Baptism

[His student]

What I see he established was "This is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins". It does not sound at all like hocus pocus nor mumbo jumbo.

What He "said" was "This is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins".

What He "established" was "Do this in remembrance of me."

Do what? Do exactly what He did. Break bread and pour wine and partake of them in remembrance of His work at Calvary. Nothing less - nothing more.

Certainly He did not say, "Hire a bunch of professional priests to walk to and fro in memorized ritual and say the words "HOC EST CORPUS MEUM" and in so doing supposedly change that bread and that wine into His body and blood.

What He did not establish was a tradition wherein justification before God comes or is augmented in some way by kneeling before those priests and letting them put the supposedly changes bread on your tongue as a continued sacrifice to His once for all death at Calvary.

What He did not establish was a tradition wherein only those special priests can partake of the supposedly changed wine rather than the unworthy laity.

When He built His Church - He did not authorized anyone in her to add or substitute these kinds of traditions of men to the simple gospel of Jesus Christ.

The question is, "What must I do to be saved" The answer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be save."

The scriptures say, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Romans 10:9-10

Any of your additions are nothing but the traditions of me - which are another gospel - and which are no gospel at all in the view of our God.

Best to drop the subject now. There has already been a Reformation. Let' not re-litigate the issues involved in it here and now.

I will conform my beliefs to the Word of God.

You place your traditions on a par or view them as superior to what the scriptures teach when considered systematically in as a whole.

So be it.

 

[Not David]

What He "said" was "This is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins".

What He "established" was "Do this in remembrance of me."

Do what? Do exactly what He did. Break bread and pour wine and partake of them in remembrance of His work at Calvary. Nothing less - nothing more.

Certainly He did not say, "Hire a bunch of professional priests to walk to and fro in memorized ritual and say the words "HOC EST CORPUS MEUM" and in so doing supposedly change that bread and that wine into His body and blood.

What He did not establish was a tradition wherein justification before God comes or is augmented in some way by kneeling before those priests and letting them put the supposedly changes bread on your tongue as a continued sacrifice to His once for all death at Calvary.

What He did not establish was a tradition wherein only those special priests can partake of the supposedly changed wine rather than the unworthy laity.

When He built His Church - He did not authorized anyone in her to add or substitute these kinds of traditions of men to the simple gospel of Jesus Christ.

The question is, "What must I do to be saved" The answer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be save."

The scriptures say, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Romans 10:9-10

Any of your additions are nothing but the traditions of me - which are another gospel - and which are no gospel at all in the view of our God.

Best to drop the subject now. There has already been a Reformation. Let' not re-litigate the issues involved in it here and now.

I will conform my beliefs to the Word of God.

You place your traditions on a par or view them as superior to what the scriptures teach when considered systematically in as a whole.

So be it.

Nope, your ideas come from rationalism and modernism

 

[112358]

Baptism symbolizes a saved person's death and rebirth. The only baptism that saves people is of the Holy Spirit. I will get back to you with Bible verses about this.

Not according to Peter. He stated point blank that it is baptism (immersion in water) that now saves us. Not the physical act itself (the washing of filth from the flesh), but the answer of a clear conscience toward God. Just as Noah and a righteous few were saved through the flood waters, we are now saved through the flood waters of His death, burial, and resurrection. He was not speaking of Spirit baptism in his epistle, nor was he in Acts 2 when he commanded immersion "for the remission of sins", nor was he when he would not refuse water to Cornelius and his household, conspicuously after they believed and received the Holy Spirit, just like Peter and the apostles did at Pentecost. Why is that??!!

Further, if it is Spirit baptism that now saves us, we better get busy demonstrating which of the miraculous signs and gifts that ALWAYS accompanied Spirit baptism. Is it healing the sick, raising the dead, immunity to venom/poison, speaking other languages?

 

[His student]

Nope, your ideas come from rationalism and modernism

As you wish.

 

[Not David]

As you wish.

Seriously, even Luther believed in the Real Presence.

 

[His student]

Seriously, even Luther believed in the Real Presence.

He well should have.

Any Bible believer would.

The scriptures teach us that God is omnipresent.

But there is a world of difference between believing that God is present in bread and wine and saying that God becomes bread and wine or that bread and wine become Him.

 

[Not David]

He well should have.

Any Bible believer would.

The scriptures teach us that God is omnipresent.

But there is a world of difference between believing that God is present in bread and wine and saying that God becomes bread and wine or that bread and wine become Him.

No, it's just skeptism. God can do whatever He wants.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Nope, your ideas come from rationalism and modernism

Why do you hate rationalism? We HAVE to rationalize! Otherwise, there is no reason for anything, and there is obviously a reason for EVERYTHING.

