A Question About Baptism

UnpopularOpinion said:

water doesn't save , so if you look at it for some sort of relief or anything you won't obtain it.

Click to expand...

No one says that water does save, so let's move on.

There were disciples baptised by John the baptist and when Paul asked them if they received Holy Spirit they haven't even heared something like that before.
Then they got Holy Spirit and were sealed.

Click to expand...

But John's baptism is repeatedly described in Scripture as something other than Christian baptism. And Christian baptism is described, in a number of verses, as including the use of using water.

Dok Bantis said:

Thank you to everyone who has replied; I appreciate all of your posts.

I have no idea whether I will eventually end up within a denomination as my Christian home or not, so I didn't want to wait to ask about this. Right now I am trying to figure out so many things and it is honestly overwhelming.

Sometimes I feel as though what I need is a little from Column A and a little from Column B, etc. But the last thing I want is to be someone who seeks to impose their own will over the form, beliefs, and practices of my church. I want to do the best I can to find The Truth and then to see which church/denomination is the closest to that. But that feels a bit hopeless, to be honest.

Click to expand...

obviously, there are many variations of the baptism ritual and the reasons behind it in the body of Christ; but most of the body of Christ would agree that the Bible is the majority of the written representation of the Living Word of God (given that some add additional texts as included in the written representation of the Living Word of God, or question accuracy of translations, etc.); so let's look at some of what the Bible says about baptism.

the majority of scholars of the Greek language used in Jesus' time agree that the word 'baptize' means 'immerse' - but the medium into which one is to be immersed is not part of the definition of the word 'baptize' as used in the Bible. the Bible refers to several mediums, the most familiar of course is water; but it also speaks of baptism with the Holy Spirit, baptism with fire, baptism to Jesus' death...

(Mat 3:11) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
(Mat 3:12) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


to me, the word "but" means that although what preceded the word "but" in a sentence is factual, those facts are overridden by the Truth that follows the word "but"...

here, John clearly differentiates between his baptism 'with water' and Jesus' baptism 'with the Holy Spirit and with fire'.

(Act 11:16) Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

it seems plain to me from Acts 11:16 above scripture that Jesus is differentiating between the baptism that John taught for his disciples, and and the baptism that Jesus intended for His disciples...and He specifies that the medium to be immersed (baptized) with is the Holy Ghost (generally believed to be the same as the Holy Spirit).

(Rom 6:1) What, then, shall we say? shall we continue in the sin that the grace may abound?
(Rom 6:2) let it not be! we who died to the sin—how shall we still live in it?
(Rom 6:3) are ye ignorant that we, as many as were baptized to Christ Jesus, to his death were baptized?
(Rom 6:4) we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.
(Rom 6:5) For, if we have become planted together to the likeness of his death, so also we shall be of the rising again;
(Rom 6:6) this knowing, that our old man was crucified with him , that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin;
(Rom 6:7) for he who hath died hath been set free from the sin.

here, the medium we are baptized (immersed) into is death - for us the death of the 'old man', and as Jesus rose from the dead, we too rose from the dead as new creatures, now free from the bondage brought by sin.

(Act 13:23) Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
(Act 13:24) When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

Acts 13:24 doesn't say that John first preached the baptism of repentance to all nations and peoples, but to "all the house of Israel" (who, btw, were under the Law of Moses that had been perverted by Israel into a ritual-based religion that centered on one's performance, instead of the Law of Faith in Grace that centers on knowing God without regard to one's performance, bad or good).

(Mat 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
(Mat 28:19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
(Mat 28:20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

in verse 19, Jesus clearly instructed that all nations be baptized - but into what medium? water, the Holy Spirit, fire, death, some other medium? the body of Christ at large has assumed that the medium implied here is water - but how can this be reconciled with Jesus' clarification that His disciples would be "...baptized with the Holy Ghost", or John's clarification that although he baptized with water, Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire'?

