Can't find a church - need to get baptized

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Possibly so. However, the subject wasnt salvation but baptism.

To make a sort of long story short I recommended any church that baptizes submerged in water in Jesus name and some responded to my recommendation to the op

 

[Albion]

Yes... which is what me and the other person were taking about. I said get baptized in any church that baptized in Jesus name. People suggested expect a modalism church I said as long as they baptize in Jesus name you’re good. They said no

to which you added:

That’s what I’m saying as far as who God is it’s important but as far as salvation goes could say not so much.

...which is about salvation (obviously), not about baptism.

 

[Albion]

To make a sort of long story short I recommended any church that baptizes submerged in water in Jesus name and some responded to my recommendation to the op

Why would it be important which way the water hits you, but in whose name you are being baptised...not so much??

 

[mark kennedy]

Speaking as a Catholic, my Church teaches that anybody can baptize you if they follow the proper formula. Nurses have probably baptized babies before so if you know one, odds are they can do it or point you to a nurse who can. It's not an uncommon practice. They'll know how to do it.

Speaking as a former-evangelical, I'm not aware of very many evangelical ecclesial communities that wouldn't baptize you if you asked them to. Search around. The ones near you don't have to be perfect. They just need to be willing to baptize you.

I can relate to wanting the job to "get done right". And you are right about baptism as the normative means for salvation. But you may be setting the bar a bit high. Your intent is what matters.

I'm sure things will work out for you.

I was baptized in the Church of Christ, they give the ceremony a becoming dignity and they are really good at Bible study. The Baptists seem to make lite of it and I'm not all that impressed with how Pentecostals go about it. I would suggest a Lutheran or Episcopalian church, perhaps even a reformed Presbyterian church. It was about a year before I was baptized, I was in the Navy and the chapel didn't have the means. It's kind of a big deal, it doesn't save you but it's a wonderfully uncomplicated rite of passage. It can be a beautiful thing, don't rush into it, just find some place that will give it the proper dignity. If you do, it doesn't matter if it's in some creek beside the road, it's a turning point for the Christian disciple. I'll never forget it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Why would it be important which way the water hits you, but in whose name you are being baptised...not so much??

I said baptize in Jesus name so obviously I value the name..

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

to which you added:

...which is about salvation (obviously), not about baptism.

You can’t be that dense... I was clearly talking about my initial comment that was even addressed to the OP. I even said that I orinigially made a comment to the OP about being baptized in Jesus name submerged in water which people responded to which led to some replies such as the one you referenced... The point is my initial comment had nothing to do with salvation as a whole just baptism which actually is a part of salvation... so even if we were to talk about repentance and all that it wouldn’t be too far off topic but yeah

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

to which you added:

...which is about salvation (obviously), not about baptism.

This is what I said in my initial comment that you can’t seem to find, “I would recommend a church that baptizes in the name of Jesus according to the scripture. There’s nothing like being buried under that name. It also helps too if they submerge you under water as the biblical way of baptism shows it should be done. Also I will keep in prayers.”

 

[Albion]

I said baptize in Jesus name so obviously I value the name..

What Christ told his apostles to do was to go into the world, preach the Gospel, and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That's one reason a baptism in the name of only one member of the Holy Trinity is considered defective.

So you see that it is illogical to argue that we ought to baptise by immersion because that is the way the Bible appears to you to say it ought to be done...while, at the same time, the identity of the God in whose name the baptism is being done isn't really that critical, even though the Bible likewise gives the proper wording and intent for this part of the ceremony.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

What Christ told his apostles to do was to go into the world, preach the Gospel, and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That's one reason a baptism in the name of only one member of the Holy Trinity is considered defective.

Yet in acts they only baptize in Jesus name... and the book you’re refencing was written after about 100 years after the first church which was baptizing in Jesus name. Additionally in the verse you quote name is singular... as if the verse is suggesting one name. Lastly son isn’t a name though and neither is father. The name of the son is Jesus. From birth the Bible states that his name shall be Jesus.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

What Christ told his apostles to do was to go into the world, preach the Gospel, and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That's one reason a baptism in the name of only one member of the Holy Trinity is considered defective.

