Water Baptism - Is It Really Necessary?

[Theophorus]

I believe this is why God allowed the water baptism error to continue for a while. For it expedited greatly the acceptance of Gentiles by the Jewish believers. It brought them together in close contact while performing a sacred Jewish ritual.

I understand your reasoning and that of others; but I do not accept it because of what it points to. Now it is not only Paul and Peter who were in error, but it is God Himself who tolerates error for the greater good.

In other words, the end justifies the means.

 

[Sprint3]

Romans Chapter 6

1. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?
2. May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3. 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, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,
6. knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin;
7. for he who has died is freed from sin.

One is not "buried" in the Spirit; but one is buriied when immersed in water. We are buried with Him through immersion in water.

Rich

One is not "buried" in the Spirit; but one is buriied when immersed in water. We are buried with Him through immersion in water

Very well stated.

 

[Sprint3]

Romans Chapter 6

1. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?
2. May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3. 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, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,
6. knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin;
7. for he who has died is freed from sin.

One is not "buried" in the Spirit; but one is buriied when immersed in water. We are buried with Him through immersion in water.

Rich

One is not "buried" in the Spirit; but one is buriied when immersed in water. We are buried with Him through immersion in water

Very well stated.

 

[GenemZ]

I understand your reasoning and that of others; but I do not accept it because of what it points to. Now it is not only Paul and Peter who were in error, but it is God Himself who tolerates error for the greater good.

In other words, the end justifies the means.

I think you have an unusual concept of God not allowing for man's ability to make mistakes. After all, God created Adam. Yet? Why did God allow Adam to be created if he knew he would fall?

I think the problem here, is that you have a concept of the Apostles that romanticizes them in an unrealistic way.

Well? If what you say were true? Why would God choose Peter? Knowing the following would take place?

Galatians 2:11-13 (New International Version)​

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray."​

God must tolerate error with those he has chosen! For we are all remaining capable of error at any given moment. If God is not to allow for error? Then God might as well hang his mercy up on a rack and not have it be a part of his nature.

I was very easy for both Paul and Peter to be wrong at times, especially in the early days of the Church. For the Church was to the OT dispensation, as the car was to the horse. It was a new means in salvation and there had to be a learning curve issue, which means some errors would be made and then corrected.

God would not have chosen Paul and Peter if God knew they would refuse correction. That is what made both Peter and Paul perfect. They were correctable. After correction they were ready to be used to write Scripture!

Are you correctable? I am. Been corrected many times.
It scared me to see how wrong I was, yet so sure of myself when I was.

Yet, I also knew believers who refused correction. They can not grow spiritually as long as they do. Religion would be perfect for them. It requires no growth. Only obedience to a predetermined unchanging format. Heaven forbid if it is shown it needs to be corrected. Might as well tell God he needs to be corrected. That how some religious people I know think about what they follow. Might as well be God.

The Church is not God. Look at some of the errors your church has made in the past? I have seen errors in mine. The only way we can grow is to learn truth that we did not know before. That, in some cases, will include correction.

The church is not omniscient. It does not know all it can know. A Church is a living organism if its growing in grace and truth. Religion is a like a prison wall that gives some folks a sense of security they crave. Predictablity. Life is not like that. Paul and Peter were growing and sometimes making mistakes that they needed to correct along the way. I see no problem with that. You do? Why?

Galatians 2:11-13 (New International Version)​

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray."​

Peter made mistakes... God did not make a mistake. You say that means God made a mistake? He always knew Peter would do that when he chose Peter as his Apostle. Grace, Mercy, and Truth overcomes all the mistakes any believer can make if he desires to know God. ​

Grace and peace, GeneZ​

​

 

[Carlos Vigil]

you are not buried in water either so what is your point, your gotten wet in water.
(A). IMMERSED also means to be overwhelmed or fully covered.
you STILL dont seem to get that this can happen unphysically. We are buried with Him because when HE is in us we become part of him and if we are part of him we also have been buried with Him. HE IS NOT talking about a act or rite we do to REMEMBER His death BUT the ACTUAL event of the SPiriut baptism or

(B). the moment of our Salvation.

it says we are raised by the SPirit just as God raised Him by the SPirit rom 8:11. verse 6 should help you see this. he is speaking of our sinfull nature, coll2:11 as you see in that passage it is Christ through the SPirit. and the way it is done is through the SPirit baptism which is why it say we are CLOTHED in Christ. this is what IMMERSION does. not water baptism. we are litteraly (figurativly)wearing the SPirit of Christ. he is our new birth.

(A). IMMERSED...... as in "...always learning but never able to reach a knowledge of the TRUTH."
2 Tim. 3: 7

(B). How long does "the moment of salvation" last ?
and...Is it scriptural ?