(1Co 1:13) Hath the Christ been divided? was Paul crucified for you? or to the name of Paul were ye baptized;
(1Co 1:14) I give thanks to God that no one of you did I baptize, except Crispus and Gaius—
(1Co 1:15) that no one may say that to my own name I did baptize;
(1Co 1:16) and I did baptize also Stephanas' household—further, I have not known if I did baptize any other.
(1Co 1:17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but—to proclaim good news; not in wisdom of discourse, that the cross of the Christ may not be made of none effect;
(1Co 1:18) for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us—those being saved—it is the power of God,
(1Co 1:19) for it hath been written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will bring to nought;'
(1Co 1:20) where is the wise? where the scribe? where a disputer of this age? did not God make foolish the wisdom of this world?
(1Co 1:21) for, seeing in the wisdom of God the world through the wisdom knew not God, it did please God through the foolishness of the preaching to save those believing.

Here, Paul makes it clear that salvation is not dependent on baptism, regardless of the medium - people are saved through 'the foolishness of preaching'; the 'hearing and hearing' of God's Word that diminishes doubt and unbinds faith in God.

my advice is to set aside this decision, and do not choose a church to attend based on how they require baptism and what medium of baptism they require - let God lead you to a church, and no matter what they teach, let God's Word be what you base your decision about water baptism on, and not the wisdom of man - while remaining open to receiving water baptism again in the form required if necessary in order to avoid offending those that God has sent you to.

-edited to change the quote from Mat 3:11, 12 to the KJV for consitency

Dok Bantis said:

About a dozen years ago I first officially became a Christian by being baptized into the Catholic Church (as an adult). Over time, I fell away from the Catholic Church and took a very long trip into some extremely dark places (Paganism, Witchcraft, and even Satanism). I was in severe rebellion.

Click to expand...

This paragraph from the OP represents the key issue and so far it has been ignored

Permit me to be honestly blunt, by sufficiently loving you to tell you the truth: YOU ARE DEMONIZED, or possibly worse. Your confusion, and focusing on the mode of baptism rather than meaning and message of baptism are strong indicators of that.


While the context might not align properly the abiding principle is that since confusion (especially if it is spiritual in nature) can NEVER be from God the Father

Jesus says the same as Paul

And in John 8, Jesus gives credence to what I stated above:


No one can make the case that "Paganism, Witchcraft, and even Satanism" are truthful, holy or God-honoring. We both know of the sex acts that are a part of the "worship" in these anti-Christian rites, so let's not kid ourselves about them, and that is why I can state without equivocation that you are demonized (or something deeper) due to your self-described "severe rebellion"

In no way am I condemning you, nor thinking that I am above you. However, I am accurately describing the source of your confusion, and letting you know that it is possible to be healed from your demonized situation. It is not unusual, nor is there any indication that Satan ever stopped demonizing people; he knows his end, and wants to take as many people who were all created in the image of God with him to that horrible, never-ending punishment as he can.

Therefore the cure for this demonized position is the blood of Jesus Christ. There is much more to say about that, so I'll save it for the next post.

Dok Bantis said:

I hope that this is the correct sub-forum for my question; while I am not entirely a new Christian, my question is kind of a new Christian's question.

About a dozen years ago I first officially became a Christian by being baptized into the Catholic Church (as an adult). Over time, I fell away from the Catholic Church and took a very long trip into some extremely dark places (Paganism, Witchcraft, and even Satanism). I was in severe rebellion.

As I have since returned to Christ, I find myself wondering whether I need to be baptized again. I ask partly because 1.) I spent years denying and opposing Christ, and partly because 2.) my Catholic baptism was (as many know) baptism by pouring, not by immersion.

I understand that there is likely disagreement among Christians regarding whether immersion is necessary, or if "sprinkling" is acceptable.

I appreciate input from everyone willing to share their thoughts/beliefs/proofs.

Thank you in advance!

EDITED TO ADD: I am not planning to attend the Catholic Church any longer. I will be pursuing a Protestant understanding and practice of the Faith.

Click to expand...

Baptism only represents the engrafting of a person into the covenant. Your baptism is therefore sufficient. That you may have backslidden in your adherence to the covenant does not mean that God did as well. Therefore I would submit there is no reason to get baptized again. In fact, we see no such thing in scripture.

