Water baptism

[ByTheSpirit]

Think about the significance of baptism in the 1st century.

People would have homes and land confiscated for being baptized. Baptism was in essence declaring to the world, Jesus is Lord and I follow him not Caesar, the High Priest, etc.

This is also why the practice of baptism has lost it's power over the years. Today it is just something most denominations make necessary to become ordained for ministry.

Funny or rather the sad thing about that is most protestant denominations will agree that all believers are priests unto God as per scripture, then say baptism isn't necessary for salvation but it is necessary for service in the denomination. So what they are saying is you can serve God without baptism (that's what priests do is serve God), but you can't serve the denomination without it. They elevate the denomination above the LORD in this way.

But baptism in water in the 1st century was a definitive way of declaring "I'm following Jesus now, He is LORD, not Caesar or anyone else." Then people were stripped of titles, lost jobs, homes, land, even their freedom and lives. Water... baptism... You can't see some mystical mythological heart baptism thing that comes out of the sky.

 

[Frogster]

Man, this is why no one likes to discuss matters with you. You have been shown, scripture with ZERO interjection that say "baptism is for the forgiveness of sins"... that in baptism we are raised with Christ from the old body of flesh... and all you do is hypothetical your way into some form of belief that none of the Apostles would have espoused.

You always say, "Show me text", and then when you are shown the text, you "ohh well really what is going on...." Just give up bro, you lost this one. For you to continue you are indeed promoting disobedience to Christ. But this thread isn't about you or your false view of the subject. It's about THE subject itself, Water Baptism. Your view isn't the only one. I grant you that. But it doesn't make it right. Scriptures are very plain about the role and purpose of baptism. It was negated and nullified by preachers who wanted to pad their stats and make it easier to believe.

At least bob said no, you said yes and no. besides, i explained all of those texts already. Only the blood does it, baptism can also be a general word, there was john's. then ours, and there were others, our baptism is the one that has sin removal, our faith, etc, but it is not baptism that takes away sins, only the blood, as i have shown. Paul talked that way in Acts 19.

bottom line, you're mandating.

hospital people, dying soldiers, and the Miami man, can't be saved, they can't have the conversion description of 6 and 2, because there was no water.

 

[Frogster]

Think about the significance of baptism in the 1st century.

People would have homes and land confiscated for being baptized. Baptism was in essence declaring to the world, Jesus is Lord and I follow him not Caesar, the High Priest, etc.

This is also why the practice of baptism has lost it's power over the years. Today it is just something most denominations make necessary to become ordained for ministry.

Funny or rather the sad thing about that is most protestant denominations will agree that all believers are priests unto God as per scripture, then say baptism isn't necessary for salvation but it is necessary for service in the denomination. So what they are saying is you can serve God without baptism (that's what priests do is serve God), but you can't serve the denomination without it. They elevate the denomination above the LORD in this way.

But baptism in water in the 1st century was a definitive way of declaring "I'm following Jesus now, He is LORD, not Caesar or anyone else." Then people were stripped of titles, lost jobs, homes, land, even their freedom and lives. Water... baptism... You can't see some mystical mythological heart baptism thing that comes out of the sky.

I asked what it does for the already converted, objectively speaking, or scripturally. So you say power, yet you did not tell me what it does for the believer.

What does it do, that my conversion, my water free conversion, did for me?

 

[probinson]

Frog if the world was built on what ifs and hypotheticals, what would it now look like? You are the one who always...

ALWAYS...

demands text to prove a point and bob has done that plenty of times. So you revert to "what ifs" and hypotheticals to disprove something that is CLEARLY biblical in nature.

So you have failed bud in this sense...

It's called the "What-if fallacy" and it's his MO. "Miami man" is his trump card in this debate. I mean, forget that the odds of anyone being killed in a plane crash are 1 in 29.4 million. It could happen and it demands a response!

 

[Frogster]

It's called the "What-if fallacy" and it's his MO. "Miami man" is his trump card in this debate. I mean, forget that the odds of anyone being killed in a plane crash are 1 in 29.4 million. It could happen and it demands a response!

oh please, wars, hospitals, car crashes, heart attacks, all happen every day...please...

did you watch the news last week, about another plane crash?

besides, the story has truth, it happens, the idea is not you and your odds, it is a story that has a simple truth, and it brought out the truth I have been pointing out, that is the point you missed.

 

[Alithis]

Our local church is a conservative charismatic Lutheran.
I am one of the few however, who does not clap nor raises hands.

You are correct though - not to many.

you should try it its easy ...see

apologies if you have no hands

 

[ByTheSpirit]

you should try it its easy ...see

apologies if you have no hands

 

[Alithis]

It's called the "What-if fallacy" and it's his MO. "Miami man" is his trump card in this debate. I mean, forget that the odds of anyone being killed in a plane crash are 1 in 29.4 million. It could happen and it demands a response!

isnt it simply the thief on the cross ? and i know it is used a standard example ..but i see nothing wrong with it ..

the Lord himself assured him of his salvation .saying "today you will be with me in paradise " .so we see that salvation is God being gracious to us .. and us responding to his love by putting our faith in him to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves ...

all i know is ..had that man not passed through death that day ..im convinced upon learning of it he would have rushed joyously to be water baptized

 

[bob96]

no but i did not wish to quote a specific quote .simply get your attention

are you saying water baptism is mandatory to salvation OR are you saying water baptism is mandatory to obedience ie-because having been saved we are now to obey ?

