Hey.... don't be blaming me.... I'M not the one who said it... take it up with Jesus....
My take on water baptism...
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So you are just skipping right over the whole meaning of "baptism"..... baptism, to the first century believers meant ONE thing only.... immersion in water.
Why did Paul IMMEDIATELY go be baptized, after no food for three days of blindness?
Why did the eunuch say "Here's some water.... what should prevent me from being baptized?"
Why WERE Cornelius and his whole household baptized (immersed) after receiving the Spirit?
On and on.....
Sore topic for me. I've been baptised twice. There seems to be some very sincere differences of opinion between believers and quite frankly I find that hard to reconcile.
I've been told that I "did it wrong" with being baptised in the name of the father, the son and the Holy spirit and if that is necessary and the words matter (like a spell) then there are MANY people that will not be saved because they followed one scripture over another. It is absurd.
If a person didn't understand it was the old man being dead/buried and raised again, what does that matter? Let's say they learn of it after the fact. Do they now need to be baptised again?
Let's say (like me) it was according to Mt 28:19 and it was not done in Jesus name only; should they now be "re-baptized".
In my personal view, this is a mockery of what originally placed the burden on my heart to be baptised in the first place. I was quite young and to my knowledge no one talked to me about it. My parents have related decades later that they did not. I felt like I was supposed to and it was strong in my heart enough to be a surprise to them.
People saying that I didn't do it right fills me with a tremendous unexplainable anger. It isn't an occult ritual and it isn't spellwork.
~End seriousness~
I do find it interesting that some were baptised into John's baptism (Acts 19:3). Is it possible that this is still being done today? What are the implications?
Feel free to respond to anything in my post. I realize I just sort of jumped in here and it's a lot to read but I'll go read through a bit. Thanks for reading
I've been told that I "did it wrong" with being baptised in the name of the father, the son and the Holy spirit and if that is necessary and the words matter (like a spell) then there are MANY people that will not be saved because they followed one scripture over another. It is absurd.
If a person didn't understand it was the old man being dead/buried and raised again, what does that matter? Let's say they learn of it after the fact. Do they now need to be baptised again?
Let's say (like me) it was according to Mt 28:19 and it was not done in Jesus name only; should they now be "re-baptized".
In my personal view, this is a mockery of what originally placed the burden on my heart to be baptised in the first place. I was quite young and to my knowledge no one talked to me about it. My parents have related decades later that they did not. I felt like I was supposed to and it was strong in my heart enough to be a surprise to them.
People saying that I didn't do it right fills me with a tremendous unexplainable anger. It isn't an occult ritual and it isn't spellwork.
~End seriousness~
I do find it interesting that some were baptised into John's baptism (Acts 19:3). Is it possible that this is still being done today? What are the implications?
Feel free to respond to anything in my post. I realize I just sort of jumped in here and it's a lot to read but I'll go read through a bit. Thanks for reading
Water baptism is not taught in Acts either. Two guys just did it because they wanted to. Philip and the new guy. And it was probably in the beginning which a few people were still doing, but not once the New Testament got started.
Water baptism is not taught in any of the Epistles written by Paul or any other Apostle. All that can be known for the Church of God concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ is in those Epistles. And water is not in there.
I can prove it. Show me where in the Epistles the Apostles taught water baptism.
Did I send this to you before...
The question we must ask, and answer, is why did Jesus command his disciples to stay in Jerusalem? It was to wait for what the Father had promised, i.e., the gift of holy spirit. The disciples had already been baptized in water. If water baptism was all that was important and necessary for salvation, there would have been no need for the disciples to wait in Jerusalem or receive the gift of holy spirit. Sadly, many people reverse what Jesus said here in Acts. They say water baptism is essential for the believer and act as if baptism in holy spirit is not really essential but perhaps “nice to have,” or valuable in many ways. Jesus was teaching quite the opposite. He knew the disciples had already been water baptized. He also knew it would no longer be intrinsically valuable after the Church started on the Day of Pentecost. Thus, he commanded his disciples to stay in Jerusalem and receive baptism in holy spirit “because” John [only] baptized in water, but holy spirit was going to be first poured out in Jerusalem.
“with water.” The Greek is hudōr (#5204 ὕδωρ) in the dative, thus, “with water.” Thus it is clear that the element that people were baptized with was water. However, in the later part of the verse, the specific word “in” (en, #1722 ἐν) is used, emphasizing that the Christian is baptized “in” holy spirit. There is one baptism for the Christian, and it is spirit, not water (cp. Eph. 4:5). John’s baptism was a shadow of what was to come, and even John himself said this (Matt. 3:11; etc.). There is no reason to baptize in water today. Nevertheless, the practice continues, and sadly some even teach that it is necessary for salvation.
John 5:39 --- the Bible is the revelation of God to man. His person, His doings. it literally testifies of Him.
True, but we are knowing that from hindsight. We have the benefit of having the complete picture because we were born after the events took place, and can see how everything fits together.
Thus, when you want to say that you believed Abraham knew about the cross during his lifetime, as long as you are willing to admit that you are reading into scripture, I will be fine.
Otherwise, I will be silent when scripture is silent. I will say the gospel preached to Abraham was that he will be the father of many descendants, as numerous as the stars in the sky.
Abraham believed God, that that good news will come true, and God credited that as faith for righteousness.