UnpopularOpinion said:

water doesn't save

Click to expand...

And Christianity has never taught that water saves.

If Baptism were merely water, then this would be relevant to discussion about the meaning and significance of Baptism.

But Baptism is more than mere water, it is water connected to and comprehended with God's word, it is therefore a Sacrament, a means of grace, and therefore does and accomplishes that which we read in Scripture concerning it. This is why St. Paul says in Ephesians 5:26 that Christ has cleansed His Church by "the washing of water with the word". Water with the word, that's Baptism. Water and the Spirit (John 3:5), that's Baptism.

If it were just water it wouldn't be Baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

Albion said:

I'd agree that "sprinkling" wouldn't be a good translation, but the meaning certainly isn't confined to total immersion. Wash, dunk, and a number of other words in our language that do not mean immerse exclusively are correct translations.

Incidentally, relatively few churches routinely baptize by "sprinkling." But the word sounds funny, and that fact makes it a favorite of members of denominations of the Fundamentalist sort when setting out to ridicule the baptisms performed in the historic churches. These mainly baptize by pouring.

Click to expand...

sprinkle/pouring ..... it's not immersion

Was Jesus a "Fundamentalist" ?

well ... another way to look at it is ..... we are to follow in the steps of Jesus ... and when He was baptized He was immersed.

Matthew 3:16

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,

Also archeology has found baptistries that show by their construction people were being baptized by immersion dating way back all over the world

Archaeological Evidence for Baptism by Immersion – Baptists & Baptism, Part 10

as stated before .... getting baptized don't save you .... Jesus does

eleos1954 said:

sprinkle/pouring ..... it's not immersion

well ... another way to look at it is ..... we are to follow in the steps of Jesus ... and when He was baptized He was immersed.

Matthew 3:16

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,

Also archeology has found baptistries that show by their construction people were being baptized by immersion dating way back all over the world

Archaeological Evidence for Baptism by Immersion – Baptists & Baptism, Part 10

as stated before .... getting baptized don't save you .... Jesus does

Click to expand...

Yes, Jesus would have been immersed into the river by John, that's a pretty safe assumption we can make. And the ancient practice of the Church was baptism by immersion (specifically three-fold immersion).

But insisting that only immersion is acceptable ignores actual Christian practice going back to the first century. Three-fold immersion was normative and standard, but Christianity has never been legalistic about this. Where there wasn't a sufficient quantity of water available to fully immerse someone it was perfectly acceptable to pour water upon the head.

-CryptoLutheran

Dok Bantis said:

EDITED TO ADD: I am not planning to attend the Catholic Church any longer. I will be pursuing a Protestant understanding and practice of the Faith.

Click to expand...

In that case, decide first which Protestant understanding and practice of the Faith you plan to follow (Anglican? Presbyterian? Baptist? Lutheran? Pentecostal?) and then do whatever that Protestant belief says regarding baptism.

Dok Bantis said:

As I have since returned to Christ, I find myself wondering whether I need to be baptized again. I ask partly because 1.) I spent years denying and opposing Christ, and partly because 2.) my Catholic baptism was (as many know) baptism by pouring, not by immersion.

Click to expand...

Be sure you are born again of the Spirit and not just in water.

Yes, it is sad that you rejected Jesus Christ and fell away. However, He is always ready to forgive us and accept us back. Yes, your baptism was by pouring, because you were a member of the original and true Christian Church, which has been using that method for 2,000 years. This is the one Church Jesus founded, which He said was to remain one, to which He promised "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me. If you reject His Church and His promises of truth, where would you expect to find His truth? In one of the 6,000 conflicting denominations of Protestantism? Truth cannot conflict with truth, so obviously a great deal of untruth is being taught in such unauthorized manmade churches. Pray about this carefully before you make a decision, and I assure you God will guide you back to His Church and to Himself.

Dok Bantis said:

I hope that this is the correct sub-forum for my question; while I am not entirely a new Christian, my question is kind of a new Christian's question.

