Baptism

[Thekla]

then you bring hostility on yourselves by saying "I am right" and "you are wrong".

I only intend to correct the misunderstandings applied to the EO, and RC where the beliefs are shared with EO.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Jesus said, "For I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance",

let's use the Man's own words instead of someone else's.

And an imperative sentence asks, requests, or commands someone to do something. The imperative mood is a grammatical mood that expresses direct commands or requests. It is also used to signal a prohibition, permission or any other kind of exhortation.

 

[jmacvols]

Notice though that He does not say that who is not baptized will be condemned but those who disbelieve.

Mk 16:16 is a compound sentence. The first part deals with salvation the second with condemnation. So if you desire to be saved look at the first part and believe and be baptized. If you desire to be lost look at the second part and simply not believe. Only one condition need to be met to be lost and that is unbelief.
Also note the order of this verse, it makes "belief" a prerequisite to baptism, therefore unbelievers cannot be baptized. Therefore when Jesus said "he that "believeth not", this includes the unbaptized since unbelievers cannot be baptized.

 

[vanshan]

Let's also be clear, we do not believe children are born guilty of any sin, so if they were to die without the benefits of baptism, they are not damned. Our reason for baptizing them isn't the same as another group. We do it to give the children the gift of the Holy Spirit, and all the benefits His presence brings. This doesn't guarantee their salvation, because they still have a long race to run ahead of them, but it gives them a good start.

Basil

 

[Meshavrischika]

Mk 16:16 is a compound sentence. The first part deals with salvation the second with condemnation. So if you desire to be saved look at the first part and believe and be baptized. If you desire to be lost look at the second part and simply not believe. Only one condition need to be met to be lost and that is unbelief.
Also note the order of this verse, it makes "belief" a prerequisite to baptism, therefore unbelievers cannot be baptized. Therefore when Jesus said "he that "believeth not", this includes the unbaptized since unbelievers cannot be baptized.

if you go with that logic according to this later section:
17And these attesting signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;
18They will pick up serpents; and [even] if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will get well.

we all need to drive out demons, speak in tongues, handle serpents and drink poison (oh, and heal)... (notice the "they will" part).

This is the problem with translations. they miss the point of what is being said.

Not to mention Verses 9-20 are found in many ancient Greek manuscripts but not in the two oldest ones.

 

[Meshavrischika]

here's an interesting take I found on the baptism and its reasons:
All Kohanim/priests were required to go through an immersion as part of the consecration/installation ceremony as we have previously seen in Exodus 29:4, before assuming the duties of the priesthood. A man had to be 30 years of age and a descendent from Aaron. We see that the priestly line of Yeshua/Jesus came from His mother who was related to Elisheva/Elizabeth a descendent of Aaron (Luke 1:5). Yeshua/Jesus was not an exception, before entering into His ministry He had to be immersed, choosing His cousin Yochanan haMatvil/John the Baptist to be the witness. Not because Yeshua/Jesus was tomeh/ ritually unclean but because he was making a change of status to a higher degree of Holiness. It was customary also for anyone going on a fast to be immersed. In Mathew 4:1-2, it is written:

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. {2} And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered.​

Many sermons have been preached on this one subject but the simple truth is Yeshua/Jesus had to carry out every requirement in Torah or He would not have been the perfect Passover lamb that takes away the sin of the world.

 

[Meshavrischika]

more interesting "baptism" information that is really cool:

The Levites were servants in the Beit haMikdash/Sanctuary or Temple. The ceremony that separated them unto the service of G-d and cleanse them from tomeh/ritually impurity consisted of an immersion according to Numbers 8:15 as it is written:

"And after that shall the Levites go in to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation: and thou shalt cleanse them, and offer them for an offering".​

This applies to us as servants of the L-rd, we are set aside for the service to the L-rd and our body is a living sacrifice as recorded in the words of Rav Shaul/Rabbi Paul in Romans 12:1 as it is written:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service".​

 