 

[food4thought]

Thanks. The issue usually comes down to that very point, we all should recognize.

Even though the author was sketchy (some guy who flip-flopped back and forth between protestant and catholic several times), I love this quote:

In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity!​

Despite 1Peter 3:21, which I confess I do not fully understand in light of the rest of NT teachings, I don't see baptism as an essential to salvation (see the thief on the cross).

There are no Christians who say that baptism by immersion is invalid; it's only an issue because some others say that baptism by water and in the name of the triune God is NOT valid unless done by immersion.

Yes, majoring on the minors is a common mistake today.

But if it is a matter of the imagery/symbolism involved, what is their basis for claiming that a Christian baptism done by pouring water upon the candidate is invalid--not that it isn't the preferred imagery, not done as the early church allegedly did it, or anything of those claims...but invalid and necessitating a "re-baptism?"

I see no basis for calling a sprinkling or pouring baptism invalid if the one baptized is a believer.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why do you hate rationalism? We HAVE to rationalize! Otherwise, there is no reason for anything, and there is obviously a reason for EVERYTHING.

Sorry, no. As a type of crusader centuries ago said "the greatest enemy of men is rationalization(or 'reason')" , (as Scripture says also - whatever is born (from ) of the flesh, is flesh, and profits nothing) ... Man's mind, the flesh, opposes the spirit all the time - it is an ongoing battle daily.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

(see the thief on the cross)

Did anyone prove he was never immersed in Jesus' Name BEFORE he was arrested?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Not according to Peter. He stated point blank that it is baptism (immersion in water) that now saves us. Not the physical act itself (the washing of filth from the flesh), but the answer of a clear conscience toward God. Just as Noah and a righteous few were saved through the flood waters, we are now saved through the flood waters of His death, burial, and resurrection.

If immersion in water was what saves us, the physical act itself would send people to heaven, not a belief in the Trinity and love for the triune God. Immersion in water is only cleasing dirt off flesh if you are not a Christian. You can't separate them physically. Chemically, there is no difference between baptismal water and swimming pool or bath tub water. What am I missing here?

He was not speaking of Spirit baptism in his epistle, nor was he in Acts 2 when he commanded immersion "for the remission of sins," nor was he when he would not refuse water to Cornelius and his household, conspicuously after they believed and received the Holy Spirit, just like Peter and the apostles did at Pentecost. Why is that?

I have to read the verses in modern English to answer that question - and, of course, confirm your ideas. But first, what is an epistle?

Further, if it is Spirit baptism that now saves us, we better get busy demonstrating which of the miraculous signs and gifts that ALWAYS accompanied Spirit baptism. Is it healing the sick, raising the dead, immunity to venom/poison, speaking other languages?

Holy Spirit baptism is receiving the Holy Spirit and thus the moment oine is saved. Pentecostals believe it is displayed as speaking in tongues, but I have never heard anyone do this. My salvatoin prayer went like this: "Lord, give Andrea the Holy Spirit."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Chemically, there is no difference between baptismal water and swimming pool or bath tub water. What am I missing here?

Since you asked, realize it will take time to research this,
look for information on "living water" the Jews all believed they must be immersed in.
Not one of them thought that those you mentioned would be correct.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Sorry, no. As a type of crusader centuries ago said, "The greatest enemy of men is rationalization (or reason)" (as Scripture says also - whatever is born (from) of the flesh is flesh and profits nothing) ... Man's mind, the flesh, opposes the spirit all the time - it is an ongoing battle daily.

The Bible clearly states there is a reason for everything. Reason comes from GOD. Do you really think the LORD, who made us in His image, is not who gave us the ability to rationalize?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Bible clearly states there is a reason for everything. Reason comes from GOD. Do you really think the LORD, who made us in His image, is not who gave us the ability to rationalize?

What does the Bible say about man's "reason", of the flesh ? (hint: the heart of man is deceitful more than anything else, and his mind is in darkness in the flesh - i.e. not helpful)

Yahuweh's Reason is LIGHT ENTIRELY HELPFUL, and is as high above man's as heaven is above the earth.

 

[112358]

Despite 1Peter 3:21, which I confess I do not fully understand in light of the rest of NT teachings, I don't see baptism as an essential to salvation (see the thief on the cross).