 

[Schroeder]

(A). IMMERSED...... as in "...always learning but never able to reach a knowledge of the TRUTH."
2 Tim. 3: 7

i see you dont stop in cherry picking with just the scriptures. useing scripture to dish is me is telling. look it up in the dictionary. is there a seperate word in greek for immersed that means just to be overwhelmed, the unphysical aspect of the word. i thinkyou dont accept it because it will make you question what you have been taught. When Jesus said i have a baptism to do and you cannot do the baptism i have to do, even though they would but it was just not for our salvation. did he mean water baptism, immersion in water. NOPE so why not DEAL with it.

(B). How long does "the moment of salvation" last ?
and...Is it scriptural ?

you tell me. there is PLENTY of scripture that can answer this for you. it takes a moment, the moment you put your FAITH in Christ and HIS WORK. just as he said in john 6:29. just as eph 1:13-14 says. AT this moment we receive the Spirit baptism of Christ, our new birth, our true cleansing, our not living by the sinful nature, our GRACE from God. THE sacrifice once for all for the forgiveness of sins. HOW hard do you want to make it. SCRIPTURE SCRIPTURE SCRIPTURE. its all in there. that is why i use it, that is why i give scripture to make a point because it is NOT my opinion it is what i see in scripture. i do not make a point and NOT give where scripture shows me it.

 

[Schroeder]

Very well stated.

NOPE the problem is it states we are buried WITH HIM. with Christ, this cant happen UNLESS His Spirit is in us. When His Spirit is in us we become a part of Him SOOOOO if he is us and we are Him we died with Him and if we died with Him then we are raised as he was raised. the way you all are seeing it is we are buried in water baptism outside of Christ and raised to life THEN saved THEN given the SPirit. doesnt work that way and if you read it CORRECTLY you will see this.

 

[sawdust]

I understand your reasoning and that of others; but I do not accept it because of what it points to. Now it is not only Paul and Peter who were in error, but it is God Himself who tolerates error for the greater good.

In other words, the end justifies the means.

Tolerates? No, not tolerates but rather accepts us in our weaknesses and ignorance and pours out mercy upon us because He is merciful.

But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. 1Tim.1:16

And it was with this same mercy Paul was instructed and corrected as necessary as he came to understand the new way of living Christ had given to him.

It saddens me to think of the rigidity that must necessarily flow from a mind that cannot have mercy upon our mistakes.

peace

 

[Theophorus]

I think you have an unusual concept of God not allowing for man's ability to make mistakes. After all, God created Adam. Yet? Why did God allow Adam to be created if he knew he would fall?

You have an "ontilogical" view of truth which I find ironic. The weakness of strength of an invividuals practice of virtue is not always directly related to the knowledge of the truth. Adam knew he was wrong, so did Peter, and Paul also related is sinfulness in a humble manner.
Your reasoning is similar to donatism.

 

[Rich48]

NOPE the problem is it states we are buried WITH HIM. with Christ, this cant happen UNLESS His Spirit is in us. When His Spirit is in us we become a part of Him SOOOOO if he is us and we are Him we died with Him and if we died with Him then we are raised as he was raised. the way you all are seeing it is we are buried in water baptism outside of Christ and raised to life THEN saved THEN given the SPirit. doesnt work that way and if you read it CORRECTLY you will see this.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

Peter is speaking under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is quite clear here that baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit are two completely different events. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it is most important to note that, in the greek, repent and shall receive are in the plural tense, however, be baptised in in the singular.

No one here has suggested that has even remotely suggested that the water is what saves you. You can be immersed, and come out nice and wet-and in the same condition that you were before.

Rich

 

[GenemZ]

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

Peter is speaking under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is quite clear here that baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit are two completely different events.

Paul baptized some disciples who had not yet heard that they were to believe on Jesus name. When they were baptized in his name? This is what happened.....

Acts 19:1-3 (New International Version)
"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"

"John's baptism," they replied."

​

Paul had it straight by then. He knew we were to receive the Holy Spirit when we believed. For he asked them:

"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

​

They said, "no."

Paul's response?

"Then what baptism did you receive?"
​

Their response?

"John's baptism," they replied."
​

What was John's baptism?

John, himself, said.....

Mark 1:8 niv
"I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
​

Paul did not baptize anyone into the Holy Spirit. Paul baptized them in Jesus name. "Name" also could mean, "person" to the Greek speaking people in that day. Paul continued the dialogue...

Acts 19:4-5 (New International Version)
"Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

​

On hearing those words spoken by Paul, about believing in Jesus. They were then baptized into his name! Not into water. Into his name! They had already been baptized in water. But, now his Name.

