The truth about scriptual Baptism

[GreenEyedLady]

Mark 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

john 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

NOte: the word "Straightaway" means immediately, which indicates that the person of the action is also performing the action.

It is hard to tell by the words we have what happened but when you compare them to the required immersions done by the laws of G-d then you understand verses like Mark 9:10 where it says that Y-shua came up out of the water. This is describing an action that one is performing themselves without any assistance. John was the one calling them to repentance to prepare the way of the L-RD this repentance would be followed by an immersion, and he stood by as a witness.
andment".

I am sorry but the statement I underlined is completley unscriptual. There is no supporting scripture for this. Don't you remember The pharisees were mad because they thought Jesus was the one baptizing people........BUt really it was the diciples?
John 4:1 ¶When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
Baptism is not something that one does for themselves......it is something that is being done to you.

As far as it being important, like Gary mentioned, Baptism is the first step or first commandment that one follows after becomming a child of God. I would definatly want to make my first step as biblical as possible.
My baptism as an infant was not biblical and I HAD to make my walk with GOD right in His eyes.
I am glad that I did it!
GEL

 

[eldermike]

Why do Baptists make such a huge deal of this? If it is not necessary for salvation, what difference does it make? If a person was baptised as a infant and accepts that baptism, why should any church think that they have the right to tell them that they need to be baptised again?

I don't see why either a pastor or board of elders based on their interpretation of the proper mode of baptism should coerse an individual believer who has a differing interpretation.

To do so wouldn't seem very Baptist to me. What happened to the individual rights of the believer to interpret the scriptures?

I am ordained, SB, we do not make a big deal out of infant baptism, it never comes up as a subject.

And, we do not interpret scripture, the Holy Spirit (God) is the interpreter of scripture. We simple read it and humbly pray that God illuminate it as He promised to do for all who believe.

,Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

 

[Bulldog]

Do Baptists view baptisms not by immersion (pouring, sprinkling) as not valid?

 

[eldermike]

Baptism is required for salvation. That is the plain Biblical truth.

This is wrong.
You can't post in this forum with that view.
Mike

 

[Polycarp1]

A thread on "Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?" in the Soteriology Forum over in Theology: http://www.christianforums.com/t690183

Explanation of Baptist thought there would be most helpful; as an Anglican, I gave my best understanding of it, compared and contrasted with the sacramental way of thinking, but I'm sure someone can explain it far better than I could.

 

[Frankie]

1 Peter 3:19-22



In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

​

What Bible version did you use for this scripture quote, please?

 

[Frankie]

This is wrong.
You can't post in this forum with that view.
Mike

Can one of you direct me to the post where the person said that Baptism was nessessary for salvation. I know it must be somewhere on this thread but I can seem to find it.

Thanks,
Frankie

 

[Cary.Melvin]

What Bible version did you use for this scripture quote, please?

That is from the New American Bible translation. It is a Catholic Bible, but was translated ecumenicaly with protestants.

 

[Cary.Melvin]

Can one of you direct me to the post where the person said that Baptism was nessessary for salvation. I know it must be somewhere on this thread but I can seem to find it.

Thanks,
Frankie

That was me. I removed the text in question because it violated forum rules.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

1 Peter 3:19-22



In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

​

I am sure you have been warned repeatly for breaking the rules.
Why do you continue to debate here in our forum? That verse is not even TALKING about salvation is IN baptim! I am not going to fall for your little debate traps. This verse and the doctrine behind it was answered in another thread on this fourm in complete detail.
GEL

 

[FreeinChrist]

1 Peter 3:19-22



In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

​

The New American Bible was translated mostl;y by Catholics and a few Protestants. It has interpretation in it...meaning it is not a word for word translation of the Greek. The NASB is a word for word translation.
1Pe 3:19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits {now} in prison,1Pe 3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through {the} water.1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,1Pe 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Not the removal of dirt from the flesh - ie - not the water
The baptism that 'saves' is the washing of regeneration done by the Holy spirit that removes our sin and makes us new creatures.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Thank you Free in Christ.
I also wanted to post up this thread that Cary had read before.
http://www.christianforums.com/t671133&page=3
Cary, I don't think you are honest in your motives and intentions on this thread.
GEL

 

[Crazy Liz]

I am sorry but the statement I underlined is completley unscriptual. There is no supporting scripture for this. Don't you remember The pharisees were mad because they thought Jesus was the one baptizing people........BUt really it was the diciples?
John 4:1 ¶When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
Baptism is not something that one does for themselves......it is something that is being done to you.