About a dozen years ago I first officially became a Christian by being baptized into the Catholic Church (as an adult). Over time, I fell away from the Catholic Church and took a very long trip into some extremely dark places (Paganism, Witchcraft, and even Satanism). I was in severe rebellion.

As I have since returned to Christ, I find myself wondering whether I need to be baptized again. I ask partly because 1.) I spent years denying and opposing Christ, and partly because 2.) my Catholic baptism was (as many know) baptism by pouring, not by immersion.

I understand that there is likely disagreement among Christians regarding whether immersion is necessary, or if "sprinkling" is acceptable.

I appreciate input from everyone willing to share their thoughts/beliefs/proofs.

Thank you in advance!

EDITED TO ADD: I am not planning to attend the Catholic Church any longer. I will be pursuing a Protestant understanding and practice of the Faith.

Click to expand...

You have been baptized, the question is if needed to repeat. Here I would say it's up for you to decide. Some churches teach infant baptism, which means no need for re-baptism and others teach believers baptism, then if you just have come to real faith a re-baptism could be valid. If I was uncertain, I would probably go for the re-bap, but it's for you to decide. Either way, IMO you can't go very wrong with this.

Dok Bantis said:

I hope that this is the correct sub-forum for my question; while I am not entirely a new Christian, my question is kind of a new Christian's question.

About a dozen years ago I first officially became a Christian by being baptized into the Catholic Church (as an adult). Over time, I fell away from the Catholic Church and took a very long trip into some extremely dark places (Paganism, Witchcraft, and even Satanism). I was in severe rebellion.

As I have since returned to Christ, I find myself wondering whether I need to be baptized again. I ask partly because 1.) I spent years denying and opposing Christ, and partly because 2.) my Catholic baptism was (as many know) baptism by pouring, not by immersion.

I understand that there is likely disagreement among Christians regarding whether immersion is necessary, or if "sprinkling" is acceptable.

I appreciate input from everyone willing to share their thoughts/beliefs/proofs.

Thank you in advance!

EDITED TO ADD: I am not planning to attend the Catholic Church any longer. I will be pursuing a Protestant understanding and practice of the Faith.

Click to expand...

Dear Dok Bantis,
Remember what John the Baptist have spoken:
"I baptize with water, BUT among you stands ONE you do not know, -John 1:26

What was said about John the Baptist in the gospel ?
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of REPENTANCE for the forgiveness of sins. -Mark 1:4

For what purpose is this baptism with water that John the Baptist have spoken:

I myself did not know Him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that He ( Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God ) might be revealed to Israel." -John 1:31

What is revealed ?
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! -John 1:29

What does mean to have Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God for us ?

This has been revealed :
For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and He will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." -Revelation 7:17

For those who are baptized with water, need to receive the proclamation of baptism of repentance; that is that we are called to receive God’s grace of repentance, that is, to turn from sin to God through the gospel of Jesus Christ. In this manner of faith, our hearts are prepared for the way of the Lord !

As it is written:
the voice of ONE crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight,'" -Mark 1:3

What is the way of the Lord ?

It is true that we who were baptized were baptized into Christ’s death through baptism.
It is so that we serve God in the new way of the Spirit, as written in Roman 7:6

That is why our Lord Jesus Christ have told us :to wait for the promise of the Father, which, He said, "you heard from Me; -Acts 1:4
for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." -Acts 1:5

How to make His paths straight ?
This is what we have heard:
By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by THE FEAR OF THE LORD one turns away from evil. -Proverbs 16:6

Thus, by the fear of the Lord Jesus Christ, one can turn away from evil of paganism, witchcraft, satanism and all forms of rebellion.

How to understand the fear of the Lord ?
Listen to what our Heavenly Father has spoken in Proverbs 2:1-5

What is the witness that John have spoken after Jesus was baptized with water ?

And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." -John 1:34

What is the witness that we have after we have baptized with water ?

