Baptism

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If this is true, you can baptize anyone who has never heard or read the Gospel.

In that case the act of baptism would mean absolutely zilch!!

 

[Albion]

Philip and the Eunuch had the impression that baptism was to be in water and that was well after the day of Pentecost.

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.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.

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!

Baptism in water was instituted right from the start in the early church and it is an important component in our sanctification from then till now.

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.

 

[Albion]

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.

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.

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.

Who might these theologians be?

 

[Albion]

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.

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).

 

[Greengardener]

As to the name evoked in baptism: I thought there was some sort of discussion whether the verse in the gospels that talked about baptizing in the name of the F/S/HS was not necessarily well supported among the bulk of the ancient copies, suggesting it may have been added later. We so have in Acts examples of baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus, so I'm most comfortable with that option. I like the idea of immersion rather than sprinkling, since Jesus came up out of the water and it seems to me that a body of water was associated with the baptism experience. I also like the buried in baptism concept, which also suggests going into the water as one would in burial go into the earth, completely covered and hidden. As to ordination, I'm not sure we really have a clear line back to the apostles. I'm also not sure how many people were actually performing the dunking (or sprinkling, if you subscribe to that method) when the big events happened in Acts, but one would think that the baptizers were at least in agreement with the gist of the message and had some degree of reliability. I'm also not sure that we always accurately pinpoint at what point "conversion" or "belief" happens - so I'm all for anyone following in baptism who has the basic information that Jesus as God's Son died for their sins, who wants that forgiveness, and who understands that baptism is an act of obedience. If anyone feels they weren't adequately "saved" on the correct side of baptism, the opportunity exists to make that situation right.

No matter my opinion, each of us answers to God and may we do that with a good conscience. What He said, how He sees it, and that we line up with Him regardless how church history has influenced the "official" stance is really what matters. It's not a check-box and once done it's done: it's one step of obedience in hopefully a life of obedience.

 

[His student]

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.

Then many or most of the early Christians were heretics. I just don't believe that.

Who might these theologians be?

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

[Albion]

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

That's all right. I knew immediately that they were Oneness "theologians."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I see the baptism aspect of the great commission in Matthew 28:19 as referring to "water baptism" for the Jews in every nation. For the Jewish believer was told to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

As for the Pentecost event in Acts 2:
In this chapter, I see the "baptism in the name of Jesus" as referring to Spirit baptism (the receiving of the Spirit) via by the laying on of hands, which is then quickly followed by water baptism (in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost). While Acts 2 does not mention whether the baptism was by water (water baptism) or by the laying on of hands (Spirit baptism), it makes sense that both happened sequentially based on Paul's baptism by Ananias (See: Acts of the Apostles 9:17-18).


Side Note:

In Acts 8: We see baptism was done via by water, and by the Spirit (with the laying on of hands. In Acts 10, we see Spirit baptism took place by the receiving of the gospel, with water baptism taking place afterwards.

 

[iLearn]

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.

we are saved by Grace alone not by our own work of ceremonial law. if one does it nonetheless then it proves one doesn't have enough faith in God who does all the true baptism required.

 

[Albion]

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.

But Jesus explicitly instructed his Apostles to baptize converts, so that OT theory is obviously not correct.

we are saved by Grace alone not by our own work of ceremonial law.

Well, when it comes to baptism, we are not speaking of either of those.

 

[His student]

That's all right. I knew immediately that they were Oneness "theologians."

I have been raised subscribing to the Trinity concept. That has not changed.

But - if it's so far superior to the Oneness concept than it ought to be able to stand the light of open debate.

After all this Forum allows for people who believe in black robed professional priests saying "hocus pocus" and the like and turning bread and wine into the body and blood of the resurrected Lord and distributing it to the laity in a saving manner. They allow for every manner of works oriented gospel to be preached here including baptismal regeneration.

Yet they won't allow for honest debate about this very basic and disputed doctrine.

I have no trouble defending my beliefs so long as I'm not forced to defend straw men. Oneness proponents have no trouble defending their beliefs ether if properly represented.

IMO, they do as good or better a job of doing so than do most Trinitarians.

I find it interesting that this forum and most Trinitarians in general condemn anyone who isn't the same as them to Hell when 90+% of Trinitarians couldn't give an accurate account of that belief system to save their souls - almost always presenting some form of modalism or multi God formula themselves.

On the other hand - Oneness proponents proclaim anyone who sees things different than they do as heretics even though 90+% of them couldn't explain their view correctly to save their soul.

 

[Albion]

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

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.

 

[His student]

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.

 

[GodLovesCats]

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?

I am mentally handicapped so any suggestion such people are unable to understand the Gospel is directly from SATAN! You break the rules by claiming I am not a Christian if you think being mentally ill prevents a person from understanding Christ.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.

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.

Anyhow, both instructions from Peter and Paul in answer to questions, "How do I/we get saved? was "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" full stop. So salvation comes through faith in Christ alone apart from anything else, therefore whether one has solved the mystery of the Trinity or not is immaterial. I think that the Lord's answer to such a question would be, "What is that to you? Follow Me."

 

[Not David]

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.

I didn't know the Lord established hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo.

 

[GodLovesCats]

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.

From my perspective, writing "mentally handicapped" and "not able to understand the gospel" together is a blanket statement that if someone does not have normal thought processes, he or she can't love Jesus. It also means only people who are mentally handicapped cannot love Jesus because you single them out.

I will begin reporting everyone who uses the term "mentally handicapped" in this manner if it continues. I will not tolerate it for one second.

Denying a person baptism? It is entirely that person's choice to be a believer and all believers are to be baptized.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Paul said Jesus sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel (See: 1 Corinthians 1:17).

 

[PaulCyp1]

Do you believe baptism should be performed only with water?
Yes. It is not a valid baptism unless done with water.
Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?
Yes, that is the prescribed formula that has been used by the Christian Church for 2,000 years, since it is the format commanded by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Do you believe baptism should be performed only by immersion?
No. The early Christian Church existed in an arid region with virtually no water available except that brought up in buckets from the town well, and certainly did not baptize by immersion. Immersion is a valid means of baptizing, but is not the only valid means. No Christian on Earth thought otherwise until a couple of hundred years ago.
Do you believe baptism should be performed only to believers?
Of course. How could a non-believer benefit from a sacrament intended to make a person a child of God?
Do you believe baptism should be performed only by an ordained minister?
Yes, in ordinary circumstances. But it can be performed by other Christians in emergency situations.