricting Gentiles from being saved (in fact, we see him doing this very thing in various places such as the preaching of Jonah). It is true that God’s revelation of his Law was restricted to the Jewish nation, yet even then the Gentiles had general revelation of who God was that they, for the most part, rejected (See Romans 1).

Also, I do think the scope of God’s plans for revelation and salvation are expanded in the NT. I dont see any reason to limit these explicit texts. I agree that Romans 9 teaches God is sovereign in his dealings with man. However, the point in Romans 9 is quite the opposite of how you are reading it, in my opinion. Paul‘s conclusion about the sovereignty of God to choose whom he will is found in verses 31-34

Romans 9:30–33 (ESV): What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So we see that Paul’s point is that while God is sovereign in saving people, in His soverienty He has chosen to save people on the basis of their faith without regard to their flesh/heritage. The Jews were the ones arguing that they were chosen and the Gentiles were not. In a sense, they were arguing a type of divine determinism that Calvinism also claims. Paul’s point is that the Jews failure to come to faith in the Messiah is not an indication that God’s word had failed (vs. 6). Rather, his sovereign plan was to choose people on the basis of their faith and not predetermine salvation on the basis of their nationality. Faith is the means of salvation and that faith can be had by all. The unbelieving Jews have been cut off because of their hard hearts and refusal to accept the Gospel. The believing Gentiles stand by faith, and if they cease to believe, they will be cut off. Thus, faith is the means of salvation in the NT and the opportunity to believe is available to all.

So, I agree that certainly God is not unjust in condemning mankind for their sins and He is certainly under no obligation to save anyone. Yet, by his sovereign will, he has opened the door to save anyone who believes. He does desire all to be saved, but he has made the prerequisite for that salvation faith.

 

[Chaps]

I would only add that God opening our spiritual ears and eyes is the imparting of life...quickening.

I understand. However, I think the notion that God must save people so they may believe to be the inverse of what Scripture teaches. God saves people on the basis of their faith, not so they can believe.

 

[Cameron143]

I understand. However, I think the notion that God must save people so they may believe to be the inverse of what Scripture teaches. God saves people on the basis of their faith, not so they can believe.

We differ here. I also agree that God doesn't save people so they can believe, but I do believe he quickens people so they can respond in faith. And as much as you don't like the dead analogy, if you go to a cemetery, regardless of how loudly you speak, no one will respond. Likewise, no matter how loudly or how often you share the gospel, the natural man will not respond.

 

[obertarti]

We differ here. I also agree that God doesn't save people so they can believe, but I do believe he quickens people so they can respond in faith. And as much as you don't like the dead analogy, if you go to a cemetery, regardless of how loudly you speak, no one will respond. Likewise, no matter how loudly or how often you share the gospel, the natural man will not respond.

New International Version
This is why it is said: "Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you

First awakening then resurrection
First open eyes then to get up

You can be with open eyes but not capable to walk

And to awaken one needs to hear

New International Version
Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live

 

[obertarti]

It always more difficult for those who have an answer for everything.

Especially those who don't wait for an answer.

View attachment 263427

Who knows the answer true not waiting for false one

Change word Greek baptism to immersion

Immersion into the name

Immersion into Christ or into Moses

Then you will understand better

Immersion into repentance not needed to one who repented already

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Who knows the answer true not waiting for false one

Change word Greek baptism to immersion

Immersion into the name

Immersion into Christ or into Moses

Then you will understand better

Immersion into repentance not needed to one who repented already

yes you shouldn't be mocking water baptism or the lords commandments

 

[Magenta]

New International Version
Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead
will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live

John 5:24-25

 

[obertarti]

John 5:24-25

Alive that one who is in spirit

In flesh we are in darkness

Who is in the spirit that can enter into Christ

You are in the spirit when God's Spirit is in you

 

[obertarti]

yes you shouldn't be mocking water baptism or the lords commandments

i mock the water baptism which is done by hands of people without permissions to forgive sins because they are not send personally by God

Commandments given to apostles not to us

Get personally commandment from God to you

Get in touch with God not with the bible

Who is trying to fulfill commandments not appropriate to them failing

New International Version
Similarly, anyone who competes as an athlete does not receive the victor's crown except by competing according to the rules

 

[Wansvic]

I believe the shed righteous blood of Jesus Christ cleansed me of sin, reconciled me to God, and
attained life ever after for me, via grace through faith, and I also believe Scripture makes that plain.

Water is simply symbolic of cleansing, baptism being the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

How do you reconcile what you believe with these scriptures?
Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling upon the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16
Be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. Acts 2:38

 

[Wansvic]

Apostle Paul doesn't have teaching about water baptism

Baptism into Christ is spiritual not by water

---

Baptism into name of Christ is to be called christian

Baptism into Christ not to be called but to be in Christ

We must accept scripture. And scripture reveals baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism. (Acts 10:47-48)

Many of Paul's letters address water baptism. He explained its purpose in great deal in scriptures such as, Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:12-15.

 

[obertarti]

We must accept scripture. And scripture reveals baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism. (Acts 10:47-48)

Many of Paul's letters address water baptism. He explained its purpose in great deal in scriptures such as, Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:12-15.

It is mist

We must accept scripture. And scripture reveals baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism. (Acts 10:47-48)

Many of Paul's letters address water baptism. He explained its purpose in great deal in scriptures such as, Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:12-15.

Exactly

Accept that R6 and C2 -Not about water but about Spirit

One baptism in the water of life

Forget water baptism

Moreover baptism into Christ by Spirit will be finished when you cannot sin anymore

For this one should redress spiritually yourself in baptism by Spirit
Change of old self to new self

Till one can sin - he is in old self

To have been dressed in the new self is birthday

To be born again today's understanding is christian since fiction