1 Peter 3:21 aligns perfectly with the rest of NT teachings. Peter stressed the necessity of baptism from the very beginning, which is exactly what the Lord Himself told Peter and the rest of the apostles to do!
1) go out to the whole world making disciples
2) baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, HS
3) Teach them to observe all things I have commanded

That's exactly what they proceeded to do. They were baptizing everyone in sight!

regarding the thief:
1) why do we assume that he had not been baptized? He was a Jew in a time and place when a great many were being baptized by John, Jesus, and the disciples. I'm not saying he WAS, we just can't say he WASN'T because it is simply not revealed in scripture.
2) The thief lived under the Old Covenant. New Testament baptism as a requirement for salvation is distinctly just that...New Testament. See Acts 1 and 2, when the NT era was established.
3) The Son of God has the authority to forgive sins as He sees fit. It is the same authority He has to command things like baptism as a requirement for salvation (which He did in no uncertain terms). None of this absolves us from observation of that authority and faithful obedience to His commands ("He who believes and is baptized", "baptizing the in the name of the Father, Son, HS", "born of water and the Spirit", etc.)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

1 Peter 3:21 aligns perfectly with the rest of NT teachings. Peter stressed the necessity of baptism from the very beginning, which is exactly what the Lord Himself told Peter and the rest of the apostles to do!
1) go out to the whole world making disciples
2) baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, HS
3) Teach them to observe all things I have commanded

That's exactly what they proceeded to do. They were baptizing everyone in sight!

oops
they immersed those who openly confessed their sins repenting - turning to the Father-
seeking to be cleansed/forgiven of their selfish life and
seeking to learn from the Father and from Yahushua how to live,
to DO as the Father says to DO.

There were A LOT MORE PEOPLE "in sight!" who did not believe, who rejected Jesus, who were not immersed in Jesus' Name.

 

[112358]

oops
they immersed those who openly confessed their sins repenting - turning to the Father-
seeking to be cleansed/forgiven of their selfish life and
seeking to learn from the Father and from Yahushua how to live,
to DO as the Father says to DO.

There were A LOT MORE PEOPLE "in sight!" who did not believe, who rejected Jesus, who were not immersed in Jesus' Name.

100% in agreement here. Perhaps I misunderstood your point about 1 Pet 3:21 and it's relation to the rest of NT teaching.

Most people readily accept the things you mention (believe, repent, confess) as requirements for Christian conversion and salvation, every one of them completely scriptural by the way. Yet when the Father adds "be baptized" as another thing He would have us DO, all the sudden we're hanging our hats on our own works. It makes no sense to me. Seriously, it does not follow technical logic. Are not believe, repent, confess also things we must DO??

Scripture indicates that baptism is the place and time at which our sins are washed away, that it is what saves us, that it is where we come into contact with the blood of Christ through His death, burial, and resurrection, where we "put on Christ", among others.

 

[Not David]

Why do you hate rationalism? We HAVE to rationalize! Otherwise, there is no reason for anything, and there is obviously a reason for EVERYTHING.

One thing is to rationalize, another is to rationalize Divine stuff that is not always comprehensible.

 

[112358]

If immersion in water was what saves us, the physical act itself would send people to heaven, not a belief in the Trinity and love for the triune God. Immersion in water is only cleasing dirt off flesh if you are not a Christian. You can't separate them physically. Chemically, there is no difference between baptismal water and swimming pool or bath tub water. What am I missing here?

My only point here is that the apostle Peter said baptism now saves us, not me. Yes, there are other requisites that must be present/in place (belief, repentance, etc.), otherwise it's not biblical baptism, it's just getting wet.

I have to read the verses in modern English to answer that question - and, of course, confirm your ideas. But first, what is an epistle?

Sorry it just means "letter". It was a reference to Peters first letter, and specifically 1 Peter 3:21. Acts 10 is the other reference (conversion of Cornelius and his household).

Holy Spirit baptism is receiving the Holy Spirit and thus the moment oine is saved. Pentecostals believe it is displayed as speaking in tongues, but I have never heard anyone do this. My salvatoin prayer went like this: "Lord, give Andrea the Holy Spirit."

You will not find a scripture that indicates Holy Spirit baptism is the moment at which one is saved. It's just not there. Everyone who received HS baptism in the New Testament, EVERYONE, was endowed with miraculous powers/gifts that were for a specific purpose. If we claim to have received that same baptism, then doesn't it make sense that we would experience the same results? That's why I said we better be prepared to demonstrate which of those powers/gifts we possess if we received HS baptism because people received that baptism for a reason and it was NOT salvation. Further, if we claim that the power/gift we received is speaking in tongues, then it follows that they would be the same kind of tongues spoken by those who received HS baptism, namely the apostles. On the day of Pentecost the apostles did not utter some unintelligible gibberish that someone else "interpreted" for them. When they spoke, each person in the audience heard their voice simultaneously in his own native language. That's a whole different ball game than what most who claim to speak in tongues are doing.