[MamaZ]

more interesting "baptism" information that is really cool:

The Levites were servants in the Beit haMikdash/Sanctuary or Temple. The ceremony that separated them unto the service of G-d and cleanse them from tomeh/ritually impurity consisted of an immersion according to Numbers 8:15 as it is written:

"And after that shall the Levites go in to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation: and thou shalt cleanse them, and offer them for an offering".
​

This applies to us as servants of the L-rd, we are set aside for the service to the L-rd and our body is a living sacrifice as recorded in the words of Rav Shaul/Rabbi Paul in Romans 12:1 as it is written:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service".
​

Very Interesting.. I enjoyed this post.

 

[Stinker]

Water baptism is such a fantastic experience! It is a tremendous psychological lift. That is why Peter wrote that it saves us in this regard. It is an appeal to God for a clear conscience. (1Pet.3:21) This expession is used in a number of passages of scripture in a figurative sense. In Acts 22:16 it is used in this manner where Saul/Paul after 3 days of prayer and fasting was told to "arise and be baptized, washing away his sins".

 

[jmacvols]

if you go with that logic according to this later section:
17And these attesting signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;
18They will pick up serpents; and [even] if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will get well.

we all need to drive out demons, speak in tongues, handle serpents and drink poison (oh, and heal)... (notice the "they will" part).

This is the problem with translations. they miss the point of what is being said.

If you carefully read thru this context remember that it is the apostles that are the unbelievers, for Jesus upbraids them for their unbelief. It must also be remembered that the plural pronouns 'they', 'them' and 'their' in this context refers to the apostles, not to the singular pronoun 'he' in verse 16. So when Jesus said of them that believe, He is referencing those unbelieving apostles that believe, they will have these signs. Verse 20 bears this out--and they (apostles) went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them (apostles) confirming the word with signs following. So these signs according to this context belonged to the apostles. Paul called them "signs of an apostle" 2 Cor 12:12.

Not to mention Verses 9-20 are found in many ancient Greek manuscripts but not in the two oldest ones.

This is an old argument that fails in trying to get rid of Mk 16:16. Verses 9-20 are found in about 99% of the Greek manuscripts.
"..the conclusion (of Mark 16) is historically and authentically true...the section is found in most uncial and all cursive manuscripts, in most of the ancient versions, in all existing Greek and Syrian lectionaries as far as examined; and Iranaeus, who is a much older witness than any of our existing manuscripts, quotes verse 19 as a part of the gospel of Mark..." (Dr Phillip Schaff, President of the 1901 American Standard Committee, Companion to the Greek Testament ans English Version, pp. 189, 190)

Only the MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not have the account and they are fourth century manuscripts. Combining both of these manuscripts, not only do they omit Mark 16:9-10 they also omit 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Revelation, Hebrews 9:15 to the end of the book and dozens of other verses. If you want to question the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 because it is omitted from these two manuscripts, then you must question everything that is omitted.

 

[Epiphoskei]

99% of greek manuscripts are byzantine text types... the Byzantine texts do not carry much weight. They are only so numerous because they were produced on a larger scale. Long Mark also simply doesn't read like the rest of Mark, and internal evidence like that has heavy weight.

 

[Canaan-84]

When should it be done?
To whom?
How (immersion, sprinkling, etc.)
What does it signifiy?
Is it essential for salvation?

explain your answers.

From Catholic Answers (If I'm not mistaken)

Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38, Romans 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Galatians 3:14,29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Romans 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 29:10-12, cf. Matthew 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25, Romans 2:28-9, Philippians 3:3). Infants are wholly saved by God's grace just as adults are, only apart from their rational and willful consent. Their parents act in their behalf.

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

 

[NorrinRadd]

In Acts 16:30,31, the jailer asked 'what must I do to be saved?'. He was told by Paul to "believe". The verb "believe" here is in the imperative mood also, hence believing is commanded. Is Paul's commands just as binding as Peter's? Was Paul's words just as inspired as Peter's? If the command to be baptized is optional then why not the command to believe be optional also?

