The truth about scriptual Baptism

[GreenEyedLady]

These are the Biblical truths about baptism. This is not something that I feel can NOT be debated because every single example is given a scripture to back it up.
I would like this thread to be used for those who have never studied Scriptual baptism and need some help clearing up common misconceptions about baptism and for those who have believed false doctrines(unbiblical teachings), that they may better edify themselves in the TRUTH in GOD's word!
I just thank the Lord for giving us his Word, without it, we would be nothing.
GEL

There is only one baptism (Ephesians 4:5)

• Scriptual baptism is by immersion. The Greek word for "baptize" means immerse and never means sprinkle or pour. scriptures about baptism also make immersion absolutely necessary in the ordinance. Baptism must be in water (Mark 1:5). It requires much water (John 3:23), going down into the water (Acts 8:38), burial in water and resurrectrion from the water (Colossians 2:12), and coming up out of the water (Acts 8:39)
• Most Baptists agree that four things are necessary for the administration of the ordinance of baptism. Any so called baptism that does not meet these four conditions is not accepted as scriptual:

1. Proper subject: A Saved Person
2. Proper Authority: Church of the Lord Jesus Christ
3. Proper Purpose: To Show salvation, not procure it
4. Proper Mode: Immersion

• Baptism sets forth the burial and resurrection of Christ and shows the individual's salvation by death to sin and resurrection to new life in Christ (Romans 6:4-8). It is an illustration by figure or symbol of salvation (I Peter 3:21), or putting on a uniform showing that we are saved (Galatians 3:27), done in obedience to Christ's command (Matthew 28:19-20).
• Baptism is not essential for salvation. There is not one passage in the Bible that teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Some passages have been wrongly interpreted to teach it, but there is not one that really teaches it. There is no passage which says "except ye be baptized ye shall be lost". This is said of both repentance and faith (Luke 13:3, John 3:18). There are many passages which plainly teach that salvation is without baptism (Acts 16:31, Romans 10:13)
• In the New Testament, only believers were baptized and believers were saved. Paul clearly teaches that baptism is not a part of the gospel message of salvation. In I Corinthians 1:14-17). Paul also said here that he was sent to preach the gospel, not to baptize. This plainly teaches that baptism is not part of the gospel, but Paul taught in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is "the power of GOD unto salvation".
• Every Christian should be baptized, not in order to be saved, but because he is saved.
• There is not one passage in the New Testament that in any way teaches infant baptism either by word or example.

 

[Koey]

I prefer immersion too, but we must be fair and completely honest in dealing with the Bible. You have some of the truth there, but not all of it. Baptize in Greek is LITERALLY "immerse." However, just like in English, Greek words are not always used in a literal sense.

The Greek word for baptize is also used to mean "wash." Mark 7:4 is an example of this. So, I cannot criticize those Christians who merely wash at baptism, because I do not want to be a judgmental Pharisee. The Bible only says baptize. It does not lay out a legalistic list of instructions as to how.

Another point in balance is the fact that the Israelites who were baptized to Moses, went through the Red Sea dryshod. They may have been sprinkled from the sides, but they were not immersed. So the obvious conclusion is that a symbolic "immersion" was also an appropriate baptism at least in that case.

Baptists are also against infant baptism for equally bigoted or ignorant reasons. I prefer a so-called believer's baptism, but again want to be fair. After all the process of repentance and faith, baptism and laying on of hands (confirmation) can be done just as much out of order as can other examples in the book of Acts, where some received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. The important thing is that all the ingredients are eventually there.

The weakest argument for infant baptism comes from Acts 2:39 where whole households were baptized. This alone is an argument from silence. We don't know who was in those households. However, two stronger arguments are: 1) When Israel was baptized to Moses, that included infants, and 2) Baptism pictures circumcision (Col 2:11-12), which was usually done on infants.

There is no sin in being baptized as an infant and confirming that when you come to belief. That makes it a believer's baptism by the way. Our whole Baptist argumentation in this regard is silly bigotry and ignorant prejudice.

As I said, I personally prefer immersion, and doing it when a person is of an age where they can believe and show fruits of repentance. However, I cannot discount the faith of others, nor the validity in the eyes of God, of other modes of baptism.

