Baptism

Silverback

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2019
1,306
853
61
South East
✟66,756.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Let's debate about this subject, how about it?

Element: Do you believe baptism should be performed only with water?

Formula: Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Mode: Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?

Recipient: Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?

And finally, do you believe baptism should be performed only by an ordained minister?

Element...Water only, no spittle, juice, or whisky

Formula...NAME OF RECIPIENT..."I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"...Not Jesus only, and not all baptism invoking the trinity qualifies either, Mormons baptize in the name of the trinity, but there baptism does not qualify as Christian Baptism. IMHO

Mode...Immersion is fine, Sprinkling, or, pouring is ok as well. It's the word of God, and his promises bound to the element of water, not the amount of water used.

Recipient...Believer is fine, infant baptism is also ok. My feeling is Christ was baptized, he said to go into all the world and baptize, so, if it was good enough for him, it is good enough for me. No one was ever excluded from God's Grace in the New Testament because of age, why would you do so now by excluding someone from baptism until they reach a certain age? God's grace is for everyone.

Performed by...Ordained Clergy is preferred, but in certain situations a layman can perform baptism.
 
Upvote 0

His student

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,235
555
78
Northwest
✟48,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Element: Do you believe baptism should be performed only with water?
I can't imagine what else there would be to dunk the recipient in. I suppose if there was a large vat of milk or grape juice available there would be nothing technically wrong in baptizaing them in that if there was not water near by.:scratch:
Formula: Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?
So long as we understand that name to be JESUS - sure.

Jesus told the disciples to baptize people in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Then according to the scriptures they went forth and baptized in the name of JESUS. They either disobeyed the Lord or they understood things we don't but should about the nature of Jesus Christ.

Of course, this goes against the grain of those who believe that only an alleged, eternally existent "God the Son" person was incarnate in Jesus Christ - as opposed to what Oneness/non-Trinitarians teach.

Of course, here in the forum we are forbidden to talk in detail of such things and must subscribe to everything the Nicene Creed says even when the scriptures clearly say that in Jesus "all the fullness of deity dwelt in bodily form" and "when He brings His first born into the world He says 'Thou art my son, today I have begotten thee'"
Mode: Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?
No - entire families, including babies were baptized in the scripture and it is doubtful that the babies were dunked under water (or milk?:)).

But the biblical picture is immersion. So - why not go with that whenever possible?
Recipient: Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?
No - entire families were baptized in the scriptures and it isn't likely that all were believers in a born again sense.

However, when a person becomes a full believer, he or she should IMO be re-baptized personally because of their own faith.
And finally, do you believe baptism should be performed only by an ordained minister?
No.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Element: Do you believe baptism should be performed only with water?

Yes. Jello is too jiggly, preventing a good sprinkling or submersion and wet cement plugs up the baptismal font or tank. Don't ever use Pepsi or Coke. It really burns if you get it in your eyes!

Formula: Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Well, baptizing in the name of Bob, Harry and Sue just doesn't have the same religious cachet. It's even worse if one baptizes in the name of, say, Bert, Ernie and Big Bird. I'd strongly recommend a more biblical invocation...

Mode: Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?

There's something to be said for having only to dry off your hair after a baptismal sprinkling. Mind you, a good dunking can be very invigorating - or relaxing - depending upon the temperature of the water. I wonder if anyone has considered basting...

Recipient: Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?

I'm not sure how you'd get a Buddhist or Muslim to agree to being baptized...Imagine the fight you'd have if you tried to baptize an atheist! Yeah, it's probably best to just stick to baptizing Christians.

And finally, do you believe baptism should be performed only by an ordained minister?

Well, if you get baptized by an Islamic terrorist, you're not likely to survive the baptism. And it would just be awkward to have a gorilla do it. At least an ordained minister wants to baptize you (unless, of course, you're hoping for full immersion and he's got a bad back ).
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pioneer3mm
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Let's debate about this subject, how about it?

Element: Do you believe baptism should be performed only with water?

Formula: Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Mode: Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?

Recipient: Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?

And finally, do you believe baptism should be performed only by an ordained minister?
Yes to all (except the last one) but it might be easier to answer if you listed some alternatives. (Otherwise it might feel like your trying to set us up)
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When did the change-over take place? It could not have been in the time of Christ, since he sent his Apostles out into the world, instructing them to baptize people (which could not refer to a "baptism of the Holy Spirit" experience).