If the command to "be baptized" is mandatory, why did Paul not include it here? He did not say, "Believe and be baptized," he just said, "Believe."

The text records that indeed they *were* baptized -- which only highlights the fact that Paul did not include that in his answer when asked what they "must" do.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Water baptism is such a fantastic experience! ...

Frankly, I didn't find it to be any big fireworks event.

 

[vanshan]

If the command to "be baptized" is mandatory, why did Paul not include it here? He did not say, "Believe and be baptized," he just said, "Believe."

For the Apostles and those they were bringing into the faith it was a given that they would be baptized into Christ if they believed. Everyone listening to their message understood that was the entrance into the Kingdom of God. In other places it's more explicit in scripture.

Basil

 

[vanshan]

Frankly, I didn't find it to be any big fireworks event.

One common error that we make is judging our spiritual experiences by our emotional response. Just because you don't feel something, doesn't mean it's not happening. We must use other ways to discern spiritual reality, because emotions can come and go, and mislead. One example of how wrong it can be to seek emotional confirmation of spiritual reality is the consumerism used by some Christian groups to draw people in. They start making worship more like a show to please the senses, than true sacrificial worship of God.

Basil

 

[vanshan]

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.


This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized.

Excellent point.

Baptism is the New Covenant fulfillment of the circumcision according to the flesh. Babies do gain entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven, but that doesn't guarantee they won't later depart from grace, by their free will. No one is suggesting that these babies are saved against their own wills, but they are admitted into God's Kingdom, but will have to face obstacles later to stay within the protection of God's grace.

Basil

 

[MamaZ]

Excellent point.

Baptism is the New Covenant fulfillment of the circumcision according to the flesh. Babies do gain entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven, but that doesn't guarantee they won't later depart from grace, by their free will. No one is suggesting that these babies are saved against their own wills, but they are admitted into God's Kingdom, but will have to face obstacles later to stay within the protection of God's grace.

Basil

The baptism in water is not what circumcizes the heart.

 

[Meshavrischika]

If you carefully read thru this context remember that it is the apostles that are the unbelievers, for Jesus upbraids them for their unbelief. It must also be remembered that the plural pronouns 'they', 'them' and 'their' in this context refers to the apostles, not to the singular pronoun 'he' in verse 16. So when Jesus said of them that believe, He is referencing those unbelieving apostles that believe, they will have these signs. Verse 20 bears this out--and they (apostles) went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them (apostles) confirming the word with signs following. So these signs according to this context belonged to the apostles. Paul called them "signs of an apostle" 2 Cor 12:12.
according to whom? either this section of scripture (including the thing on baptism) is for all believers or for the apostles. make up your mind.

This is an old argument that fails in trying to get rid of Mk 16:16. Verses 9-20 are found in about 99% of the Greek manuscripts.
"..the conclusion (of Mark 16) is historically and authentically true...the section is found in most uncial and all cursive manuscripts, in most of the ancient versions, in all existing Greek and Syrian lectionaries as far as examined; and Iranaeus, who is a much older witness than any of our existing manuscripts, quotes verse 19 as a part of the gospel of Mark..." (Dr Phillip Schaff, President of the 1901 American Standard Committee, Companion to the Greek Testament ans English Version, pp. 189, 190)

Only the MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not have the account and they are fourth century manuscripts. Combining both of these manuscripts, not only do they omit Mark 16:9-10 they also omit 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Revelation, Hebrews 9:15 to the end of the book and dozens of other verses. If you want to question the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 because it is omitted from these two manuscripts, then you must question everything that is omitted.

I have no problem questioning everything, not just what was omitted, but I'm rare in that way. Nothing but God is "sacred to me" and I'll question anything put before me, because God and truth are the only things that stand the test and come out as truth still.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Frankly, I didn't find it to be any big fireworks event.

the more I find out about what baptism is SUPPOSED to be rather than the way it is currently practiced, the more I think it MIGHT be earth moving