Baptism

[His student]

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."

Of course. Most of us do understand that.

And what we also need to understand is that Jesus standing or sitting at the right hand of God doesn’t necessarily mean that the Lord is a separate person from the God at Who’s right hand He is sitting or standing.

It is simply a way of saying that all authority in Heaven and on the earth has been given to Jesus the incarnate one true God.

The OP, by emphasizing the word only over and over again seemed to be indicating that all other view points are heresy. I disagree.

A non Trinitarian formula can be equally as valid as a Trinitarian one so long as that modalistic view doesn’t stray into viewpoints which are clearly heretical such as Arianism or Mormonism and such.

The Biblical picture is NOT immersion. That's just what fans of total immersion say when the argument arises.

I completely disagree with those who teach that full immersion is the only valid way of baptizing.

But I disagree that immersion is not the most complete picture of what baptism symbolizes.

To each his own. I have no trouble with any of the three basic modes of baptism used in the church..

This is just as I also have no trouble with those who do not baptize with a full on Trinitarian formula but see things differently - i.e. they baptize in the name of Jesus.

We can agree to disagree on many doctrines so long as someone’s doctrine doesn’t effectively end up with teaching another mode of receiving justification before God than simple faith expressed between the person and the invisible God with Whom he has to do.

As an example or two. I have no trouble with Oneness Pentecostal's view of things until they claim that someone needs to be baptized thier way or they can't be saved.

Also I really have no big problem with the idea of transubstantiation etc. My only real problem is when that ritual, performed by an unbiblical priesthood IMO, is tied to basic salvation or the means to be justified before God.

 

[Silverback]

If baptism is taught as being essential to salvation, then it is not part of the gospel that Paul preached, but is a false gospel that brings a curse and condemnation because it is a gospel of faith plus works instead of faith in Christ alone.

Martin Luther, and the other Early Lutheran Reformers were of the belief that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that the benefits the believer received during baptism were entirely God's grace towards us, his work, if you will.

I fail to see the difference in presenting yourself for baptism, and receiving God's grace through it, and presenting for an Altar Call and making a decision to believe, and thus receiving God's grace through it. It seems like semantics to me.

Many modern Lutheran theologians have lightened up a bit and would say that Baptism is not absolutely required for the salvation. I tend to lean more toward the "is required" simply because Christ was baptized, and he said to be baptized.

If it was good enough for the Savior of the world, then it's good enough for me.

 

[Redwingfan9]

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.

It's an assumption without ground that the infant children of believers in Acts weren't baptized. There is a direct parallel between baptism and circumcision, both graft people into the covenant with God. In the case of baptism, there's no reason to limit it to males as we see in Acts that women were baptized (I think Lydia was but don't hold me to that).

 

[Monna]

Both very interesting and very sad to read this thread - interesting because of the many different views on the subject, sad because it continues to provoke debate and conflict, rather than providing an opportunity to show grace to one another.

And I remain with some real questions, that I don't think have been answered to my satisfaction. Don't get me wrong. I was baptized very publicly as a young adult, in response to the teaching I had received that it was an act of obedience.

My questions revolve around the following:

John the Baptist made a very real distinction between his baptism ("with water") and Jesus' ("with the Holy Spirit and fire"). Several of John's disciples were among the 12, and water baptism had deep significance for them. John 3 indicates that "Jesus and his disciples" were baptizing on the other side of the Jordan, but in chapter 4:2, John qualifies this quite significantly and pointedly with the statement that "Jesus did not baptize, but only his disciples."

Jesus reconfirmed John's statement regarding his (Jesus) baptism with the Spirit, and told his disciples to remain in Jerusalem to receive this baptism. Others in this thread have also described incidents in which people in Acts were baptized in the Spirit by the laying on of hands. We also have the interesting meeting between Aquilla, Priscilla and Apollos in Acts 18, and "meanwhile in Ephesus" Paul was meeting other folks that only knew the Baptism of John in chapter 19.

Acts 18
24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. (Note, he taught about Jesus accurately, but apparently not adequately. It seems the difference was regarding baptism, or...?)

27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28 For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.

Acts 19
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

So Aquilla and Priscilla, as well as Paul, like John the Baptist, made a clear distinction between John's baptism with water, and Jesus' baptism with the Holy Spirit. Baptism with John's baptism was evidently not "enough." (Incidentally, a small detail: in Ephesus the 12 disciples were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" - not the formula in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.)