I know many Christians from whom God has not withheld His Spirit, yet were baptized in methods not approved by Baptists. I don't think God needs the baptism police coming along approving in whom the Holy Spirit can or cannot dwell.

 

[Frankie]

These are the Biblical truths about baptism. This is not something that I feel can NOT be debated because every single example is given a scripture to back it up.
I would like this thread to be used for those who have never studied Scriptual baptism and need some help clearing up common misconceptions about baptism and for those who have believed false doctrines(unbiblical teachings), that they may better edify themselves in the TRUTH in GOD's word!
I just thank the Lord for giving us his Word, without it, we would be nothing.
GEL

There is only one baptism (Ephesians 4:5)

• Scriptual baptism is by immersion. The Greek word for "baptize" means immerse and never means sprinkle or pour. scriptures about baptism also make immersion absolutely necessary in the ordinance. Baptism must be in water (Mark 1:5). It requires much water (John 3:23), going down into the water (Acts 8:38), burial in water and resurrectrion from the water (Colossians 2:12), and coming up out of the water (Acts 8:39)
• Most Baptists agree that four things are necessary for the administration of the ordinance of baptism. Any so called baptism that does not meet these four conditions is not accepted as scriptual:

1. Proper subject: A Saved Person
2. Proper Authority: Church of the Lord Jesus Christ
3. Proper Purpose: To Show salvation, not procure it
4. Proper Mode: Immersion

• Baptism sets forth the burial and resurrection of Christ and shows the individual's salvation by death to sin and resurrection to new life in Christ (Romans 6:4-8). It is an illustration by figure or symbol of salvation (I Peter 3:21), or putting on a uniform showing that we are saved (Galatians 3:27), done in obedience to Christ's command (Matthew 28:19-20).
• Baptism is not essential for salvation. There is not one passage in the Bible that teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Some passages have been wrongly interpreted to teach it, but there is not one that really teaches it. There is no passage which says "except ye be baptized ye shall be lost". This is said of both repentance and faith (Luke 13:3, John 3:18). There are many passages which plainly teach that salvation is without baptism (Acts 16:31, Romans 10:13)
• In the New Testament, only believers were baptized and believers were saved. Paul clearly teaches that baptism is not a part of the gospel message of salvation. In I Corinthians 1:14-17). Paul also said here that he was sent to preach the gospel, not to baptize. This plainly teaches that baptism is not part of the gospel, but Paul taught in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is "the power of GOD unto salvation".
• Every Christian should be baptized, not in order to be saved, but because he is saved.
• There is not one passage in the New Testament that in any way teaches infant baptism either by word or example.

I think the most important "truth" about baptism is that it is spiritual baptism (being born again of the holy spirit) that saves, not water baptism. Water baptism is a beautiful experience that I think every believer should take part in but whether completely immersed or "sprinkled", it isn't the water that saves. I think it is human nature for us to get caught up in the legalities of things and by pass the spiritual. Whether someone confesses their faith in Christ publicly through baptism of immersion or baptism of pouring, what will matter is "did they have the baptism that matters and that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit". I have not found anything in the Word of God that says one will be turned away from heaven because they were sprinkled instead of completely dunked. The Bible does however say that one MUST be born again of the spirit to make it to heaven.

Frankie

 

[Beauty4Ashes]

I think the most important "truth" about baptism is that it is spiritual baptism (being born again of the holy spirit) that saves, not water baptism. Water baptism is a beautiful experience that I think every believer should take part in but whether completely immersed or "sprinkled", it isn't the water that saves. I think it is human nature for us to get caught up in the legalities of things and by pass the spiritual. Whether someone confesses their faith in Christ publicly through baptism of immersion or baptism of pouring, what will matter is "did they have the baptism that matters and that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit". I have not found anything in the Word of God that says one will be turned away from heaven because they were sprinkled instead of completely dunked. The Bible does however say that one MUST be born again of the spirit to make it to heaven.

Frankie

I agree. Thanks for making that point.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Baptizo means immerse. One washed their hands by immersing them in water. In the NT, baptizo is used of water baptism, of the filling of the Holy Spirit (baptism of the Holy Spirit), and as an identification with someone. In I Corinthians 10:2,in regards to 'baptized unto Moses', baptizo is used to say they were identified with Moses. When we are water baptized, we are identifying with Christ. It is a public declaration, a testimony.