To baptize in the name did not mean water baptism. It meant to introduce others to the reality they do not yet know about. To immerse them into the truth about Jesus! "Baptism" had various shades of meaning to the folks back then. Peter misunderstood and later caught on to what Jesus meant. Paul already caught on.

There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
​

In Christ, GeneZ

​

​

 

[Theophorus]

Tolerates? No, not tolerates but rather accepts us in our weaknesses and ignorance and pours out mercy upon us because He is merciful.

But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. 1Tim.1:16

And it was with this same mercy Paul was instructed and corrected as necessary as he came to understand the new way of living Christ had given to him.

It saddens me to think of the rigidity that must necessarily flow from a mind that cannot have mercy upon our mistakes.

peace

Here is my answer, the same as to others.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27715431&postcount=829

But something to contemplate: In this case, I am more "sola scriptura" than you. I do not read the things into scripture that you are.

 

[sawdust]

Here is my answer, the same as to others.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27715431&postcount=829

But something to contemplate: In this case, I am more "sola scriptura" than you. I do not read the things into scripture that you are.

You have no idea who I am so I doubt if you can really make a very good assessment of me.



peace

 

[Schroeder]

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

Peter is speaking under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is quite clear here that baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit are two completely different events. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it is most important to note that, in the greek, repent and shall receive are in the plural tense, however, be baptised in in the singular.

and how did he get this SPirit baptism on the day of pentecost Which he did not get water baptized, scripture never states they got water baptized. well water baptism and Spirit baptism are seperate, one was for association or identification with Christ, the other SAVED us. it states as you interprate it that you receive the Spirit AFTER repentance and (water) baptism. It is singular because there is only ONE baptism CHRISTS. it is also noted that Peter did, i dont know if it was this soon but he did HOLD on to the idea of needing to become a jew FIRST which meant being water baptized. i think maybe he got to this idea later on when harrased by the jewish leaders and meant the SPirit HERE BECAUSE he was JUST baptized by the SPirit. so it would be correct to say or speak of the SPirit baptism because you do reseave the SPirit and your sins forgiven when you repent, WHICH means to turn away from your sins and ACCEPT Him. And many other passages concure with this idea. acts 10:43 acts 15:8 acts 16:something gal 3:2 eph 1:13-14 ect.

No one here has suggested that has even remotely suggested that the water is what saves you. You can be immersed, and come out nice and wet-and in the same condition that you were before.

Rich

no you say that with out it being done or at least wishing to be done(nice loop hole) you will not be saved. and if doesnt save you why do you insist it MUST be done. if it truelly is of the heart then Acts 10:43- acts 15:8 show that water baptism is not a part of the gospel message. 1 cor 1 shows it was for what i keep saying it was used for. ASSOCIATION. a public decarlation of your faith as well as a personal one, one in wich a apostle could say, you were baptised to show you believed, so why do you act the way your acting. BUT again you dont need to be water baptized to do this but it could be helpfull. i never say to abolish it but to treat it the way it was treated.

 

[Schroeder]

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

Peter is speaking under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is quite clear here that baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit are two completely different events. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it is most important to note that, in the greek, repent and shall receive are in the plural tense, however, be baptised in in the singular.

No one here has suggested that has even remotely suggested that the water is what saves you. You can be immersed, and come out nice and wet-and in the same condition that you were before.

Rich

and why do you jump to another passage i thought we were discussing rom 6 It would be easier to make a point if we stayed on one PASSAGE if we get this ONE straight the others would become clearer. or is that the problem.

 

[Rich48]

and why do you jump to another passage i thought we were discussing rom 6 It would be easier to make a point if we stayed on one PASSAGE if we get this ONE straight the others would become clearer. or is that the problem.

The reason for posting a 2nd scripture was to show that Paul, when speaking on baptism, is only repeating what Peter has already said. Peter makes it very clear that baptism, and the receiving of the Spirt are different. So when Paul speaks of baptism in Romans 6, he is speaking of water baptism.

Rich

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, baptism really is necessary.

 

[Ave Maria]

Then the Catechism is wrong.

Well, wouldn't be the first time, so it's not much of a surprise.



Baptism is not a nessesity, but when you become a believer, you should get baptised.

If you're not a believer, or an infant who hasn't even learnt to speak yet in order to vocalise his own beliefs, then you shouldn't get baptised.

Simple as.

You're wrong about both but I will only address the infant baptism thing:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

And here's one about the necessity of baptism:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

 

[GenemZ]

You're wrong about both but I will only address the infant baptism thing:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

And here's one about the necessity of baptism:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

How does one debate with links? Do you have any ideas of your own so an exchange can be had?

