Baptism is NOT symbolic

[mycatspice]

Well, Baptism doesnt save ya from Hell, that'll take lots more water!

 

[Philip]

One might say that "and" is used to mean "in addition to"...

That still suggests only one birth - a birth from water that includes birth from the Holy Spirit.

Not that they are the same thing. While I don't quite know what Jesus meant when he said that we have to be born of water and the Spirit, he does make a differenciation between physical and spiritual baptism:

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:4-5).
​

Da dum!

Here, Christ makes a specific statement about the advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. What does St Peter do immediately after being so baptized? He tells other to be 'baptized for the remission of sins'.

 

[Philip]

I hope you like the taste of your own shoe leather. You've just, sarcastically, put your foot in it. History is replete with references to "waters of birth", "birth waters", "founts of birth", and a plethera of other "symbolic" analogies. Do a search on it sometimes. Or, will you deny the authenticity of the references of every civilization since the beginning. They did leave a massive amount of writings, you know. Or, can you even weigh the proof beyond the end of your nose? They are two seperate births, Jesus did say so, it's there for you to read. He does not agree with you.

You failed to provide an example. Can you provide one? In particular, I'd like one with which Nicodemus would be familiar.

I googled all three phrases you offered, and all that comes up are directions on giving birth in a bathtub, Greek myth about the origin of chaos, and some lyrics by Roger Waters.

 

[Scholar in training]

That still suggests only one birth - a birth from water that includes birth from the Holy Spirit.

Okay, I'm down with that.

Here, Christ makes a specific statement about the advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. What does St Peter do immediately after being so baptized? He tells other to be 'baptized for the remission of sins'.

Yes, right after Jesus says that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Not with water. And since water can't wash away our sins...

I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[findthejake]

just thought I would add my dad's two cents.
A little view of infant baptism and believers. Old/New covenant stuff... I'm sure you'll find it boring

A sacrament is a visible sign by which God offers His promise of grace confirming His covenant promises. Baptism is the sacramental sign of the New Covenant. In this sign God seals His pledge to the elect that they are included in the covenant of grace. Baptism was instituted by Christ and must be done in the name of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It signifies a cleansing and remission of our sins, along with the regeneration by the Holy Spirit, being buried and raised together with Christ, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, being adopted into the family of God, and being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 12:12-14.



The outward sign of baptism does not automatically or magically convey rebirth or regeneration. The power of baptism is not in the act itself, or in the water, but in the power of God. The reality of rebirth, for example, may be present before or after the sign of baptism is given.



In the Old Testament the sign of the covenant was circumcision, which was a sign of faith. It the case of adults, such as Abraham, faith came prior to the sign of circumcision. In the case of the children of believers, the sign came before their faith, as it was with Isaac. Romans 4:11-12. Likewise, in the New Covenant, adults should be baptized as a statement or profession of their faith, while their children receive baptism before they profess faith. Colossians 2:11-15.



Baptism does not itself regenerate the heart or impart faith. The validity of baptism does not rest upon the character of the one who receives the sign, or on the character of the one who performs it, but it is a promise of God for salvation to all who believe in Christ. Since it is God’s promise, the validity of the promise rests upon the trustworthiness of the character of God. Titus 3:3-7.



The New Testament neither explicitly commands infants to be baptized not explicitly prohibits them from being baptized. The debate seems to center on the meaning of baptism and the degree of continuity between the Old and the New Covenants. Though baptism and circumcision are not identical, there are some crucial parallels. Both are signs of the covenant. In the Old Testament, God ordered that the sign of faith be given before faith was present. Genesis 17:1-14. Since that was clearly the case, it is erroneous to argue in principle that it is wrong to administer a sign of faith before that faith is present.