A key point to remember, though, is that after the resurrection of Christ,water baptism is to identify with a Christ who had died, and rose again. In regards to the 'baptism unto Moses', it is just to be identified with Moses in the act of following Moses across the Red Sea.

So, I cannot criticize those Christians who merely wash at baptism, because I do not want to be a judgmental Pharisee. The Bible only says baptize. It does not lay out a legalistic list of instructions as to how.

I sure hope you are not accusing anyone here of being a judgemental Pharisee!!!!!!

Baptists are also against infant baptism for equally bigoted or ignorant reasons.

So now Baptists are bigoted and ignorant???

I prefer a so-called believer's baptism, but again want to be fair. After all the process of repentance and faith, baptism and laying on of hands (confirmation) can be done just as much out of order as can other examples in the book of Acts, where some received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. The important thing is that all the ingredients are eventually there.

We bigoted, ignorant Baptists believe that water baptism is an act of obedience and does not save. It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit (regeneration by the Holy Spirit) that saves.

Perhaps you should be asking questions of Baptists before you put labels on them! And judge them.

There is no sin in being baptized as an infant and confirming that when you come to belief. That makes it a believer's baptism by the way. Our whole Baptist argumentation in this regard is silly bigotry and ignorant prejudice.

I disagree that it makes a beleivers baptism. And again, you are calling us bigoted and ignorant, and now predjudiced! I suppose the apostles were bigoted too.

I know many Christians from whom God has not withheld His Spirit, yet were baptized in methods not approved by Baptists. I don't think God needs the baptism police coming along approving in whom the Holy Spirit can or cannot dwell.

This is RUDE!!!

IF you had a concept of what most Baptists believe, you would understand that we do not equate water baptism with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that water baptism is an act of obedience. Saying how we believe baptism should be done is in no way trying to say who the Holy Spirit can indwell!!!




You need to learn before you write.

 

[Frankie]

I prefer immersion too, but we must be fair and completely honest in dealing with the Bible. You have some of the truth there, but not all of it. Baptize in Greek is LITERALLY "immerse." However, just like in English, Greek words are not always used in a literal sense.

The Greek word for baptize is also used to mean "wash." Mark 7:4 is an example of this. So, I cannot criticize those Christians who merely wash at baptism, because I do not want to be a judgmental Pharisee. The Bible only says baptize. It does not lay out a legalistic list of instructions as to how.

Another point in balance is the fact that the Israelites who were baptized to Moses, went through the Red Sea dryshod. They may have been sprinkled from the sides, but they were not immersed. So the obvious conclusion is that a symbolic "immersion" was also an appropriate baptism at least in that case.

Baptists are also against infant baptism for equally bigoted or ignorant reasons. I prefer a so-called believer's baptism, but again want to be fair. After all the process of repentance and faith, baptism and laying on of hands (confirmation) can be done just as much out of order as can other examples in the book of Acts, where some received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. The important thing is that all the ingredients are eventually there.

The weakest argument for infant baptism comes from Acts 2:39 where whole households were baptized. This alone is an argument from silence. We don't know who was in those households. However, two stronger arguments are: 1) When Israel was baptized to Moses, that included infants, and 2) Baptism pictures circumcision (Col 2:11-12), which was usually done on infants.

There is no sin in being baptized as an infant and confirming that when you come to belief. That makes it a believer's baptism by the way. Our whole Baptist argumentation in this regard is silly bigotry and ignorant prejudice.

As I said, I personally prefer immersion, and doing it when a person is of an age where they can believe and show fruits of repentance. However, I cannot discount the faith of others, nor the validity in the eyes of God, of other modes of baptism.

I know many Christians from whom God has not withheld His Spirit, yet were baptized in methods not approved by Baptists. I don't think God needs the baptism police coming along approving in whom the Holy Spirit can or cannot dwell.