The grammatical construction we see used most often in the NT indicates that one person baptized another person. However, we have no description of how this is done. The Christians with the oldest continuous tradition of baptism by immersion (EO) baptize my immersing 3 times - even when they baptize babies.

I also wonder whether the idea of baptism being something someone does to another person might have originated because of infant baptism, since an infant can't do it for him/herelf. If so, it would be rather ironic that Baptists would pick this up as a requirement.

There really is no conclusive evidence in scripture about the mode of baptism. BTW, I believe a number of the Brethren denominations (a Baptist/Anabaptist tradition) immerse 3 times, also.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Do Baptists view baptisms not by immersion (pouring, sprinkling) as not valid?

Some do, some don't.

However, Baptists and Christians with a more sacramental viewpoint would, I think, mean different things by the word "valid."

 

[theseed]

That is from the New American Bible translation. It is a Catholic Bible, but was translated ecumenicaly with protestants.

Was it "saved through water" or "brought through water safely" Hmmm :sracth:

 

[theseed]

1 Peter 3:19-22


In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.
​

It says that the water does not save, but "the apeal of a good conscience"

 

[Propadeutic]

The original post is excellent. On the question of re-baptism, I'd like to share this from a previous article on my website. (I'd be more specific, but I'm not allowed to post links yet.)

The biblical precedent for "re-baptizing"–or more properly, baptizing biblically for the first time–is in Acts 19. Paul encounters some Ephesians who had been baptized, but who had not embraced the gospel of Christ or heard of the Holy Spirit. They knew only the "baptism of John." After Paul set them straight, he baptized them again. The Holy Spirit endorsed this move by filling the Ephesians at that moment. It is evident from this passage that people who were baptized before having a genuine conversion experience–whether they were infants or adults at the time–need to be baptized biblically after their true conversion.

How does this apply to the mode and meaning? Baptists also insist on baptizing those who were baptized with an understanding of baptismal regeneration, or who were sprinkled or poured. Since these problems were not present when the Bible was written, we have no examples to help us.... I believe that a principle is at stake: the preservation of the biblical mode and meaning of baptism. Churches ought not be unnecessarily divisive, but the only way that Baptists [and earlier, Anabaptists] could revive and maintain this declining biblical practice was to make it a requirement for membership. As important as baptism was for the church in the New Testament, the members of any particular church ought to be as united in it as they are in other basic doctrines.

An analogy might help to understand the importance of mode. Imagine that a church is observing the Lord's supper. The people take the bread and the cup, and the event in the upper room is recounted from the Bible. Then, instead of eating the bread and drinking the fruit of the vine, the people put it in their navels, or step on it, or set it on fire. They argue that this is simply their traditional method of observing the Lord's supper, and the difference doesn't really matter. But we would answer that they are not merely practicing the ordinance differently; they are not practicing it at all. They are doing something else and calling it the Lord's supper. Just as consuming the bread and the cup is essential to the significance of the Lord's supper, immersion is essential to the significance of baptism.

I also recommend Beasley-Murray's article on baptizo and Beckwith's article on Infant Baptism in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. It covers in the original-language words, questions of mode and candidacy, and connection to Jewish customs in greater detail than can be posted here.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Great post, Propadeutic!


I 'll have to check out that book - the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Is the other article online somewhere?

 

[Bulldog]

Another question..

According to Baptist theology, if one was baptised as an infant, would they need to be baptised again as an adult?

 

[theseed]

Another question..

According to Baptist theology, if one was baptised as an infant, would they eed to be baptised again as an adult?

Because the Apostles praticed beleivers baptism.