This is what our Lord Jesus Christ have spoken:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. -John 3:18

This is the witness that those who have baptized with water have is that we believe in the Lamb of God who is Jesus Christ, the name of the only Son of God and that we believe in Him is not condemned. Through His gospel, we are saved through Christ and have everlasting life in union with Him.

Dok Bantis said:

I hope that this is the correct sub-forum for my question; while I am not entirely a new Christian, my question is kind of a new Christian's question.

About a dozen years ago I first officially became a Christian by being baptized into the Catholic Church (as an adult). Over time, I fell away from the Catholic Church and took a very long trip into some extremely dark places (Paganism, Witchcraft, and even Satanism). I was in severe rebellion.

As I have since returned to Christ, I find myself wondering whether I need to be baptized again. I ask partly because 1.) I spent years denying and opposing Christ, and partly because 2.) my Catholic baptism was (as many know) baptism by pouring, not by immersion.

I understand that there is likely disagreement among Christians regarding whether immersion is necessary, or if "sprinkling" is acceptable.

I appreciate input from everyone willing to share their thoughts/beliefs/proofs.

Thank you in advance!

EDITED TO ADD: I am not planning to attend the Catholic Church any longer. I will be pursuing a Protestant understanding and practice of the Faith.

Click to expand...

I would say yes to being rebaptised, but that is purely because from your post it seems that you think the original baptism was of no consequence. Without being with you there is no way of telling how genuine the first baptism was, nor even your christian walk.

If you treat baptism as some kind of magical event wherein you are changed then you have missed the point. It should be an outward sign of the inward change and that is all it is: a sign of your commitment. But it requires the commitment to continue.

If you are ready (now) to commit your life then baptism would be good if you don't accept the reality of the first baptism.

The early church accepted both dunking and sprinkling, though the latter was encouraged when the former was not available easily if I recall correctly (Didache).

Second baptisms occurred for John's disciples. The first baptism was for repentance.

Ultimately, however it is all moot if your life has not been transformed.

Dok Bantis said:

I hope that this is the correct sub-forum for my question; while I am not entirely a new Christian, my question is kind of a new Christian's question.

I understand that there is likely disagreement among Christians regarding whether immersion is necessary, or if "sprinkling" is acceptable.

Click to expand...

Dok,

The best question to consider is not what you did to be accepted by God ( What I call Religion ), but what Jesus did for you. I recommend you shift your focus on what Jesus did for you at the cross and study that concept in the scriptures. You might find all other concerns of your works to come to God become much less relevant.

eleos1954 said:

sprinkle/pouring ..... it's not immersion

Click to expand...

Of course not. So use immersion in your church if that is the preference, but the use of water is what is required.

My comment about "sprinkling" was that this method is NOT the most common, although people who don't approve of pouring seem to enjoy saying the word "sprinkling" when ridiculing the churches that don't ordinarily use total immersion.

well ... another way to look at it is ..... we are to follow in the steps of Jesus ... and when He was baptized He was immersed.

Click to expand...

We don't know that he was immersed and the Bible does not tell us that he was immersed.

Matthew 3:16

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water;

Click to expand...

Rivers have banks, and so did the River Jordan. The places used by people for crossings and etc. are shallow, hardly capable of immersing anyone unless they were laid down flat. And by the way, if you were totally immersed and then stood up, you wouldn't actually be from the water, but still standing in it!

Whoever we may be speaking of, when a person leaves a body of water, he is often said to come "up" as he walks progressively into shallower water and then steps up onto the bank, completely out of the water.

It is also instructive to know that one of the very earliest of Christian murals shows Christ standing in the river with water being poured upon his head.

the best Bible resource i've found is the free PC-based e-Sword:

e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC

e-Sword comes with a number of free translations, commentaries, dictionaries, and other reference materials; most add-ons are free or have a small cost applied by the publisher (not e-Sword); as well as a number of features to aid in self-study.

for android, there's 'MySword', which is similar

hope that helps!

Dok Bantis said:

Would it be the General Theology sub-forum or the Denomination-Specific Theology sub-forum?

Click to expand...

I'd think Denomination-Specific would be the one.