The record of baptisms in the New Testament was of adults who were previously unbelievers. They were first generation Christians. It is always proper that adult converts receive baptism as a sign of the faith that they profess before receiving it. Many of the baptisms recorded in the New Testament indicate that the entire household was baptized. Acts 10:34-47, 16:14-15,16:25-34. Even Jews who came to Christ during the apostolic age received the sign of baptism. Acts 2:38-39. Since infants and children were not specifically excluded, it could be assumed that they were included, especially since they had been included in the covenant sign of circumcision for thousands years.



God has always dealt with His people in a covenantal way, administering His grace to families. Genesis 9:9, 17:7-10, 35:12, 48:4. During the apostolic age, the Holy Spirit was grafting new branches into the covenant family of the patriarchs. Romans 11:16-23. The conversion of a man who was formerly a stranger to the covenant meant that the covenant promises were also brought to his family. The descendants of Abraham were introduced to a blessing, not that they all were saved, but that God’s grace was at work within the family.



In general the New Covenant is more inclusive than the Old Covenant, going beyond being passed through by family lines and national ties. The New Covenant allows even Gentiles into the community of faith. Why would it be less inclusive with respect to children despite the absence of any biblical prohibition against infant baptism?

 

[Philip]

And since water can't wash away our sins...

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit can not work through water to wash away our sins?

 

[InquisitorKind]

The vast majority of the time, it is used to mean 'to cause'.

What you've written here doesn't refute my position on Acts 2:38 being inconclusive. Other passages have to be used to determine if baptismal regeneration is correct or not.

~Matt

 

[Philip]

What you've written here doesn't refute my position on Acts 2:38 being inconclusive.

I agree that it leaves the verse inconclusive. However, the fact that the vast majority of the time eis means 'to cause' suggests that the verse is inconclusive, but leaning towards baptismal regeneration.

Other passages have to be used to determine if baptismal regeneration is correct or not.

Agreed.

 

[Scholar in training]

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit can not work through water to wash away our sins?

I'm not saying that he can't, I'm saying that he doesn't.

John the Baptist speaking: “I baptize you with [ Or in] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matthew 3:11).

Again, there seems to be a difference between the two. If you can refute me using Scripture or prove that my analysis of these verses is wrong, then feel free to do so.

 

[Philip]

John the Baptist speaking: “I baptize you with [ Or in] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matthew 3:11).

Again, I say that they are different. If you can refute me using Scripture or prove that my analysis of these verses is wrong, then feel free to do so.

I fail to see where Prodromos claims that Christ will not use water. I see that he says He will use the Spirit, but I don't see where he says He will use only the Spirit.

 

[JohnJones]

Peter says "...days of Noah...in which few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The fulfillment of this is baptism which also now saves you, not in that it removes dirt from your flesh, but in that it is the appeal to God for a clean conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." (1 Peter 3:20-22)

Baptism is the necessary appeal we make to God for a clean conscience. Just as God has chosen the means whereby our cleansing from sin is made possible (Christ's sacrifice) so has God chosen how will must appeal for that cleansing (baptism). Thus in Acts 2:38 does Peter say "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" because baptism is where we appeal for cleansing from sin, and in Acts 22:16 we find that Paul was told to "be baptized and wash away your sins," so we again see that baptism is the appeal for cleansing--but here we also see that God answers the appeal also in baptism--it is in the appeal that sins are washed away--sins are washed away in baptism. But, says someone, "he refers to SPIRIT baptism not WATER baptism"--why then the reference to the flood and 8 souls being saved via water? There is but ONE baptism and that ONE baptism consists of both water and Spirit as we find in Titus 3:5 "washing of rebirth and renewing by the Holy Ghost" and John 3:5 "born of water and of the Spirit"--one baptism of two elements.

 

[Scholar in training]

I fail to see where Prodromos claims that Christ will not use water. I see that he says He will use the Spirit, but I don't see where he says He will use only the Spirit.

Prodromos?