How would you like it if a Jehovah Witness gave you a bunch of links, and then said...."There!"

You do not debate. You become a Yahoo search on a topic if that's all you can offer.

Please. If you can not think clearly on the subject for yourself? You should not throw down a piano from the sky onto the debate. I disagree with your links. I have no means to debate the one who wrote the link. And, when all one can offer are links? It shows they have no clear thinking for themselves on the subject. That someone else is doing their thinking for them. Debate means you have a point of view to share. Not, to interrupt the flow of a debate by reading a letter from someone else's opinion who is not present. If you want to use links to enforce what you can share? Then, as a "supplimental offering" it works. But? To make it your point of view? Like I said..... Might as well have done a search on Yahoo and found opinions on web pages that can not be reasoned with.

Here to debate...... In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[heymikey80]

If we treated baptism like we treated other covenant initiations I wonder what the world would look like. Oh, wait ... um, we *do* treat them this way!

From an acquaintance's blog (all tongue in cheek ):

I think I've decided that I was never married. The truth is, my mind was wandering. I wasn't listening all that attentively to George's solemn pronouncement. I certainly was not actively engaged in consciously receiving his declaration with faith. [Explanatory Note: George married us.]

So, obviously, I am not really married. Of course, that doesn't mean the marriage ritual was unimportant. Oh no. Perhaps someday God will change me by the Spirit, make me a husband inwardly, make me married in my heart, in my heart, Lord. Wedding ceremonies are, obviously, outward signs of inward grace--grace with no connection to the ceremony at the time but to be hoped for in the future.

Jennifer should be praying for that day to come. But instead she just gets mad at me when I bring up these important concepts. I don't know where a former Baptist girl could get such sacerdotalist ideas, but she acts as if we were married by virtue of the ceremony. How strange is that? The Bible is clear that when a man and woman are married, it is God who has joined them together by covenant. Obviously God's work is immediate in our souls. We should know that weddings don't actually accomplish anything. We're not ritualists, after all!

Peter Leithart has often been a great help to me. He gave me pastoral advice when I was a layman, and we have stayed in touch. I got to see him fairly often when I was in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery. But I must say his recent counsel to me has been rather disappointing!

Peter has basically taken my wife's side. He says I'm married whether or not I consciously received the declaration that I was a husband. He says that George's declaration was a "performative utterance." He makes it sound like mere symbols have the power to change things! What is going on?

I accused him of denying God's sovereignty, the need for a monergistic work of God in the heart. I must say that his reply was rather crafty. I do think Calvinists might need to rethink the idea that God ordains the means as well as the ends ....

* * *

But back to Peter Leithart: He insisted that I was a husband simply by being a lawful participant in a marriage. When I say that only God can change the heart, he promptly told me that he hoped God would change mine to believe in my God-given identity as a husband, lest I be condemned as an unfaithful husband. Peter treated faith as if it simply involved trusting God's promises and actions in the world (which, of course, he alleges can take place through human means) rather than experiencing some sort of crisis work of God in the heart. When I pointed out to him that his warning made it sound as if a real husband could fall under judgment, he responded that believing in my God-given status as a husband conferred upon me at the wedding involved "trembling at the threatenings" that God had made against spouses who committed infidelity. He even had the nerve, despite being a Presbyterian minister, to warn me by using Hebrews 4.1. (This was when I started thinking about our need to clarify our doctrinal standards: When I said what any good sola fide-propositioning Presbyterian should say to such nonsense, he pointed out I was attacking the Westminster Confession of Faith's language describing saving faith with the prooftext from Hebrews 4.1. This was quite embarrassing.)

Thankfully, I now have at least one pastor's bald assertion of what the problem is. Peter must be an Anglo-Catholic. He must be a liberal mainliner. Somehow he must be both things at once and the contradiction, of course, has to be Peter's own confusion, not a sign that anyone is grasping at straws and saying whatever will come into his head to destroy a PCA minister's reputation.

* * *

In the meantime, since God hasn't been pleased yet to marry me to Jennifer in my heart, I've been thinking about adopting my children so they won't simply be bastards. But the problem is that Charis, being a baby, can't possibly receive the word of her adoption by faith yet. She has no understanding.

And how am I to relate to Jennifer? Shouldn't we sleep in separate rooms? Since I've allowed my children to pray the Lord's Prayer from the time they could talk, that seems sort of inconsistent. But maybe I need to repent in both ways: sleep on the couch and tell my children they are no longer permitted to address God as father until they prove they possess a new heart.

Once More, with Feeling
http://markhorne.blogspot.com/2006/10/by-request.html