So my questions goes back to the command that we all love to quote "Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit." All the baptisms I have ever witnessed, and my own included, even if they were accompanied by this "in the name of...." have been water baptisms. No laying on of hands and baptism with the Holy Spirit. (I confess that I haven't been everywhere! )

When Jesus gave this command, was He referring to John's water baptism or His own baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire? Personally, I find it difficult to believe that he was giving priority to John's baptism. But I may be wrong.

Then there is the detail of when they were baptized. It was not after a probationary period, used by church leaders to make sure the person was really committed to the Lord Jesus, but expected to be "when they believed." (Acts 19:2)

Finally, there is another passage in which Jesus refers to baptism, and that was when certain disciples wanted to get privileged places in the coming kingdom. Jesus asked them "can you be baptized with my baptism." (Mark 10:37-39) Here he was referring to his suffering, death and resurrection. And I think this is the core of Jesus' baptism in real life - it is about the daily living sacrifice that we are called to. "Deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow Me." To participate in his "suffering" and hence in his resurrection.

Does our ritual of water baptism actually have any meaning in the eyes of the Lord, if we are not actually living this daily baptism? Jesus castigated the Pharisees for their self-righteous "keeping the law" (as Paul himself described it) when in fact they were sepulchers full of dead bones. If I "obey him" in water baptism, but not in a sacrificial life, of what value is my water baptism?

This is probably where my focus should be - not getting myself into an antagonistic state of mind over all the (other people's) ideas of what is right and wrong in the practise of baptism.

Feel free to clarify - I am not dogmatic on this subject - I simply put these questions forward because the scriptures together, and most current church practice, puzzle me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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

As Philip said to the Ethiopian eunuch, "If you believe with all your heart, you mayest."

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?

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 remaining 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).

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 am leaning towards the possibility that "Water Baptism" is to be done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; However, "Spirit Baptism" (via by the laying on of hands when applicable) is to be done in the name of Jesus.

Yes, I am aware of Pentecost event in Acts of the Apostles 2:38 (Whereby Peter says to the Jewish crowd to be baptized into the name of Jesus). I see this event as possibly being as the same event when Paul got baptized by Ananias. They were first baptized into the Spirit in the name of Jesus by the laying on of hands, and then they were baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. For in Acts of the Apostles 9:17-18, we see Paul first receiving the Spirit in the name of Jesus, and then he was water baptized afterwards. Paul was a Jew, so it was important he performed this Jewish custom or ritual command that was a part of the great commission given to Jewish believers.

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

While there are different methods of receiving the Spirit, it appeared one important way of receiving the Spirit was by the laying of hands and the receiving of the Spirit. This was merely a part of receiving the Spirit in both Acts of the Apostles 8:17-19, and Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6. They were not said to be special leaders or anything within the church. Only Acts of the Apostles 9:17-18 is an example of a special leader or minister.

In conclusion:

Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6 is a turning point in the Scriptures on baptism. It is saying that Spirit baptism is now the true baptism (Which can be done by the laying on of hands as needed so that believers can receive the Spirit). Again, this is not to say that a person cannot receive the Spirit by accepting the gospel or by being water baptized. Technically, only Jews are commanded to be water baptized (although a Gentile can be water baptized if they desire it). I am sure many Jewish Christians (during that time) were not really aware of Paul's teachings on Spirit baptism in Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6. They did not understand fully that baptism in water was more for the Jew as a command than it was for the Gentile. Spirit baptism by the laying on of hands appears to be for those who believe they have not received the Spirit or it is for those who are being appointed for a special calling or ministry.

 

[Silverback]

If baptism is taught as being essential to salvation, then it is not part of the gospel that Paul preached, but is a false gospel that brings a curse and condemnation because it is a gospel of faith plus works instead of faith in Christ alone.

Martin Luther, and the other Early Lutheran Reformers were of the belief that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that the benefits the believer received during baptism were entirely God's grace towards us, his work, if you will.

I fail to see the difference in presenting yourself for baptism, and receiving God's grace through it, and presenting for an Altar Call and making a decision to believe, and thus receiving God's grace through it. It seems like semantics to me.

Many modern Lutheran theologians have lightened up a bit and would say that Baptism is not absolutely required for the salvation. I tend to lean more toward the "is required" simply because Christ was baptized, and he said to be baptized.

If it was good enough for the Savior of the world, then it's good enough for me.

 

[food4thought]

Thank you for responding!

Always a pleasure, Jonaitis.

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?