Hello. I don't think you have a proper understanding of what baptism means to a baptist person. The things you have stated above do not resemble the beliefs of the Baptist I know (and love, by the way)

 

[Koey]

Hello. I don't think you have a proper understanding of what baptism means to a baptist person. The things you have stated above do not resemble the beliefs of the Baptist I know (and love, by the way)

I was trying to point out that we Baptists do not have as complete an understanding of baptism, as we think we do.​

​

 

[Andyman_1970]

In the Jewish tradition (which Jesus came from) a ceremonial bath (Mikvah) that was used in OT times to cerimonially "wash" a Jew that desired repentance was done by that person. The person would dunk themselves 3 times in a row. This was also performed by a Gentile desiring to become a Jew (convert), part of the process of becoming a Jew was the cerimonial mikvah bath, that demonstrated the person dying to their old ways and gods, and being reborn and turning to the One True God. The Gentile was not immersed by the Rabbi they were studying under for their conversion, but he was a witness to the cerimony.

The cultural and historic evidence would indicate that Jesus baptised Himself with John the Baptist as a witness (which was customary to have a witness).

 

[Iollain]

Jesus was dead all the way, so we should be baptized all the way.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I was trying to point out that we Baptists do not have as complete an understanding of baptism, as we think we do.​

​

You have a very RUDE way of stating that YOU think baptist don't have a complete understanding of Baptism. Are you kidding me? WE are called Baptist for a reason........HMMMMMMMMM it might be because of BAPTISM?!?
Bigoted and ignorant reasons why we don't believe in infant baptism? Are you for real? There is not one single scripture that talks about infants getting baptized OR anyone for that matter getting sprinkled.
I think YOU do not have a complete understanding of Baptism and to label all of us as "baptism police" is just plain discusting.
I could care less what you or any other man or church says, Baptism should be scriptural and there is a differance between scriptural and non scriptual baptism THAT is in the Bible and that is what "we" as Baptist use as our final authority. I also want to point out that your profile does not state that you are a baptist but that you attend an interdenominational church which is very far from being a Baptist. I ask nicely not to speak for Baptist, especially if you are NOT one!
GEL
GEL

 

[P_G]

Once again a tip of the kippot to Andyman!

IF we look at the Jewish heritage of what baptism started out as being ie the Mikveh or ritual bathing. We can see that a few points of Baptist and Anabaptist theology are 100% on the money and HAVE to be 100% on the money.

1 Full imersion: The Mikvah is preformed absolutely by fully imersing oneself 3 times. Not a splash of water not part way but all the way under. Remember the passage when Jesus was going to wash Peters feet?

Joh 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

Jesus was specifically talking about the Mikveh here as one who was washed.

2 Beleivers Baptism: A child does not require a mikveh in fact till they are 13 they are not seen as an adult and most ordinances are not partaken by them. The mikveh is one of them.

3 It is symbolic an after the fact event. One must repent BEFORE the mikveh the mikveh itself is a humbling moment a cleansing moment a time to wash away the vestage on the outside. The inside should already be in repentance.

So once again when we take the scriptures and place them in cultural context we get a much clearer understanding of what was being said. And what G-d would expect of us. It's not about baptism police nor the traditions of men its about doing it G-d's way.

And against that there is no law!

Blessings

Pastor George

 

[theseed]

Here is a booklet that you can read, it explains why beleivers baptism is prefered over infant baptism. It does not cover mode, and it assumes a Cavlinist postion--baptism does not save us.

So basically, it addresses presbyterian concerns, and maybe Methodists.

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

 

[theseed]

Pastor George, doesn't a Jew become a man after his bar mitzvah?

 

[P_G]

Pastor George, doesn't a Jew become a man after his bar mitzvah?

The girls do not

(Couldn't help myself)

yes spirtually yes. And that is typically at age 13


Blessings PG

 

[Crazy Liz]

The girls do not

(Couldn't help myself)

yes spirtually yes. And that is typically at age 13


Blessings PG

This comparison between Christian baptism and the Jewish mikveh is one I've been puzzling over lately, and your post highlights one of the reasons. It is treated by most Christians as a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event. This causes problems for Anabaptists and Baptists when they require a person to be re-baptized if their original baptism for some reason didn't meet all the requirements of their new church. It is confusing to say or imply that their first baptism wasn't their real baptism because some element was missing. If baptism is a one-time event, and that aspect of it is important, then re-baptizing someone is a big problem.

