- Mar 28, 2005
- 21,810
- 10,792
- 76
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
In that case the act of baptism would mean absolutely zilch!!If this is true, you can baptize anyone who has never heard or read the Gospel.
Upvote
0
In that case the act of baptism would mean absolutely zilch!!If this is true, you can baptize anyone who has never heard or read the Gospel.
True. The Baptism with the Holy Spirit and conversion to Christ are exactly the same thing. We could not have been converted to Christ without receiving the Holy Spirit. Those who teach that the baptism with the Spirit is a subsequent event after conversion are teaching something illogical. If the Holy Spirit comes into a person at conversion, why does He have to depart again and come back later on? Just doesn't make sense!Indeed. So that would seem to rebut the "change-over" from one kind of baptism to another which was the idea advanced by our friend.
The restrictions here on CF are far from arbitrary. The rejection of the Trinity is a heresy at the least; and denominations which are of that orientation are customarily defined as cults or even as non-Christian.Subscribing to the Trinity isn't a biblical prerequisite to be saved - in spite of the rather arbitrary restrictions this forum makes on who can and who can't post here as a Christian.
Who might these theologians be?Many theologians note that the disciples baptized in Jesus name after being told by the Lord to baptize in the "name" of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I, along with most churches, would disagree on the "has to" part of that, but it is customary for baptisms to be done before a congregation, and that is considered the preferred arrangement (for the same reasons you hve in mind).I agree with the other post that said that it has to be done publicly, and that just doing it in the bath at home defeats the purpose of it.
Then many or most of the early Christians were heretics. I just don't believe that.The rejection of the Trinity is a heresy at the least; and denominations which are of that orientation are customarily defined as cults or even as non-Christian.
I'm not going to do your homework for you.Who might these theologians be?
But Jesus explicitly instructed his Apostles to baptize converts, so that OT theory is obviously not correct.water baptism is an old testament law. if one insists on it, one must also insist on other laws such as prohibition of pork consumption, curcimcision, tithing, sabbath, and many other ceremonial laws. Jesus completed all the ceremonial laws in order for us not to do them again.
Well, when it comes to baptism, we are not speaking of either of those.we are saved by Grace alone not by our own work of ceremonial law.
I have been raised subscribing to the Trinity concept. That has not changed.That's all right. I knew immediately that they were Oneness "theologians."
It might suggest that. But it also might not. Consider that Paul explains it as dying to sin and rising from it, free from sin, similar to Christ rising from his grave (on Easter morning). In any case, the baptism of Christ in the river Jordan is usually said by advocates of immersion to be an image of immersion, but that is not what the early church thought and it is not what the words describing the event actually say. Then the second most popular verse for these people seems to be the reference made by one person seeking baptism who said "there is much water here." That is taken to mean deep water, but the area in question is actually one of many shallow pools unsuitable for immersing anyone. So the argument for immersing as obligatory, not optional, is weak at best.Hi Albion! Sorry to butt in to this conversation, but I was wondering how you viewed this passage on baptism:
Romans 6:3-4 NASB Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
It seems to me that this passage teaches that baptism is by immersion... otherwise how does baptism symbolize being buried and then risen? Anyways, I am looking forward to hearing your understanding!
God bless;
Michael
What would you do if your sister or brother was born mentally handicapped and growing up not capable of talking or showing any sign of possibly understanding the gospel?
There was no New Testament in the early church when Peter and Paul were going around preaching the gospel, so deeper theological issues like the Trinity weren't really considered. The main focus was to get Jews and pagans converted to Christ, so most early Christians probably never thought about it.Then many or most of the early Christians were heretics. I just don't believe that.
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
I didn't know the Lord established hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo.People are not justified before God based on any tradition based water baptismal formulas or any mumbo jumbo rituals performed by a man instituted priesthood.
People are justified by grace through a personal appropriation of the work of Jesus Christ on their behalf that He offers to take care of the sin problem they have with God.
Anything that adds to that simple gospel is nothing less than a false gospel.
A lot of church activities are pleasing to God and can be of benefit to believers. But adding layers of chaff to the simple gospel of grace isn't one of them.
So if you are mentally handicapped, not able to understand the gospel, you have not been given the right to be baptized?
From my perspective that would be denying that person baptism.