I hesitate to place God in a box on this issue. Yet I also hesitate to say anything opposed to what the Scriptures say, and I haven't done a full study on baptism yet. So please take my response in a spirit of speculative discussion

I think all things should be done decently and in order, and water baptism is certainly mentioned in the Scripture quite frequently. Yet extreme circumstances could conceivably change my stance on any of the questions, even the use of water (what if we were dying in a desert with only a bottle of pop left?).

I am no longer willing to be dogmatic on things not explicitly made clear by Scripture. I do not fully understand everything the Scriptures have to say about baptism, so my response is correspondently uncertain... sorry.

That should make things clear as mud! Anyways, God bless you as you study His Word!
Michael

 

[Not David]

If I am not, am I really 70% holy water? I should be a preacher in that case, every spittle from my mouth would sanctify the people.

Convert to Orthodoxy first

 

[Redwingfan9]

Martin Luther, and the other Early Lutheran Reformers were of the belief that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that the benefits the believer received during baptism were entirely God's grace towards us, his work, if you will.

I fail to see the difference in presenting yourself for baptism, and receiving God's grace through it, and presenting for an Altar Call and making a decision to believe, and thus receiving God's grace through it. It seems like semantics to me.

Many modern Lutheran theologians have lightened up a bit and would say that Baptism is not absolutely required for the salvation. I tend to lean more toward the "is required" simply because Christ was baptized, and he said to be baptized.

If it was good enough for the Savior of the world, then it's good enough for me.

Most reformed theologians believe baptism isn't necessary for salvation (ie the thief on the cross wasn't baptized but was saved) but is a necessary means of grace.

 

[Albion]

Of course. Most of us do understand that.

I don't think so. You may, but I often run into people who think that "in the name of" is some sort of magic litany that makes baptism invalid if Jesus' given name is not part of the ceremony. Whole denominations, in fact, have such a view as part of their distinctive belief systems.

And what we also need to understand is that Jesus standing or sitting at the right hand of God doesn’t necessarily mean that the Lord is a separate person from the God at Who’s right hand He is sitting or standing.

That, I think, is generally recognized.

A non Trinitarian formula can be equally as valid as a Trinitarian one so long as that modalistic view doesn’t stray into viewpoints which are clearly heretical such as Arianism or Mormonism and such.

Why don't you give us an example. It is hard to judge the point by what is written in this paragraph ^.

As an example or two. I have no trouble with Oneness Pentecostal's view of things until they claim that someone needs to be baptized thier way or they can't be saved.

I cannot agree with that. They are anti-Trinitarian in belief and shout that from the rooftops. It is not simply a matter of the wording used in baptism.

 

[lsume]

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?

The True Baptism happens when Christ comes to you as a thief in the night. There is really no way to describe what must happen. When Christ Speaks to you and teaches you directly you will have no doubts as to Baptism. This probably sounds strange to you but I assure you that it’s very real. I believe that before the end, the world at large will hear The Voice of Christ.

 

[Jonaitis]

Convert to Orthodoxy first

I cannot. My conscience binds me to the written word of God that says that "for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8), and, "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth" (Deuteronomy 5:8).

I will tell you this, David, that you will remain uncertain about Orthodoxy the more you study deeper into it. It is too vague in some areas and will appear absurd in others. You would have to convince yourself that it isn't so. I would say convert out of Orthodoxy.

 

[Albion]

The True Baptism happens when Christ comes to you as a thief in the night. There is really no way to describe what must happen. When Christ Speaks to you and teaches you directly you will have no doubts as to Baptism. This probably sounds strange to you but I assure you that it’s very real. I believe that before the end, the world at large will hear The Voice of Christ.

It may be meaningful, but it's not "baptism." Or the Lord's Supper, or repentance, or prayer, or an act of mercy, or any of the other things we think important in the life of the believer.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Let's debate about this subject, how about it?

I found that most people do not want to hear what others have to say about a subject on this forum.
Yes, immersion in Yahushua's Name is included in "subject on this forum".

So instead, I recommend , to seek and to find the truth, to look elsewhere, Yahuweh Permitting.

 

[Mathetes66]

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 & of the Son, & 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?

Leave the word 'only' out of the questions. It is more biblical rather than man-made teaching, adding words to specific Scripture for example.

Yes.
Yes. Those water baptized 'in the Name' of the one true God.
Yes, unless immersion isn't possible in extenuating circumstances, like brother Richard Wurmbrand.
Yes.
No.