Spirit baptism (the gift of receiving the Spirit via by the laying on of hands) is something that believers sometimes could administer under God's authority and will. To my knowledge, this is something that has happened 4 times within Scripture (even within the OT).

Occurence #1.

"And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses." (Deuteronomy 34:9).​

Occurence #2.

17 "Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." (Acts of the Apostles 8:17-19).​

Note: Yes, I am aware that Simon was wrongfully asking for the Spirit via by offering money, but the point here is that the saints were able to be vessels to which to administer the Spirit of God by the laying on of hands; Again, this is not to say that the Spirit cannot be received in other ways like in receiving the gospel, or in being water baptized. Being water baptized is something that the Jewish apostles did and they followed in this teaching (even to baptize Gentiles) until Paul received new revelation on the matter (of which we get to see in Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6).

Occurence #3.

17 "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." (Acts of the Apostles 9:17-18).​

Note: Here we see Paul being baptized into the Spirit first by the laying on of hands, and then he was water baptized by Ananias (Who was a Jewish Christian who knew of the OT ritual Jewish baptism teaching).

Occurence #4.

1 "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." (Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6).​

Note: Paul talks with believers at Ephesus who were only aware of water baptism via by John and hence they were not aware of the Holy Ghost. So Paul baptizes them into the Spirit by the laying on of hands in Jesus's name.

So I see two possibilities when Jesus said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Matthew 28:19).

Possibility #1.

Jesus always meant to spirit baptize by the laying on of hands for all nations (Jews and Gentiles in all the world), but He allowed for his followers to misunderstand because water baptism was an important picture or symbol of Spirit baptism by the laying on of his hands (Which is the true baptism), until the time of when Paul would reveal the true baptism that was to be ultimately done (Which is made clear in Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6).

This is not the first time that Jesus allowed His followers to misunderstand him to fulfill God's greater purpose and plans. Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword, but He actually was referring to the spiritual sword (Which was the communicated Word of God, i.e. the Scriptures). By their misunderstanding, Jesus was able to teach Peter that he that lives by the sword shall die by the sword. Jesus undid Peter's wrong actions of hurting somebody with a sword by healing Peter's victim and He rebuked Peter saying that He could have called down a ton of angels to protect Him (if He truly wanted to).​

Possibility #2.

The gospel was to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile. While the gospel was not fully realized yet, an early form of the gospel (i.e. Salvation in the Messiah Jesus) went out to only the Israelite cities before Christ's death. After Christ's death and resurrection, the gospel (in it's full revelation) was to go out until all the Jews in every nation (i.e. Matthew 28:19). Water baptism was a part of the transitional period practice taught by Jesus as a part of the Jewish customs taught by John the Baptist who was the last Jewish OT prophet. Water baptism was more of a Jewish practice (although Gentiles could partake in it if they wanted to - like with the Ethiopian eunuch, and Ananias and his family). So yes. Jesus commanded the Jewish disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in water, but this was primarily for the Jews in those believing nations (even though the Gentiles could partake of such a practice if they wanted to). So the command to be baptized in water is more of a command that applies if you are a Jew. For no Gentile believers were present among the original remaining 11 disciples when Jesus gave His command in Matthew 28:19. But Jesus was still pointing the most important aspect of baptism is Spirit baptism. For Jesus said that they will not be baptized in water, but they will baptized in the Holy Ghost, which would be at Pentecost (Which took place after Christ's ascension).
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Being water baptized is something that the Jewish apostles did and they followed in this teaching (even to baptize Gentiles) until Paul received new revelation on the matter (of which we get to see in Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6).
Note: Paul talks with believers at Ephesus who were only aware of water baptism via by John and hence they were not aware of the Holy Ghost. So Paul baptizes them into the Spirit by the laying on of hands in Jesus's name.

Hi Bible Highlighter! It seems to me that Paul first baptized them in water (v5), then he laid hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit baptism (v6). See for yourself:

Acts 19:5-6 NASB When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I can't imagine what else there would be to dunk the recipient in. I suppose if there was a large vat of milk or grape juice available there would be nothing technically wrong in baptizaing them in that if there was not water near by.:scratch:
So long as we understand that name to be JESUS - sure.