The answer to your question is in the previous 27 pages of posts.

 

[bob96]

MOD HAT ON

Please remember the Statement of Purpose for this forum;

Spirit-Filled / Charismatic Community Statement of Purpose
No Promotion of works, observances or water baptism as a means to gain salvation or righteousness, or any other merit, or as mandatory to Christian living. Baptism however may be discussed as a sign of obedience to Christ.

MOD HAT OFF
​

No work of merit could earn salvation. Baptism is not a work of merit. It is a work of God.

Eph 2:12 "...having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."

In baptism, we are raised in resurrection through the working of God.

 

[bob96]

no Bob, the reason he did not go on about baptism, was because he was centered on the main purpose, the blood...the atonement, all of which, are not about baptism, we don't need water for sin remission, hebrews is clear, so your interp of hebrews is incorrect.

lol..he even called some things elemental, like baptisms..but the blood was important, without the shedding of blood, no remission in heb 9.


Why wouldn't he mention baptism if it were needed for remission?

You can't come up with your own reason for why the writer doesn't talk about baptism when he says it clearly and plainly in verse 1.

You are practising eisegesis again, where interpretation of a passage is based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means "to lead into," which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

 

[bob96]

Again, most of the verses in Acts, which show conversions, don't mention baptism.

Paul was not sent to baptize, and he evangelized, wouldn't you think an evangelist would be very water minded, if it were mandatory, or ergent?

He only did a few, with all of the Corinthian conversions. And again, he seemed to minmize it.

Paul downplayed the importance of the person doing the baptising, not the purpose of baptism. The Corinthian church was very prideful. People were saying "Look how spiritual I am! Paul baptised me!"

 

[bob96]

I am a Lutheran - ALL of our members are baptized.
If you find ONE Lutheran who is not baptized, we can put him in a zoo for parents to show their children - here is a Lutheran who is not baptized.

Luther's faith apart from works doctrine kept baptism as close to our skin as possible.

Sorry, Lutherans practise baptism correctly, however the "faith only" doctrine has been adopted by other churches and watered down to its present state today, where baptism is now virtually optional.

 

[Alithis]

Water baptism is obedience to faith.


add. See frog..i said "to" , i can learn haha

 

[Frogster]

No work of merit could earn salvation. Baptism is not a work of merit. It is a work of God.

Eph 2:12 "...having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."

In baptism, we are raised in resurrection through the working of God.

Please Bob The mods know what they are doing, they have seen countless debates, and to say one has to be baptized to be saved, is a works based salvation, according to the SOP!

So, why wasn't the Miami man saved?

 

[probinson]

isnt it simply the thief on the cross ? and i know it is used a standard example ..but i see nothing wrong with it ..

Why would anyone use the example of the thief on the cross or "Miami man" as the gold standard? These are exceptions, not the norm. How many other people have been crucified on a cross beside Jesus? How many people are dying in plane crashes immediately after accepting salvation? Yet this is how one chooses to make their point?

Any time someone tries to make their point using extreme (and unlikely) hypotheticals, it's a sure sign that they're grasping at straws.

So is hypothetical "Miami man" saved if he's in a hypothetical crash in his hypothetical plane after he hypothetically received salvation? Sure, but that's not really the point. The point is that baptism is an act of obedience and unless you find yourself in some extreme or unlikely hypothetical scenario that physically prevents you from being baptized, you should be baptized, not because of any advantage that it gives you but in obedience to Jesus.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Why would anyone use the example of the thief on the cross or "Miami man" as the gold standard? These are exceptions, not the norm. How many other people have been crucified on a cross beside Jesus? How many people are dying in plane crashes immediately after accepting salvation? Yet this is how one chooses to make their point?

Any time someone tries to make their point using extreme (and unlikely) hypotheticals, it's a sure sign that they're grasping at straws.

So is hypothetical "Miami man" saved if he's in a hypothetical crash in his hypothetical plane after he hypothetically received salvation? Sure, but that's not really the point. The point is that baptism is an act of obedience and unless you find yourself in some extreme or unlikely hypothetical scenario that physically prevents you from being baptized, you should be baptized, not because of any advantage that it gives you but in obedience to Jesus.

 

[Frogster]

You can't come up with your own reason for why the writer doesn't talk about baptism when he says it clearly and plainly in verse 1.

You are practising eisegesis again, where interpretation of a passage is based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means "to lead into," which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

It was verse 2, and it was an elemental. Why is the blood the issue, and nothing about baptism or how important is is in 13 chapters?

Isn't it strange to you the silence on baptism, in the new Cov book of Hebrews?

 

[Frogster]

Paul downplayed the importance of the person doing the baptising, not the purpose of baptism. The Corinthian church was very prideful. People were saying "Look how spiritual I am! Paul baptised me!"

Really? Then why would an evangelist, say he was not sent to baptize?

 

[Frogster]

Water baptism is obedience to faith.


add. See frog..i said "to" , i can learn haha

Greeting and salutations bro...