Anyway, of course baptism is still used (Philip and the Ethiopian); I am contesting the idea that the Spirit always comes through baptism. The apostles didn't receive the Spirit the moment they were baptized, they received the Spirit at Pentecost. Acts 11:15-17 shows that believers can be filled with the Spirit outside of baptism, however, I don't know if that means that believers WON'T get the Spirit at baptism. What are you trying to prove, exactly? If you are saying that the Holy Spirit comes at baptism and uses it as a form of literal repentance, then please offer some proof.

 

[JohnJones]

The only two examples where the Spirit was not received in baptism are Acts 2 and Acts 10, which were special cases. The first the opening of the gospel to the Jews, and the second the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles. These rare occurances of receiving the spirit first then being baptized never happened again and never will happen again. For everyone who was not there in Acts 2 or Acts 10 (and even those who were there that did not receive the spirit thus) the saing of Peter holds true "be baptized...and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

 

[LLC3GUYS]

To end this utter foolishment, at least to the open hearts. There is a thief, now in heaven, who only knew the water birth of his mother. No water baptism, none at all. He was hung on a cross, next to Jesus, whose words deny yours. Lastly, I gave you the avenue of searching on the internet for the titles, page #'s, cuniforms, heiroglyphics, parchments, or any other form you may desire. Do the work yourself, if you are really open to the proof and the truth. Let the foolish post their hearts out.

 

[Scholar in training]

The only two examples where the Spirit was not received in baptism are Acts 2 and Acts 10, which were special cases. The first the opening of the gospel to the Jews, and the second the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles. These rare occurances of receiving the spirit first then being baptized never happened again and never will happen again.

How do you know that? What about the times that the apostles laid hands on people and those willing received the Holy Spirit?

For everyone who was not there in Acts 2 or Acts 10 (and even those who were there that did not receive the spirit thus) the saing of Peter holds true "be baptized...and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Not everyone who is baptized receives the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:15-17 proves that well enough. Not to mention that even Simon the sorcerer from Acts 8 was physically baptized and he still tried to buy the Holy Spirit from Peter in verse 19!

 

[SPALATIN]

How do you know that? What about the times that the apostles laid hands on people and those willing received the Holy Spirit?


Not everyone who is baptized receives the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:15-17 proves that well enough. Not to mention that even Simon the sorcerer from Acts 8 was physically baptized and he still tried to buy the Holy Spirit from Peter in verse 19!

To some degree I would agree with you about Simon, but for the most part how is one going to receive the Holy Spirit lest they be Baptized? This is God's means of Grace to us through which we can receive his Holy Spirit. Baptism is not something we do but something God does so it is not a work that we do to merit anything.

 

[SPALATIN]

To end this utter foolishment, at least to the open hearts. There is a thief, now in heaven, who only knew the water birth of his mother. No water baptism, none at all. He was hung on a cross, next to Jesus, whose words deny yours. Lastly, I gave you the avenue of searching on the internet for the titles, page #'s, cuniforms, heiroglyphics, parchments, or any other form you may desire. Do the work yourself, if you are really open to the proof and the truth. Let the foolish post their hearts out.

Excuse me, but your reasoning here falls short because of the fact that Baptism was not given to us as yet, in fact, Christ doesn't institute it until after the resurrection. So the fact that he told the thief that "today you would be with me in Paradise" is not a very good example of someone receiving salvation without Baptism.

 

[mrcrow]

the thief on the cross wasnt baptised...in water...but in the holy spirit..look where it got him...

 

[Philip]

Prodromos?

Greek for 'Fore runner'. St John the Baptizer was the forerunner of Christ.

 

[Philip]

the thief on the cross wasnt baptised...in water...but in the holy spirit

Which is why Orthodoxy describes baptism with water as necessary when possible. God will have mercy on whom He has mercy. We do not claim that God will reject someone because they they were unable to be baptized. Rather, we have faith that God will keep His promise and have mercy on those who are baptized in His Name.

By the way, did you bother to read the post directly above yours?