And 'debate' to promote division, strife or contention rather than unity of the faith is of the flesh not the Spirit. The Greek word 'eris' is used 9X in the NT & translated debate & debates in the KJV as well as strife, contentions, variance & refers to fleshly endeavors not spiritual ones.

Romans 1:29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, & depravity. They are full of envy, murder, debate, deceit & malice.

2 Cor 12:20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be debates, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances...

Gal 5:19-24 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, debate (variance), emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings & such like.

Of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections & lusts.

Acts 17:17-19 So he REASONED (G1256--'dielegeto'--Middle voice from dia and lego; to say thoroughly, i.e. Discuss, reason, converse, address, preach, lecture.) in the synagogue with the Jews & God-fearing Gentiles & in the marketplace with those he met each day.

Some of them were Epicureans & some were Stoics & THEY started DEBATING (G4820 'sunballo'--to literally throw together & thus debate. argue, dispute) with him. People were asking, "What is this know-it-all trying to say?" Some even said, "Paul must be preaching about foreign gods! That's what he means when he talks about Jesus & about the resurrection."

So they took Paul & brought him to the Areopagus, where they asked him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?

Debate - Our present word debate does not commonly imply evil. It denotes commonly discussion for elucidating truth; or for maintaining a proposition, as the debates in Parliament, etc. But the word in the original meant also contention, strife, altercation, connected with anger & heated zeal; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 1:11; 1 Corinthians 3:3; 2 Corinthians 12:20; Galatians 5:20; Philippians 1:15; 1 Timothy 6:4; Titus 3:9. This contention & strife would, of course, follow from malice & covetousness, etc.

Perhaps this modern definition of debate is what you meant.

Eph 4:1-4, 11-16 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility & gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, BEING DILIGENT TO MAINTAIN (KEEP) THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT IN THE BOND OF PEACE.

4There is one body & one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God & Father of all, who is over all & through all & in all.

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds (pastors) & teachers, to EQUIP THE SAINTS for the WORK OF MINISTRY, for building up the body of Christ,

13until we all attain to THE UNITY OF THE FAITH & of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to & fro by the waves & carried about by every WIND of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

15Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined & held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

 

[Monk Brendan]

None of the Apostles were ordained ministers, neither was Philip who baptised the Ethiopian Eunuch. It is the state of the heart that is more important than the elements of the process. Any person can baptise a new believer, in the bath, in church, in a river, or a swimming pool. Makes no difference to a believer who loves the Lord in his heart.

Yes, they were.

They were sent forth by Jesus Christ. And St. Philip had been ordained a deacon.

Please quote scripture where anyone may baptize.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let's debate about this subject, how about it?

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

Yes.

Formula:

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

Yes.

Mode:

Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?

No. Scripture does not mandate any one mode; though the practice of the ancient Church was to prefer triple immersion, though in cases where this wasn't feasible affusion was done. This can be seen from the ancient Church document known as the Didache, and from the writings of the ancient fathers. In the East immersion remains the standard mode, while in the West affusion became standard.

Recipient:

Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?

No. Baptism is given to make disciples of all nations. So we baptize those coming to the faith.

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

It's preferable, but not absolutely necessary. Under normal circumstances those who have been called and ordained as ministers of Word and Sacrament administer Baptism; but anyone can administer Baptism if the circumstances necessitate it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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



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



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?



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



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



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.



Interesting, explain.



Thanks for answering. You too mentioned the brevity part.



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 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?



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.

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?

Mode: No on immersion because there would be cases where people can not be near a body of water such as ill people, people in prison, people who are scared of water etc etc.
No on ordained minister because Christianity is not an institution it is the Body of Christ. Anyone from the Body can baptize.
Your question: 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)?
My Answer:John the Baptist said Jesus Christ of Nazareth will NOT baptize in water. He will Baptize in the Holy Spirit. This is more important. The Holy Spirit has the power to regenerate and He has the power to fill, so both.

 

[Not David]

I cannot. My conscience binds me to the written word of God that says that "for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8), and, "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth" (Deuteronomy 5:8).

I will tell you this, David, that you will remain uncertain about Orthodoxy the more you study deeper into it. It is too vague in some areas and will appear absurd in others. You would have to convince yourself that it isn't so. I would say convert out of Orthodoxy.

I wish but it will be dumb for me to resist the Truth. Plus, those verses are in the Bible which was written by the Orthodox Church.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It gives the element the supernatural power to save. So much so that faith need not be present in the recipient. Ex oper operandi.

This is false teaching. Only people who have the faith can be baptized. Everyone else is ineligible.