However, when you bring up the practice of the Jewish mikveh as a paradigm for baptism, you will find that it is not a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event. Jewish women have to do it every month.

How does this play inot our theology of baptism?

 

[Andyman_1970]

However, when you bring up the practice of the Jewish mikveh as a paradigm for baptism, you will find that it is not a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event. Jewish women have to do it every month.

How does this play inot our theology of baptism?

The Jewish women performing the mikvah and a Gentile performing a mikvah as part of their conversion to Judaism are two different issues, kind of apples and oranges.

What is the purpose of these two different mikvah's?

One was/is for cerimonial cleansing of a child of God, and one is a symbol of someone becoming a child of God.

 

[P_G]

The Jewish women performing the mikvah and a Gentile performing a mikvah as part of their conversion to Judaism are two different issues, kind of apples and oranges.

What is the purpose of these two different mikvah's?

One was/is for cerimonial cleansing of a child of God, and one is a symbol of someone becoming a child of God.

Well actually it is like compairing MacIntosh apples to Granny Smith apples.
Both look to a rending if the heart. An out ward expression of an inward change.

(Does that sound familiar to you?)

Maybe some of my MJ bretheren could shed a bit of light here on this I shall invite their participation. Most of them are smarter than me anyhow!


Blessings PG

 

[BronxBriar]

Baptists are also against infant baptism for equally bigoted or ignorant reasons.

Our whole Baptist argumentation in this regard is silly bigotry and ignorant prejudice.

WOW! I just wanted to say that particular (and quite silly) expression of Baptist unity should be:banned: . I haven't picked a church yet, but after that diatribe I may join up just to fellowship with some of the BEST Christians I know!

Love you guys!

 

[GreenEyedLady]

This comparison between Christian baptism and the Jewish mikveh is one I've been puzzling over lately, and your post highlights one of the reasons. It is treated by most Christians as a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event. This causes problems for Anabaptists and Baptists when they require a person to be re-baptized if their original baptism for some reason didn't meet all the requirements of their new church. It is confusing to say or imply that their first baptism wasn't their real baptism because some element was missing. If baptism is a one-time event, and that aspect of it is important, then re-baptizing someone is a big problem.

However, when you bring up the practice of the Jewish mikveh as a paradigm for baptism, you will find that it is not a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event. Jewish women have to do it every month.

How does this play inot our theology of baptism?

Liz-
I think it is very important when a believer is unscriptually baptized that they understand WHY they need to be rebaptized. There are many many churchs that preach that salvation is through baptism. This is unscriptual.
There are "requirements" to be marrried to someone. If one of these requirements are not met, then the couple is not married according to the Law of that state or country. The same is with baptism. It should be scriptual and the person who is being baptized should fully understand what is scriptual from unscriptual baptism. I understand that there are also many many church that preach that you have to be a member of that church to get baptized. That is also unscriptual. Baptism should be open to any one any time as long as they are saved just like communion is. It should have nothing to do with membership or the Blood of Christ and everything to do with that person publically confessing that Christ is thier Lord and Saviour.
GEL

 

[P_G]

Here is some thought from a dear friend who feels due to the rules best not to post here:

Mikveh

I'm sorry, Pastor George, but I am not allowed to post in that forum.

Andyman_1970 comes close. When a person converts to Judaism and goes to the mikveh, it is not "a symbol of someone becoming a child of G-d". Because the Jews recognize that all people are children of G-d. It is a symbol of that person becoming a part of the Jewish people, taking on all of the history, rights, and obligations of the Jewish people.

A woman who goes to the mikveh every month (and this is mostly done among the Orthodox) after the period of niddah, does that to symbolize that she is once again tahor (clean).

Many men (again mainly among the Orthodox) go to the mikveh every Friday afternoon in preparation for the Sabbath.

Brides go to the mikveh right before the wedding day.

People may go to the mikveh after dealing with a long illness, a miscarriage, death, etc. It is very healing and spiritually cleansing.

I went kind of fast, but I hope this is a little coherent

If you have any questions, I can try to help

Thank you My dear sweet sister!

Pastor George