Umm...are you dodging. You cannot break the tie. The empowerment of the Holy Spirit will lead them to do the GC. Paul didDid I send this to you before...
The question we must ask, and answer, is why did Jesus command his disciples to stay in Jerusalem? It was to wait for what the Father had promised, i.e., the gift of holy spirit. The disciples had already been baptized in water. If water baptism was all that was important and necessary for salvation, there would have been no need for the disciples to wait in Jerusalem or receive the gift of holy spirit. Sadly, many people reverse what Jesus said here in Acts. They say water baptism is essential for the believer and act as if baptism in holy spirit is not really essential but perhaps “nice to have,” or valuable in many ways. Jesus was teaching quite the opposite. He knew the disciples had already been water baptized. He also knew it would no longer be intrinsically valuable after the Church started on the Day of Pentecost. Thus, he commanded his disciples to stay in Jerusalem and receive baptism in holy spirit “because” John [only] baptized in water, but holy spirit was going to be first poured out in Jerusalem.
“with water.” The Greek is hudōr (#5204 ὕδωρ) in the dative, thus, “with water.” Thus it is clear that the element that people were baptized with was water. However, in the later part of the verse, the specific word “in” (en, #1722 ἐν) is used, emphasizing that the Christian is baptized “in” holy spirit. There is one baptism for the Christian, and it is spirit, not water (cp. Eph. 4:5). John’s baptism was a shadow of what was to come, and even John himself said this (Matt. 3:11; etc.). There is no reason to baptize in water today. Nevertheless, the practice continues, and sadly some even teach that it is necessary for salvation.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Where did I say that?
This is the mystery kept hidden even from angels.
You are making strawman arguments in order to prop up your defeated proposition that multiple Gospels are in the scripture. Because you believe this, you do not understand the gospel itself, and the OT is meaningless to you rather than a testimony of Christ. If you believed Him, you would look for Him and see Him in these things - as it is, because you love your doctrines more, you look at scripture and try to take Him out if it instead.
For this I pity you, because He is life, and you are seeking death.
If that were true you would stop preaching other gospels.
You say the words 'progressive revelation' but you teach progressive replacement, abrogation and change.
The world isn't created anew every morning when the sun rises and allows you to better see it. Same earth, clearer sight.
Jesus says Abraham saw His day and rejoiced - why are you spending your days trying to prove Christ lied?
I am making a simple point that is backed up by Scripture in Genesis 15.
To a couple that was barren at a ripe old age, when God preached to you the good news that you will have numerous descendants, that is truly GOSPEL.
But now, the gospel that saves us is not that we will be given numerous descendants, but its 1 Cor 15:1-4
Is this truly your post? I think you are in a wrong person to say that thing waters of baptism saves. Now it's my time to wait for your response on Paul's statement "I baptize".Did I send this to you before...
The question we must ask, and answer, is why did Jesus command his disciples to stay in Jerusalem? It was to wait for what the Father had promised, i.e., the gift of holy spirit. The disciples had already been baptized in water. If water baptism was all that was important and necessary for salvation, there would have been no need for the disciples to wait in Jerusalem or receive the gift of holy spirit. Sadly, many people reverse what Jesus said here in Acts. They say water baptism is essential for the believer and act as if baptism in holy spirit is not really essential but perhaps “nice to have,” or valuable in many ways. Jesus was teaching quite the opposite. He knew the disciples had already been water baptized. He also knew it would no longer be intrinsically valuable after the Church started on the Day of Pentecost. Thus, he commanded his disciples to stay in Jerusalem and receive baptism in holy spirit “because” John [only] baptized in water, but holy spirit was going to be first poured out in Jerusalem.
“with water.” The Greek is hudōr (#5204 ὕδωρ) in the dative, thus, “with water.” Thus it is clear that the element that people were baptized with was water. However, in the later part of the verse, the specific word “in” (en, #1722 ἐν) is used, emphasizing that the Christian is baptized “in” holy spirit. There is one baptism for the Christian, and it is spirit, not water (cp. Eph. 4:5). John’s baptism was a shadow of what was to come, and even John himself said this (Matt. 3:11; etc.). There is no reason to baptize in water today. Nevertheless, the practice continues, and sadly some even teach that it is necessary for salvation.
"you will have lots of kids" has never been the gospel.
The gospel is God will deliver the one who trusts in Him. Same in the beginning, same to the end.
i have not said that.
Strawman.
i said the same thing Galatians 3:8 says, that "the gospel" - singular - was preached to Abraham.
Why do you keep trying to make scripture look like it's false, instead of searching out the truth in it?
Is having multiple gospels really that important you'd make Christ and His apostles liars rather than let go of it?
Alright then, we can agree to disagree.
I think you can't, or don't want to, understand how being barren, during the time of Genesis, is viewed far more seriously than it is for us today.
A good clue is located in Genesis 30:1
And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.
So I prefer to put myself in the shoes of Abraham, together with what is stated in Genesis 15:5-6, and say that it was VERY good news to him.
And Gospel means "good news".
That has absolutely nothing to do with the questions at hand.
Galatians 3:8 - - - "the gospel" singular
Preached to Abraham.
The gospel is not "you'll have kids"
Paul baptized how? With water or in the name of Jesus Christ? Does it say? Did Paul teach water baptism to anyone?