So you see that it is illogical to argue that we ought to baptise by immersion because that is the way the Bible appears to say it ought to be done...while, at the same time, the identity of the God in whose name the baptism is being done isn't really that critical, even though the Bible likewise gives the proper wording and intent for this.

Show me one example in the Bible where baptism wasn’t done by immersion? Also the word baptism even comes from the Greek word baptizmo which means to be submerged . And if it’s not important how baptism is done why dispute what I said lol.

 

[Albion]

Show me one example in the Bible where baptism wasn’t done by immersion?

More to the point, show me one place where we can say for sure that it was done by immersion. Christ told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again by water and the spirit, which seems adequate to the great majority of Christian churches.

Also the word baptism even comes from the Greek word baptizmo which means to be submerged

or washed or dipped or several other things.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

More to the point, show me one place where we can say for sure that it was done by immersion. Christ told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again by water and the spirit, which seems adequate to the great majority of Christian churches.


or washed or several other things.

And a lot of churches and denominations that baptize also baptize by submersion I like how you conviently left that out but anyway here are some examples not all but good enough. I figured the Greek form of baptism would be enough for people to be like yeah... but sometimes scripture is best.
John 3:23 23And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. Acts 8:38-39 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the LORD caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. .

 

[Albion]

And a lot of churches and denominations that baptize also baptize by submersion

Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denoms and Eastern Orthodox. Its still the case that most churches continue to baptise with water but usually not by immersion.

I like how you conviently left that out by anyway

I said "great majority"...and that is correct.

Acts 8:38-39 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the LORD caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. .

That doesn't indicate immersion. We all say that we go into the water or down into the water if we go INTO it but not completely under the waves. And by the way, in order to interpret that verse as you have, you also must say that the evangelist, the baptizer, similarly went completely under the susface of the water when performing the baptism. When have you ever seen THAT done?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denoms and Eastern Orthodox. Its still the case that most churches continue to baptise with water but usually not by immersion.



I said "great majority"...and that is correct.



That doesn't indicate immersion. We all say that we go into the water or down into the water if we go INTO it but not completely under the waves.

You’re missing the point I said a lot still baptize by immersion. See there’s a majority as in like 80% and then there’s a majority as in like 51-60% the majority who don’t baptize by immersion it’s a smaller majority... so a significant or 40% or so still baptize by immersion but anyway let’s get to the focus

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denoms and Eastern Orthodox. Its still the case that most churches continue to baptise with water but usually not by immersion.



I said "great majority"...and that is correct.



That doesn't indicate immersion. We all say that we go into the water or down into the water if we go INTO it but not completely under the waves. And by the way, in order to interpret that verse as you have, you also must say that the pastor, the baptizer, similarly went completely under the surface of the water when performing the baptism. When have you ever seen THAT done?

Even If you want to suggest that hey... they went into the water... and just say there in that deep water and that was a baptism. And even if you want to ignore the Greek word for baptism. These scriptures make one thing very clear As well as your strange interpretation of them ... sprinkling is not an option based off the text... John even went to baptize someone in water because there was much water... if he was just sprinkling he wouldn’t need much water. Also come on again you can’t be that dense... the only reason the baptizer went in the water also is cause they used rivers... they didn’t have tubs that filter clean water like we do. Even in the 1950s in some churches or even in churches in Africa now when they baptize they go in the river also... because in order to get deep enough water the baptizer has to go further in.. he can’t jusr stand on the shore where it’s not deep enough to baptize the recipient of the baptism.

 

[Albion]

You’re missing the point I said a lot still baptize by immersion.

I got the point. I said that the great majority of churches baptize without using total immersion, and you took exception to that, saying that some do. But I was correct in what I had written--the great majority do not practice immersion.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I got the point. I said that the great majority of churches baptize without using total immersion, and you took exception to that, saying that some do. But I was correct in what I had written--the great majority do not practice immersion.

We agree the majority whether that’s a sizable majority as in 80% or not baptize without immersion so let’s move on from that I guess. The majority even in the Bible wasn’t always right in fact often they weren’t so let’s see if we can figure this out with scripture

 

[Albion]

Even If you want to suggest that hey... they went into the water... and just say there in that deep water and that was a baptism. And even if you want to ignore the Greek word for baptism.

I am not ignoring it. I commented on this point and advised you that the word does not exclusively mean to immerse. It also means to wash, dip, and several other things quite in accord with the practice of baptism as it is done in most churches.

These scriptures make one thing very clear As well as your strange interpretation of them ... sprinkling is not an option based off the text.

I haven't advocated sprinkling.

John even went to baptize someone in water because there was much water.

The person to be baptized in that verse said that it would be okay because there was much water there. The meaning--which we know from the geography--was that this was an area in which there were a lot of shallow pools. None of them would have been suitable for an complete immersing, although--as said--there was much water there.

Also come on again you can’t be that dense... the only reason the baptizer went in the water also is cause they used rivers... they didn’t have tubs that filter clean water like we do. Even in the 1950s in some churches or even in churches in Africa now when they baptize they go in the river also... because in order to get deep enough water the baptizer has to go further in.. he can’t jusr stand on the shore where it’s not deep enough to baptize the recipient of the baptism.

Did you miss the point so completely? The verse you are trying to use as a proof text says that BOTH of the men did the same thing as regards them being in the water. If the interpretation is that the one being baptized is supposed to have gone completely under water IT MUST ALSO MEAN that the one doing the baptizing did also. If that verse is to be proof of something, it must mean that both men went into the water in the same way.

Yet no one does that, proving that the churches which insist upon immersion do not actually follow their own argument (because it's not really convincing??)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm really having a hard time finding a righteous Christian to baptize me. I thought about going in to the church again to speak to the people attending, and potentially find someone to baptize me, but if I suspect the pastors are intentionally deceiving (or are deceived themselves and resultantly deceiving) and potentially performing witchcraft, why would I want to even be a part of such a place? 1 Thessalonians 5:22

What do I do to find someone to baptize me? Do I put up a craigslit/kijiji ad? And in the same vein, where do I find Christian fellowship? I'm thinking in this day and age, and with my experience of the churches, I may have to resort to the internet for fellowship.

Stick to you original principles of finding true ekklesia.

Don't stay nor continue to be led astray by those who have and would lead you astray , in person or online.
You will only find ekklesia , to immerse you in Jesus' Name, if YHVH accomplishes this ....

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I am not ignoring it. I commented on this point and advised you that the word does not exclusively mean to immerse. It also means to wash, dip, and several other things quite in accord with the practice of baptism as it is done in most churches.

I haven't advocated sprinkling.



The person to be baptized in that verse said that it would be okay because there was much water there. The meaning--which we know from the geography--was that this was an area in which there were a lot of shallow pools. None of them would have been suitable for an complete immersing, although--as said--there was much water there.



Did you miss the point so completely? The verse you are trying to use as a proof text says that BOTH of the men did the same thing as regards them being in the water. If the interpretation is that the one being baptized is supposed to have gone completely under water IT MUST ALSO MEAN that the one doing the baptizing did also. If that verse is to be proof of something, it must mean that both men went into the water in the same way.

Yet no one does that, proving that the churches which insist upon immersion do not actually follow their own argument (because it's not really convincing??)

1. So what are you advocating....sprinkling is the only real popular alternative to being submerged or buried in the water per say.


2.That's what i'm saying....they were looking for a body of water that would be significant enough for immersion...enough to be submerged or buried in water.... if you agree with me why dispute what I'm suggesting.


3.YOu make a good point here...but you're forgetting about the greek word for baptizmo which means that the recipient must be submerged not the one doing the baptism.

"The verse you are trying to use as a proof text says that BOTH of the men did the same thing as regards them being in the water. If the interpretation is that the one being baptized is supposed to have gone completely under water IT MUST ALSO MEAN that the one doing the baptizing did also."



here's an example of the recipients receiving "baptizmo" but it never mentions the people doing the baptism were baptized too...as if baptism is different then simply standing in the river . .I even have a verse here of how JESUS himself came out of the water when he was baptized...I mean I just don't see how you can ignore all this. Even in the Phillip verse I give you...they both went down in the water....and then he baptized the recipient. The fact that Philllip went in has nothing to do with what baptism is he just went in becuase they needed to find a deeper spot in the water.

They both went in....THEN the recipient the enuch was baptized. Then he was submerged (baptizmo) in that water they went into.

Acts 19:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Cross

Matthew 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: