Impediments

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not saying that baptism in the NT happened without water, or that water baptism can be discarded since the true baptism is the Holy Spirit baptism, as the Quakers and Salvation Army hold. I just don't believe that water baptism confers spiritual rebirth, regeneration, or Holy Spirit baptism into the Church/Body of Christ. I don't believe the NT teaches that.

then why would Christ command baptism? He does not command us to do something useless.

 

[CelticRebel]

then why would Christ command baptism? He does not command us to do something useless.

Water baptism conveys or pictures an important truth: That when we come to faith in Jesus, we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, we die to our old selves, are buried, and raised to new life in Jesus. It is also a picture of our physical death, burial, and resurrection. It is a portrayal of the Gospel message. Also, in that day, water baptism in public was a dangerous thing: It was a public identification of the person with Jesus, his message, and mission -- a message and mission subversive of the Jewish and Roman society. So, water baptism was for these two purposes.

Water baptism was a sign of spiritual baptism and regeneration, not a cause of it or a vehicle for it. That is my belief and what I believe the scriptures teach.

 

[CelticRebel]

OK, those are two interesting points. I agree that the terms are pejorative. I had not really thought of the term "sect" as pejorative, but your point prompted me to learn that in Greek the same word [airesis] not only conveys the meaning of our English word "heresy" (e.g., following the KJV, Acts 24:14; 1 Cor. 11:19; Ga. 5:20, 2 Pe. 2:1), but also the word "sect", sometimes in a pejorative sense (e.g. Acts 24:5) and sometimes not (e.g. Acts 26:5).

What would you say is the difference between false doctrine and heresy?

Would you agree that the true Church could not embrace heresy?

I think these are important questions. If one believes that the Church maintains that certain false things are, in fact, true, then how can it, as the pillar and foundation of truth, with Christ - who is Himself the Truth - at its head, really be considered the Church?

"Heresy" originally meant a minority opinion. A minority opinion is not necessarily a false doctrine. Sometimes a majority opinion could be false doctrine, and contradictory to scripture. Many times, though, opinions can fall outside the essentials. Of course, different groups might disagree on what the essentials are. That might be a good topic for further discussion.

I don't think any individual or any group or Church Body is infallible. I agree with Paul: We all see through a glass, darkly.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Water baptism conveys or pictures an important truth: That when we come to faith in Jesus, we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, we die to our old selves, are buried, and raised to new life in Jesus. It is also a picture of our physical death, burial, and resurrection. It is a portrayal of the Gospel message. Also, in that day, water baptism in public was a dangerous thing: It was a public identification of the person with Jesus, his message, and mission -- a message and mission subversive of the Jewish and Roman society. So, water baptism was for these two purposes.

Water baptism was a sign of spiritual baptism and regeneration, not a cause of it or a vehicle for it. That is my belief and what I believe the scriptures teach.

Where is that distinction made in Scripture, that water baptism is merely a sign?