Jesus told the disciples to baptize people in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Then according to the scriptures they went forth and baptized in the name of JESUS. They either disobeyed the Lord or they understood things we don't but should about the nature of Jesus Christ.
Here's what we need to understand. When we read "in the name of..." the meaning is similar to saying "Stop in the name of the law."

No - entire families, including babies were baptized in the scripture and it is doubtful that the babies were dunked under water (or milk?:)).

But the biblical picture is immersion. So - why not go with that whenever possible?
The Biblical picture is NOT immersion. That's just what fans of total immersion say when the argument arises.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: charsan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Anyone who preaches and teaches a false, corrupted gospel is not my brother in Christ. I know that my view is not a man-pleasing view, but there is only one gospel and that is faith in Christ alone without anything else that we can do to add to it. Any other gospel is preaching another Christ and another gospel, and Paul says let such people who preach it let them be cursed. So I have nothing in common with someone who has the curse of God on them.
If the Orthodox or the Catholic Church would say that, you will call them meanies. :(
 
  • Winner
Reactions: charsan
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Biblical picture is NOT immersion. That's just what fans of total immersion say when the argument arises.

Hi Albion! Sorry to butt in to this conversation, but I was wondering how you viewed this passage on baptism:

Romans 6:3-4 NASB Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

It seems to me that this passage teaches that baptism is by immersion... otherwise how does baptism symbolize being buried and then risen? Anyways, I am looking forward to hearing your understanding!

God bless;
Michael
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi Bible Highlighter! It seems to me that Paul first baptized them in water (v5), then he laid hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit baptism (v6). See for yourself:

Acts 19:5-6 NASB When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

Sorry, that interpretation does not work, my friend.

First, nothing is said of water here in verses 5-6. The baptism described here is not one of water, but it is one by the laying on of hands with the receiving of the Spirit.

Second, verse 5 talks about how they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and verse 6 defines how that was to be done (Which is by the laying on of hands with the receiving of the Spirit).

Three, Paul asks these 12 men at Ephesus by which baptism they were baptized with; They replied with by John's baptism (Acts of the Apostles 19:3, Acts of the Apostles 19:7). John's baptism was by water. It does not make any sense to baptize by water again if they were already baptized in water beforehand. Paul is offering an entirely new type of baptism, which is the receiving of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. Granted, a person can receive the baptism of the Spirit by other methods (i.e. by receiving the gospel, water baptism). The point here is that Paul was offering something brand new that these men did not know about.

Four, not too long ago, I was about to defend water baptism by using Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6 without even really looking at the text closely before. I just had a presupposition that it was talking about water baptism. I went in guns blazing into the Bible thinking that it was talking about water baptism without reading the text more closely. But when I re-read the text in all honesty with myself, I found that water baptism could not be defended in this passage. In fact, the exact opposite was being taught here. God talked to my heart about it.

Speaking generally here (and not you specifically), I have discovered that if we pray and ask God to reveal the Scriptures to us in what they plainly say (vs. what we want them to say because we have a church where we baptized tons of people in water and we want to defend a steeped in tradition that we have done for many for a long time) we can discover the truth of what God's Word really says on certain things. Remember, both the disciples and Paul had learned of the things of the Lord for approximately three years at least. This was not exactly a Bible school, but a simple studying of the Scripture with the Lord alone without the influence of popular religious teachers. In today's world, it is hard to get rid of the traditions that have been taught by the many popular churches that are out there. But God's Word will stand above these traditions of men.

Let all glory, honor, and power go to the Lord Jesus Christ for the truth that He has taught us within His Word.

Anyways, if you disagree still (Lets agree to disagree) in love and respect.

May you have a good day in the Lord.

Sincerely,

~ J.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
It gives the element the supernatural power to save. So much so that faith need not be present in the recipient. Ex oper operandi.

:nomouth:

A believer is already regenerated, water baptism is a sign of that regeneration. If the heart is right, it would be impossible to do it wrong, even if milk were used : )

I agree with you that baptism is a sign of regeneration, but is that just it?

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph 4:5 seems to indicate one baptism but we know The Lord is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

There's a doctrine of baptismS,..." (Heb 6:2) Baptism means to immerse.

There are at least 3 baptisms:

1 - By The Holy Spirit into Jesus is the baptism for salvation (blood baptism)
(Rev 1:5; Matt 26:28; Mark 1:4, 16:16; Luk 3:3; 1 Cor 12:13: Acts 2:38: Gal 3:27, +++)
Also, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," Eph 1:13

Water and Spirit baptism follows - not in a set order:
2 - By another believer (water baptism) (Matt 28:19, Matt 3:16 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:,,," they've found where some believe the 3,000 were baptized; Acts 2:41 Philip with the eunuch "...when they were come up out of the water..." Acts 8:39++++)
3 - By Jesus with or into The Holy Spirit (The Spirit baptism)
(Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16; Acts 11:16++++)'

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." I John 5:7-8

I mean water baptism. Since you believe in immersion, what do you say about the other questions?

Yes!



Yes!



No, sprinkling or pouring on water is fine!



Depends... Infants can be bapized but not adult unbelievers.



No! Preferable by an ordnained minister, but not necessary.

Why do you believe sprinkling or pouring the water is fine?

Why can infants, who have not faith in Christ, be baptized?

Why is it not necessary for an ordained minister to administer the ordinance/sacrament?

yes
YES
no
yes
no

Why did you say no to the third and last question? Please explain.

i find the recipient question strange. why would anyone who doesn't believe want to be baptized? i don't think baptism alone saves a person.

There are some churches (I think yours as well) that believe in infant baptism.

While a person can be water baptized, it is no longer required. Spirit baptism is what counts. Water baptism is an OT ritual that is a picture or symbol pointing to the true baptism (Which is Spirit baptism).



I believe it is important to follow what the Bible says, but context also should be taken under consideration. So if one is baptized with the baptism of John for repentance, it would naturally be in water because that is how it was done. But John was the last OT prophet. John said that Jesus would baptize us in the Spirit and with fire.



There are instances where they baptized in the Spirit in Jesus' name. Whether or not this was merely a leaving out of information (for brevity's sake) is unknown.



John's baptism was by immersion in water.
Spirit baptism can happen when a person first accepts Christ as their Savior or when they are water baptized or when an apostle lays their hand on them.



Yes. Children cannot be baptized.



The Bible mentions nothing about Bible school and or being ordained officially by men.

I didn't understand your first answer, are we to no longer baptize (in water) new believers?

John's baptism was before Christ, preparing the hearts of the Jewish nation for his coming, but how do you explain the Christian baptism in Acts and the Epistles?

I'm glad you brought up the brevity part. The reason I asked about the formula is because some churches (like Pentacostals) hold that you need only to be baptized "in the name of Jesus" and not in the name of all three persons of the Trinity. Some don't see a difference in it, others do.

I quoted, and there are others in Scripture, that speak of laying hands on and ordaining ministers in the church.

Yes to all except the last question. Any believer can baptize another.

Interesting, explain.

setst RE: OK



setst RE: The NT Scriptures throughout assume water is what is used in Baptism. So... Yes.



setst RE: Not necessarily, since all who were actually baptized in the Book of Acts were baptized in the name: "Jesus." Therefore, the name "Jesus" is the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, of which all are baptized.

Acts 2:38 (NIV)
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.

Acts 4:12 (NIV)
12 Salvation is found in no one else,
for
there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.



setst RE: Yes, Baptism is by immersion.

Romans 6:1-5 (NIV)
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
3 Or don’t you know that
all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were therefore
buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.



setst RE: Yes, baptism represents our willingness to repent (die to) our old lives of sin, and to rise a new creature in Christ.

Acts 2:38 (NIV)
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.

We must assume then if a family is baptized in the NT, then the whole family would have been old enough to repent and believe in Jesus at the hearing of the Gospel.



setst RE: If possible, that is preferred since:

1) the minister was ordained in that he was determined faithful to perform this Spiritual function.

2) the baptism is a testimony of one's faith to the body of believers...

Romans 9:9-13 (NIV)
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Thanks for answering. You too mentioned the brevity part.

YES-YES-NO-YES-NO
More important, be Baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Blessings

Why did you answer "No" in the third and last question. Please give an explanation for each of them other than "I believe that infants can be baptized and anyone can baptize the individual."

What is baptism of the Holy Spirit? Do you believe it is regeneration or the indwelling the Spirit, both, or something entirely different (as some others believe)?

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this topic.



Well, there is the baptism of the Spirit, so... but as for the practice of baptism, water is the way described in the Scriptures (Acts 8:36-38; 2:38; 10:47)



I think so, yes.



When possible, yes. Yet there are extreme situations where scarcity of water or time may make immersion impossible. In such circumstances I believe God would be gracious to those who have water sprinkled or poured on them.



Yes. I am at odds with the church I attend on this point, but infant baptism does nothing for the child but get them wet. Infant dedication ceremony? Fine. This is more for the parents and congregation than doing anything spiritual to the child. Infant baptism into the body of Christ? Of no spiritual value to the child, IMO, and it may be detrimental because, in most cases, no believer's baptism is offered upon the child coming to faith. It deprives them of their first act of obedience.



I think any believer can perform baptism.

This is a divisive subject, but I hope we can all discuss it with open minds and loving hearts.

Thank you for responding!

If the mode of baptism can be changed under certain circumstances, does this mean some of the other things mentioned above can change as well? If there is no water, we should use milk?

Element: scripture seems to suggest water only.
Formula: scripture includes in the name of the trinity and Jesus Christ, so either are acceptable even if the name of the trinity is preferred.
Mode: sprinkling is acceptable and something done in the Old Testament and likely done in the New Testament as well based on circumstances.
Recipient: Baptism is the new covenant version of circumcision, it applies to the entire household including newborns. We see several instances in Acts where the new believer and their household were baptized.
Performer: Baptism is an element of worship and should generally be performed as part of a church service, preferably performed by an elder (teaching or ruling).

Thank you for answering, I don't watch sports as much anymore as I use to, but Red Wings are my favorite team.

I want to touch on the recipient response. Where does it say that baptism is the new covenant version of circumcision? If they are parallel, should we only baptize males? And if circumcision was done to every male in a household, should we baptized every member of our family, even those who are adults and do not profess any faith in Christ? There is no indication that infants were baptized in Acts where the household was baptized, it is only an assumption with no ground.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,698
5,614
Utah
✟713,703.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Let's debate about this subject, how about it?

Element: Do you believe baptism should be performed only with water?

Formula: Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Mode: Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?

Recipient: Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?

And finally, do you believe baptism should be performed only by an ordained minister?

****


Element: Do you believe baptism should be performed only with water?

There are two baptisms, one by water and one by fire - the Holy Spirit ... so regarding the water one

Luke 3:16

16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Formula: Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Matthew 28:19 - Jesus speaking

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

Mode: Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?

The word baptize means submersion. Jesus was submerged ... we follow His steps.

Recipient: Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?

It's important one knows what baptism is about and have a sincere heart ... a believer

Baptism symbolizes and declares our new faith in Christ and our trust in His forgiveness. Buried in the water, we arise to a new life in Jesus, empowered by the Holy Spirit.
By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life. Thus we acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, become His people, and are received as members by His church. Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the forgiveness of our sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit. It is by immersion in water and is contingent on an affirmation of faith in Jesus and evidence of repentance of sin. It follows instruction in the Holy Scriptures and acceptance of their teachings. (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:38; 16:30-33; 22:16; Rom. 6:1-6; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12, 13.)

And finally, do you believe baptism should be performed only by an ordained minister?

Don't think John the Baptist was ordained (ordained priest-minister) and he baptized Jesus

ordained minister - a person who has been ordained, in accordance with the ceremonial, ritual, or discipline of a church

Mark 1:4

John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

A person who baptizes someone else should be a Christian.

Scripture does not focus very much on the person who baptizes Christians. John 4:2 teaches, "Although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples." Jesus had His disciples baptize His followers rather than doing it Himself.

God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Anyways, if you disagree still (Lets agree to disagree) in love and respect.

Agreed. I see how you came to this conclusion, but I am not convinced of your position.

May you have a good day in the Lord.

And you as well! God bless;
Michael
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums