• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Water Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Schroeder said:
so he did not water baptize, and the reason is obvious
If it were obvious we wouldn't be having this argument.

The reason he didn't baptize is because he commissioned his disciples to do it.

Twice it's stated Jesus baptized. That means people baptized under Jesus' authority. To me that much is brutally clear. I also don't see Jesus' baptism being performed by Jesus, today, either ...! So the parallel is complete. Now to the question: given that Jesus commanded baptism before and after His crucifixion, why aren't you baptizing, again?
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Schroeder said:
heymikey80 said:
No prooftexts? Sorry, it's either one baptism or it's two! You're hauling a second baptism back into the church just to show the Jews? That makes no sense. Which is it? One or two?
no you are ther is only one the SPirit. not two in one or one in ywo parts. that is what you are doing.
OK, (I gave you the chance to explain) you've already admitted there are two baptisms now, because the Jewish Christians had water baptism in your view. Now the only difference between us is whether we can resolve water baptism and spiritual baptism with Paul's view of one baptism for the one church. I can. You can't.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Schroeder said:
heymikey80 said:
"Baptize" can be used figuratively, sure. But the figurative use has to draw from the imagery to have any meaning at all.
which is what the Spirit does, which is why it say you were baptized into Christ you were clothed in Chirst. because the Spirit covers you. it overwhelmes you. So try to look at the word in that way.
As I pointed out, if the Spirit is using this term figuratively, then it is pointing to the figure of water. You can't escape the imagery of a figurative word. The water imagery is still there.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Schroeder said:
no he was upset they were putting there faith on the one who baptized not on the one who was being taught or who the baptism was to be done to associate yourself with. they were associasting themselves to the baptizer not to the one being spoke of by the baptizer. that being Christ.
Sorry, nobody could've made that mistake. Did John baptize anyone there? Nope. Did Jesus Himself ever baptize? You've already admitted, no.

The only thing Paul was pointing out was that the baptizer was an ideology they were siding with.

And further afield, if this were a Pauline Dispensation, you'd think Paul would want to distinguish his teaching from Peter's ...! Ultimately Paul was dismayed by the divisions trying to split Peter's theology from Paul's and Apollos'. It was what's in common among them that was important, not what differentiated them.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Schroeder said:
show were he states or anby of them states it is. water doesnt wash your sins away. the Spirit does when in Spirit baptism you are joined with his sacrifice and his blood cleanses you. the same is spoken in Rom 6
You again misrepresented my words. I didn't say water washes your sins away. The water isn't the baptism. Baptism is a rite. Baptism is a worship act. Baptism is not water. You're asserting I'm saying something different. I'm not. I'm saying it is what it is.

Do you worship God by singing? How about by prayer? Do you think your omission of those very physical, creational actions is a good thing because "God is Spirit"? I can assure you they're not. So too the rite of baptism is an act of worship. I can assure you that omission of the commands to perform this rite are no better a thing than omitting other parts of public worship.

And it has nothing to do with the power of the water, much less the power of your voice in singing, or the power of your words in prayer. But it has everything to do with what God wants, and what you're commanded.

Any careful reading of Acts 22:16 associated the action of baptism with the actions of God. One doesn't cause the other. They are a rite of worship, in which God and men are both participants.
 
Upvote 0

Schroeder

Veteran
Jun 10, 2005
3,234
69
OHIO. home of THE Ohio State Buckeyes
✟26,248.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
heymikey80 said:
Well I think the Spirit of God was "around" saving people before Jesus was crucified. The question again is one of the Spirit's new apostleship, it's not that the Spirit of God wasn't working before Jesus was crucified (Cf. Gen 1:1-2, John 3:5, Heb 9:8, 12:9, and throughout the Old Testament).

The Spirit was specially sent to the disciples of Jesus Christ, certainly. But He was here.He was always here.
no not really. if that was so why would he need to die. it tells us the sins of the past were HELD over UNITL Christ sacrifice. At this point the SPirit baptism JOINS us into or with christ and his work and his blood cleanses us of sin. which is the whole reason we cant be clise to God. SIN is the whole problem. wants that is removed there is no problem. that is why the Spirit is SOO important. NOT anything we do but what it does. The SPirit of God before his sacrifice did a intirerly different thing. it did not save but lead thoise God appointed to do his will. afterwords it did more, its all the same SPirit doing many things but at different times. It was specially sent to all the same way. they the apostles just got more Gifts through the SPirit then most. they got it by BELIEF just as we do. Peter said so in Acts 11:17.
 
Upvote 0

Schroeder

Veteran
Jun 10, 2005
3,234
69
OHIO. home of THE Ohio State Buckeyes
✟26,248.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
heymikey80 said:
If it were obvious we wouldn't be having this argument.

The reason he didn't baptize is because he commissioned his disciples to do it.

Twice it's stated Jesus baptized. That means people baptized under Jesus' authority. To me that much is brutally clear. I also don't see Jesus' baptism being performed by Jesus, today, either ...! So the parallel is complete. Now to the question: given that Jesus commanded baptism before and after His crucifixion, why aren't you baptizing, again?
no scripture says he did water baptize. it doesnt say he commisioned it either before his sacrifice. it merely says they were doing it. he may not have minded but it never says why they did does it. to use such passages which are not clear either way is not very convensing or good to build any doctrine. it isnt brutally clear or you would give a brutally clear scripture. it only says they were baptizing more then john was. this statement doesnt tell us anything except that they were dooing it. how or why should we build a doctrine on such a simple statement. his baptism is preformed because we are told what HIS IS BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT. John the baptist did NOT say his would be in water or water and the Spirit or water though the spirit. or by the Spirit or one baptism in two parts. he said JESUS WOULD BAPTIZE WITH THE SPIRIT. period.
 
Upvote 0

Schroeder

Veteran
Jun 10, 2005
3,234
69
OHIO. home of THE Ohio State Buckeyes
✟26,248.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
heymikey80 said:
OK, (I gave you the chance to explain) you've already admitted there are two baptisms now, because the Jewish Christians had water baptism in your view. Now the only difference between us is whether we can resolve water baptism and spiritual baptism with Paul's view of one baptism for the one church. I can. You can't.
there are two mentioned in scripture. BUT only ONE is part of the gospel. That is the Spirit baptism which john the baptist said Jesus would do. 1 cor 12:13 says which one is part of the Gospel and Paul differentiates between water and the gospel. Paul NEVER teaches about water or goes into detail about it. rom 6 is NOT about water baptism at ALL. And yes there are two now one for showing you except yhour faith in Christ the other BEFORE this one by Christ when you FIRST believed. the second one is not needed because it proves nothing to the point of whether you are saved or not. truelly saved anyways. what shows you are is HOW YOU ACT IN LIFE. to resolve the issue all you have to know is Paul did not use water baptism to join anyone into the Church. again 1 cor shows he saw it as a association with a group or teaching. nothing else. it had nno bearing on your salvation. Acts 15:8 shows God sees the HEART ONLY.
 
Upvote 0

Schroeder

Veteran
Jun 10, 2005
3,234
69
OHIO. home of THE Ohio State Buckeyes
✟26,248.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
heymikey80 said:
As I pointed out, if the Spirit is using this term figuratively, then it is pointing to the figure of water. You can't escape the imagery of a figurative word. The water imagery is still there.
you are going fulll circle so as to not get away from water. the word baptize is used because it was used to CLEANSE something or to make it holy. IS THIS NOT WHAT THE SPIRIT DOES. John the baptist makes it clear Christ baptises with the Spirit with no need of your support. why would Christ need a imagery to make it work. it is used so we might have a clue of what it is doing. it is making us HOLY. so the use of the term used for water baptizing was used so we might understand. dont need the physical aspects being done to get the imagery. at least i do not. so it is there but not to be done literaly.
 
Upvote 0

Schroeder

Veteran
Jun 10, 2005
3,234
69
OHIO. home of THE Ohio State Buckeyes
✟26,248.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
heymikey80 said:
Sorry, nobody could've made that mistake. Did John baptize anyone there? Nope. Did Jesus Himself ever baptize? You've already admitted, no.

The only thing Paul was pointing out was that the baptizer was an ideology they were siding with.

And further afield, if this were a Pauline Dispensation, you'd think Paul would want to distinguish his teaching from Peter's ...! Ultimately Paul was dismayed by the divisions trying to split Peter's theology from Paul's and Apollos'. It was what's in common among them that was important, not what differentiated them.
read 1 cor 1:12 he says Was Paul crucified for you? i would think this meant they were alligning with the teacher not Christ. SO yes it is clear they did. notice Paul speaks of the Cross in refering to salvation. the Spirit baptism is the only way to it. If the issue was about how they misuded water baptism in there salvation process he would have said so. it is only used in how they were associating themselves. they were not truelly hearing the gosple, which was about Christ and the Cross which saves you. which is why he says lest the cross of Christ be made of no effect.
 
Upvote 0

Schroeder

Veteran
Jun 10, 2005
3,234
69
OHIO. home of THE Ohio State Buckeyes
✟26,248.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
heymikey80 said:
You again misrepresented my words. I didn't say water washes your sins away. The water isn't the baptism. Baptism is a rite. Baptism is a worship act. Baptism is not water. You're asserting I'm saying something different. I'm not. I'm saying it is what it is.

Do you worship God by singing? How about by prayer? Do you think your omission of those very physical, creational actions is a good thing because "God is Spirit"? I can assure you they're not. So too the rite of baptism is an act of worship. I can assure you that omission of the commands to perform this rite are no better a thing than omitting other parts of public worship.
yes worship but i am saved already yes prayer because i am saved already. Do you say water is part of the salvation process or as you say through or by the SPirit. if so HOW could we be obediant and worship God when we are not yet saved? you cant. rites are not worship especially a one time act such as water baptism. how you live is your worship. how you act along with signing and prayer and even all the other stuff that has been added in church servises can be. but it by no means make it commands or neseccary.

And it has nothing to do with the power of the water, much less the power of your voice in singing, or the power of your words in prayer. But it has everything to do with what God wants, and what you're commanded.

Any careful reading of Acts 22:16 associated the action of baptism with the actions of God. One doesn't cause the other. They are a rite of worship, in which God and men are both participants.
again God doesnt need us to do anything to receive our salvation BUT to BELIEVE in our hearts Christ died for our sins. that is what GRACE is. no act you do gets you saved OR gives you the Spirit baptism. ONLY BELIEF. if you wish to say it must be done to show it your still wrong because how would that prove it to God since he already know anyway. and no scripture says to do it to prove it to people. as fact there is very little as to why it is done or how it is to be done. which is why when expanded to being a rite or ordanance it has caused so much disintion with in the Church. in Acts 22:16 it says wash away your sins, you said water baptism doesnt do that. so it must mean the SPirit baptism. and if not it was to show association to Christ and not to the Law. and the washing away of your sins is forgetting the past life he lead of following the law and killing Christians.
 
Upvote 0

GLJCA

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2005
1,152
57
74
Louisiana
✟1,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Schroeder said:
yes worship but i am saved already yes prayer because i am saved already. Do you say water is part of the salvation process or as you say through or by the SPirit. if so HOW could we be obediant and worship God when we are not yet saved? you cant. rites are not worship especially a one time act such as water baptism. how you live is your worship. how you act along with signing and prayer and even all the other stuff that has been added in church servises can be. but it by no means make it commands or neseccary.

again God doesnt need us to do anything to receive our salvation BUT to BELIEVE in our hearts Christ died for our sins. that is what GRACE is. no act you do gets you saved OR gives you the Spirit baptism. ONLY BELIEF. if you wish to say it must be done to show it your still wrong because how would that prove it to God since he already know anyway. and no scripture says to do it to prove it to people. as fact there is very little as to why it is done or how it is to be done. which is why when expanded to being a rite or ordanance it has caused so much disintion with in the Church. in Acts 22:16 it says wash away your sins, you said water baptism doesnt do that. so it must mean the SPirit baptism. and if not it was to show association to Christ and not to the Law. and the washing away of your sins is forgetting the past life he lead of following the law and killing Christians.

Can someone show me where we are commanded to be spirit baptized? I have never found one scripture where we are commanded to be spirit baptized yet there are several scriptures where we see the command to be water baptized. Spirit baptism is done by the Holy Spirit, it is what God does to us. We are not commanded to be spirit baptized because it is not up to us. Yet we are commanded to be water baptized(Mark 16:16) and we are also commanded to baptise (Matt 28:18-20). Also it must be noted that the disciples who Jesus told were going to be baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 1 had already been baptized in water.

Water baptism is the sign of New Covenant membership. Col 2:11-12 Paul shows that baptism is the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision, which was the outward, physical sign of the covenant of God. God required the outward sign in the Old Testament(circumcision) yet He still required the inward sign of circumcision of the heart (Deut 10:16). Today God requires the outward sign of the covenant(baptism) yet He still requires the inward sign of spirit baptism, which only God can do.

Look at the comparison of circumcision and baptism.

1) Circumcision, according to Paul, was a sign of righteousness already present (Rom. 4:9-12): Abraham was already justified; therefore, he was circumcised on the basis of his already-existent righteousness. This is just as true of baptism (Acts 8:36-37). Individuals are baptized on the basis of the sound assumption that they are already justified by the grace of God.

2) Circumcision signifies cleansing from sin (Dt. 10:16; 30:6), just as baptism does (Ac. 22:16).

3) Circumcision signifies the casting away of the old man and old life and the assumption of the new life in God (Eze 36:26 only the circumcised Israelites had that promise); baptism signifies the casting away of the old man and old life and the assumption of the new life in Christ (Rom. 6:1-6).

4) Likewise, just circumcision was a mark signifying the inclusion of the subject in the visible covenant people of God, national Israel (Gen 17:9-14,Phil. 3:5), so baptism is a mark signifying the inclusion of the subject in the visible covenant people of God, the church (Romans 6:3,1Cor. 12:13, Gal 3:27).

I challenge those who believe that these three scriptures above are not speaking of water baptism to please prove their theory. It was through the physical outward sign of circumcision that one entered into the covenant people of God in the Old Testament. I maintain that when we are physically baptized in water, the spirit places us into the body of Christ, the Church. I challenge you to prove me wrong not with speculation but with scriptural evidence.

In Gen 17:14 God told Abraham that anyone who refused the sign of the covenant would be cast out from the people of God. No one could enter into the covenant people of God without the physical sign of circumcision (Gen 17:9-11). No one can enter into the Church of Jesus Christ without first being baptized. We have the pattern before us in Acts. One has to ignore a lot of scripture to believe that baptism isn't needed today.

Again I say it is amusing that you would say that baptism is not needed today and yet hold to the Lord's Supper, where Jesus instituted the New Covenant by shedding the blood of the New Covenant. You don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect today yet you believe that your sins are forgiven by the shed blood of Christ, which is the blood of the New Covenant. The promise of the New Covenant given to Israel in Jer 31 was God's promise that their sins would be forgiven and remembered no more, you claim that your sins are forgiven, yet you don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect. When asked what basis do you have for believing that your sins are forgiven, you point to the shed blood of Christ but you don't want to call it the blood of the New Covenant. What is wrong with that picture?

I maintain that if the New Covenant is not in effect today then your sins are not forgiven and you are without hope.

GLJCA
 
Upvote 0

Dispy

Veteran
Jan 16, 2004
2,551
32
94
South Dakota
✟4,680.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
GLJCA said:
4) Likewise, just circumcision was a mark signifying the inclusion of the subject in the visible covenant people of God, national Israel (Gen 17:9-14,Phil. 3:5), so baptism is a mark signifying the inclusion of the subject in the visible covenant people of God, the church (Romans 6:3,1Cor. 12:13, Gal 3:27).

I challenge those who believe that these three scriptures above are not speaking of water baptism to please prove their theory. It was through the physical outward sign of circumcision that one entered into the covenant people of God in the Old Testament. I maintain that when we are physically baptized in water, the spirit places us into the body of Christ, the Church. I challenge you to prove me wrong not with speculation but with scriptural evidence.

I will respond to the above from the book BAPTISM AND THE BIBLE by Cornelius R. Stam.

THE ORIGIN OF THE 'BURIAL' THEORY'

Clearly the teaching of baptism as a burial in water has sprung from the gratuitous assumption that the bord "baptismos" always, or most always, refers to water baptism, while in fqact it basically refers to complete identification.

We quote the two passages from whence this miscomceiption has arisen, so that we may consider them in light of the Scriptures as a whole:

"Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Chris was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom..6:4)

"Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:12).


It should be noted that both of these verses state that the believers are "buried with Christ, not like Christ. This in itself should convince us that these passages have nothing do do with water. In Gal. 2:20 we read that we have been "crucified with Christ, and it is clear that this was not accomplished by submission to any religious ceremony. Just as the believer has been crucified with Christ' (Gal. 2:20) by simple faith, so also he has been buried-raised-with Christ, "Through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead" (See Col. 2:12 again) This cannot refer to water baptism, for if we must be physically buried to be "buried with Christ," must we not also be physically crucified to be "crucified with Christ"?

Further, Ver.3 of the Romans passages stated that we were "baptized into Jesus Christ"-again, not like Christ, but into Christ, to become one with Him. This should bring to mind the truth of 1 Cor. 12:13, where we read that "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body." Gal. 3:27 clearly state that this is the thought were our baptism into Christ is concerned.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Returning to Rom. 6:3,4, we must ask: How are we baptized into Christ? The Apostle gives us a clear answer, couched in the form of a reproof that might well apply more appropriately to the Chruch of our day then to that of his own.

Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?"

We are baptized into Christ, then, by being baptized into His death. This is the great message of Rom. 6.3.

BTW, I never did see a response, or answers to my questions in my post #75 to you.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!
 
Upvote 0

Schroeder

Veteran
Jun 10, 2005
3,234
69
OHIO. home of THE Ohio State Buckeyes
✟26,248.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
GLJCA said:
Can someone show me where we are commanded to be spirit baptized? I have never found one scripture where we are commanded to be spirit baptized yet there are several scriptures where we see the command to be water baptized. Spirit baptism is done by the Holy Spirit, it is what God does to us. We are not commanded to be spirit baptized because it is not up to us. Yet we are commanded to be water baptized(Mark 16:16) and we are also commanded to baptise (Matt 28:18-20). Also it must be noted that the disciples who Jesus told were going to be baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 1 had already been baptized in water.
Mark 16:16 is NOT water baptism read john 7:38-39. notice it speaks of living WATER. NO this is not about water baptism. it is sympolism. the SPirit Cleanses our cxonscience. Heb. 9:14. And matt. 28 is speaking of discioples becomeing a part of the Body. when we become a disciple we join into the body of Christ or the trinity of God. we are brought into UNION with GOD through Christ. if you stick to Mark being water baptism then GRACE is made obsolute since it then becomes by works. and Christ death was not suffecient. a sPaul points out. Lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Water baptism is the sign of New Covenant membership. Col 2:11-12 Paul shows that baptism is the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision, which was the outward, physical sign of the covenant of God. God required the outward sign in the Old Testament(circumcision) yet He still required the inward sign of circumcision of the heart (Deut 10:16). Today God requires the outward sign of the covenant(baptism) yet He still requires the inward sign of spirit baptism, which only God can do.
this is Spirit baptism because it is this baptism that joins you to his sacrifice. you are reaching to that conclusion. All he needs is a inward sign notice christ died for those in the past as well. there sins were held over until his sacrifice.


Look at the comparison of circumcision and baptism.

1) Circumcision, according to Paul, was a sign of righteousness already present (Rom. 4:9-12): Abraham was already justified; therefore, he was circumcised on the basis of his already-existent righteousness. This is just as true of baptism (Acts 8:36-37). Individuals are baptized on the basis of the sound assumption that they are already justified by the grace of God.

2) Circumcision signifies cleansing from sin (Dt. 10:16; 30:6), just as baptism does (Ac. 22:16).

3) Circumcision signifies the casting away of the old man and old life and the assumption of the new life in God (Eze 36:26 only the circumcised Israelites had that promise); baptism signifies the casting away of the old man and old life and the assumption of the new life in Christ (Rom. 6:1-6).
rom 6 is not about water at ALL not even close. it isnt what happens in water baptism but Spirit baptism.


4) Likewise, just circumcision was a mark signifying the inclusion of the subject in the visible covenant people of God, national Israel (Gen 17:9-14,Phil. 3:5), so baptism is a mark signifying the inclusion of the subject in the visible covenant people of God, the church (Romans 6:3,1Cor. 12:13, Gal 3:27).

I challenge those who believe that these three scriptures above are not speaking of water baptism to please prove their theory. It was through the physical outward sign of circumcision that one entered into the covenant people of God in the Old Testament. I maintain that when we are physically baptized in water, the spirit places us into the body of Christ, the Church. I challenge you to prove me wrong not with speculation but with scriptural evidence.
would be pleased to. just have to do it later.

In Gen 17:14 God told Abraham that anyone who refused the sign of the covenant would be cast out from the people of God. No one could enter into the covenant people of God without the physical sign of circumcision (Gen 17:9-11). No one can enter into the Church of Jesus Christ without first being baptized. We have the pattern before us in Acts. One has to ignore a lot of scripture to believe that baptism isn't needed today.

Again I say it is amusing that you would say that baptism is not needed today and yet hold to the Lord's Supper, where Jesus instituted the New Covenant by shedding the blood of the New Covenant. You don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect today yet you believe that your sins are forgiven by the shed blood of Christ, which is the blood of the New Covenant. The promise of the New Covenant given to Israel in Jer 31 was God's promise that their sins would be forgiven and remembered no more, you claim that your sins are forgiven, yet you don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect. When asked what basis do you have for believing that your sins are forgiven, you point to the shed blood of Christ but you don't want to call it the blood of the New Covenant. What is wrong with that picture?

I maintain that if the New Covenant is not in effect today then your sins are not forgiven and you are without hope.

GLJCA[/quote] again i will get back to this later.
 
Upvote 0

GLJCA

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2005
1,152
57
74
Louisiana
✟1,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Schroeder said:
Mark 16:16 is NOT water baptism read john 7:38-39. notice it speaks of living WATER. NO this is not about water baptism. it is sympolism. the SPirit Cleanses our cxonscience. Heb. 9:14. And matt. 28 is speaking of discioples becomeing a part of the Body. when we become a disciple we join into the body of Christ or the trinity of God. we are brought into UNION with GOD through Christ. if you stick to Mark being water baptism then GRACE is made obsolute since it then becomes by works. and Christ death was not suffecient. a sPaul points out. Lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. [/font][/color]

this is Spirit baptism because it is this baptism that joins you to his sacrifice. you are reaching to that conclusion. All he needs is a inward sign notice christ died for those in the past as well. there sins were held over until his sacrifice.

rom 6 is not about water at ALL not even close. it isnt what happens in water baptism but Spirit baptism.

would be pleased to. just have to do it later.

First let me remind you that I asked that you not give speculation but scriptural proof. All you have given is your opinion without proof. You will have problems as you can't provide any proof, because using scripture you can't prove that any scripture speaking of baptism is not speaking about water baptism. You are reading into the scripture what you want it to say instead of accepting what it says. When you interpret the Word of God you have to interpret it in context. There is no basis for interpreting any reference to baptism as spirit baptism unless it says clearly says it. You have to look at what baptism signifies and when you do you will see that it corresponds directly to the Old Testament rite of circumcision.

Secondly, John 7:38-39 is not speaking of baptism. It is speaking of the indwelling Holy Spirit flowing out from the believer. This is a promise of the New Covenant found in Eze 11:19-20 notice the wording is the same as Jer 31:33. Spirit baptism isn't where the Holy Spirit is placed in us. Spirit baptism is where the Holy Spirit places us into the body of Christ. 1Cor 12:13 We must stick to what we can prove from scripture not what some person told us was the truth. If we can prove it from scripture then it isn't truth.

The only baptism spoken of in the New Testament is water baptism because that is the only baptism that we can do. We can not control whether or not we are baptized by the spirit into the body of Christ. That is God's doing, not ours.

Again water baptism is the outward sign of covenant membership and is required just as circumcision was in the Old Testament. It gives us the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1Peter 3:21 We must obey God and be baptized if we are to have the answer of a good conscience toward God.

Circumcision in the Old Testament was a blood rite that pointed to the shedding of Christ's blood. This rite was replaced by the non-bloody rite, baptism, that corresponds to everything that circumcision signified. Passover also changed from the bloody sacrifice of a lamb to the non-bloody New Covenant celebration of the Lord's Supper with bread and wine.

Baptism is the sign of covenant membership and is required to enter into the body of Christ just as circumcision was required in the Old Testament to enter into the Covenant people of God. No one can enter into the body of Christ unless they are first baptized. This is why we, as Christians, are told to make disciples and baptize them because by doing so they are entering into the body of Christ, the Church.

Again I asked for proof not speculation. It is pure speculation to say that Mark 16:16 is not speaking of water baptism. If Mark was speaking of spirit baptism then why is it that all of the disciples, Mark included, baptized in water in the book of Acts. Why didn't Mark inform the people that they didn't need to be baptized in water, yet we see that every time someone believed in the book of Acts they were baptized in water.

Please understand you don't have a leg to stand on. You need to drop this anti-scriptural belief and adhere to the pure truth from the Word of God. Until then I will wait for the scriptural proof that you are going to show me.

GLJCA
 
Upvote 0

GLJCA

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2005
1,152
57
74
Louisiana
✟1,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Dispy said:
I will respond to the above from the book BAPTISM AND THE BIBLE by Cornelius R. Stam.

THE ORIGIN OF THE 'BURIAL' THEORY'

Clearly the teaching of baptism as a burial in water has sprung from the gratuitous assumption that the bord "baptismos" always, or most always, refers to water baptism, while in fqact it basically refers to complete identification.

We quote the two passages from whence this miscomceiption has arisen, so that we may consider them in light of the Scriptures as a whole:

"Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Chris was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom..6:4)

"Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:12).

It should be noted that both of these verses state that the believers are "buried with Christ, not like Christ. This in itself should convince us that these passages have nothing do do with water. In Gal. 2:20 we read that we have been "crucified with Christ, and it is clear that this was not accomplished by submission to any religious ceremony. Just as the believer has been crucified with Christ' (Gal. 2:20) by simple faith, so also he has been buried-raised-with Christ, "Through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead" (See Col. 2:12 again) This cannot refer to water baptism, for if we must be physically buried to be "buried with Christ," must we not also be physically crucified to be "crucified with Christ"?

Further, Ver.3 of the Romans passages stated that we were "baptized into Jesus Christ"-again, not like Christ, but into Christ, to become one with Him. This should bring to mind the truth of 1 Cor. 12:13, where we read that "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body." Gal. 3:27 clearly state that this is the thought were our baptism into Christ is concerned.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Returning to Rom. 6:3,4, we must ask: How are we baptized into Christ? The Apostle gives us a clear answer, couched in the form of a reproof that might well apply more appropriately to the Chruch of our day then to that of his own.

Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?"

We are baptized into Christ, then, by being baptized into His death. This is the great message of Rom. 6.3.

BTW, I never did see a response, or answers to my questions in my post #75 to you.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!


I will look back at your questions. I have been on straight 12 hour nights since Feb 28 so I have not had much time to visit the forum.

First let me answer this post. Sadly what happens to most people is they form their belief of baptism from the New Testament only. When they do that it is easy to make baptism into what ever they want. This is why there is so much confusion over what baptism is today. When you go back into the Old Testament and see what baptism corresponds to then it erases all the false teaching concerning it.

Again circumcision in the Old Testament had to be replaced because it was a bloodly rite that pointed to the shedding of the blood of Christ. Baptism signifies everything that circumcision did in the Old Testament.
Passover required the killing of a spotless lamb and it had to be replaced with the non-bloody bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. God did not do away with these rites He changed them to a New Covenant equivalent. God required circumcision in the Old Testament and He requires baptism in the New.

Baptism is the sign of covenant membership. He who refuses baptism refuses the body of Christ. That is just like saying that I am a Christian but I have no desire to go to Church to be with His people. That person is decieved.


Now I'll get back to you on #75.

GLJCA
 
Upvote 0

Dispy

Veteran
Jan 16, 2004
2,551
32
94
South Dakota
✟4,680.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
GLJCA said:
I will look back at your questions. I have been on straight 12 hour nights since Feb 28 so I have not had much time to visit the forum.

First let me answer this post. Sadly what happens to most people is they form their belief of baptism from the New Testament only. When they do that it is easy to make baptism into what ever they want. This is why there is so much confusion over what baptism is today. When you go back into the Old Testament and see what baptism corresponds to then it erases all the false teaching concerning it.

Again circumcision in the Old Testament had to be replaced because it was a bloodly rite that pointed to the shedding of the blood of Christ. Baptism signifies everything that circumcision did in the Old Testament.
Passover required the killing of a spotless lamb and it had to be replaced with the non-bloody bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. God did not do away with these rites He changed them to a New Covenant equivalent. God required circumcision in the Old Testament and He requires baptism in the New.

Baptism is the sign of covenant membership. He who refuses baptism refuses the body of Christ. That is just like saying that I am a Christian but I have no desire to go to Church to be with His people. That person is decieved.


Now I'll get back to you on #75.

GLJCA

Haven't found any Scriptural support for you above comments.

From the book Common Questions About the Grace Message, by Joel Finck.


9) WHY DO WE NOT WATER BAPTIZE?

Nowhere in Paul’s epistles do you ever find instructions for us to be water baptized. Many recognize that Paul was given revelation from the Lord and that in fact, he writes directly to the churches and the church leaders, Timothy and Titus and to the saints of the Body of Christ. Yet, does it not strike you as a little strange that if we are supposed to be water baptizing that Paul never tells us to do it. He never tells us how it is supposed to be done, how it should be carried out, who should be doing it, etc.

Why is this? True Christianity is a faith which involves an inward reality, not outward ritual. And yet even as we write this, the vast majority of Christendom, has reverted back to the rituals of the Law and the Jewish Kingdom program.

Israel was a sign nation. God revealed to the Jewish people many outward shows of their faith. These involved sacrifices, water rituals and ceremonial washings, certain meats and drinks, observance of days, etc. All of these being designed to teach certain truths to the nation Israel. As one examines God’s spiritual program for this dispensation, however, as it is revealed to the Apostle of the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul, it soon becomes evident that these outward, visible manifestations of Israel’s religion, do not belong to the Church the Body of Christ. Indeed, they have no place in the practice of our faith in this dispensation. Amazingly, many churches would agree. They would say, of course, we do not observe those Jewish rituals. We have instead our own Christian rituals that we do! Many fail to realize that the so-called Christian ordinances and rituals actually can be traced back to the Jewish program for the nation Israel.

I Corinthians 1:17 says, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” Water baptism is not a part of Paul’s commission. Later on we will discuss the Great Commission. One of the reasons many people teach that we should be water baptized is because it is a part of the Great Commission given to the Twelve Apostles. We will deal with that in depth later. But what we need to see here is the Apostle Peter and the other Eleven Apostles could not have said what Paul says here in I Corinthians 1, “Christ sent me not to baptize.” Peter would have been telling a lie if he had said this, because Christ did send him to baptize. “Go ye therefore, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Paul was not operating under the commission given to the Twelve Apostles, and neither are we. That Commission was a Kingdom Commission.

Where did water baptism come from and who was the first person who practiced water baptism? Perhaps 99 out of 100 would answer, John the Baptist. He certainly sounds like one who would be the first to baptize. His name is John the Baptist (or “baptizer”). Why was he called the baptizer? Was he doing something new? No, not at all. Hebrews 9:10 speaks of the “diverse washings” of the Old Testament tabernacle. In the Old Testament, every time you read of a washing at the door of the tabernacle, it is a “baptism”. For the word translated “washings” in Hebrews 9:10 is “baptizmos” or baptisms.

Baptisms did not begin with John the Baptist. He was just continuing that which had been practiced for hundreds of years.

Ephesians 4:3 says, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body...”

This is the Body of Christ. Then, in verse 5, Paul continues, “There is One Lord, one faith, one baptism...” This verse has probably been more obscured by theologians than any verse in the Bible. It is not that they have never read it, but that they fail to grasp Paul’s point.

When we search the Scriptures we find that there are as many as twelve baptisms. Some of these are water baptisms of the Law, others are spiritual in nature. In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist said, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” Right here in this context we see three baptisms - water, Holy Spirit and fire.

Yet, Paul says there is one baptism! Did Paul not know the Scriptures? Of course he did, but Paul is speaking in the context of the Body of Christ and his conclusion is that while there are many baptisms in the Bible - twelve or more - only one of them pertains to us in this dispensation of the Grace of God. Which one do you suppose it is?

I Corinthians 12:12, 13 says, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.”

Here is a spiritual baptism. This baptism has no water whatsoever. It is performed by the Holy Spirit of God. It happens the moment you believe the gospel of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. The Holy Spirit supernaturally baptizes you into the Body of Christ.

Another translation of the word “baptize” is the word “identify”, because that is what happens when we are saved. We become identified with Christ. What three things did we believe in order to be saved? His death, His burial and His resurrection. What three things are we identified with when we trust him? His death, His burial and His resurrection.

This is what Paul is speaking of in Romans 6. Many a fundamentalist preacher is very adamant that this is not a water baptism. And yet, it seems as though by the time they dance all around the subject of baptism, they finally managed to squeeze a few drops of water out of Romans 6. Why is this? It is an attempt to prove a point which cannot be proven from Scripture. Romans 6:3, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ...” When you believed the gospel the Holy Spirit identified you with Christ. What happened then? “...as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” You became identified with the death of Christ. What is so important about that? The Scripture says, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Furthermore it says, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). That is spiritual death as well as physical death. Because we are sinful, we must die. We must pay the penalty of sin with our life. But this is what the gospel is all about. Christ came and paid the penalty of sin by dying for us. Therefore, when you believe the gospel, you are baptized or identified with Jesus Christ, and therefore you are baptized into His death. This means you no longer must die spiritually for your sins, because His death is accounted to you. It now belongs to you. And you, therefore, have eternal life. This is the gospel message.

But not only are we identified with His death, verse 4 says, “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” This is the verse where many get the idea that believers should be dunked under water. They assume that since we are buried, we should, therefore, be put in a “watery grave.” But this not only misses the point, it actually totally destroys the meaning that Paul is trying to show. He is not saying you were buried in water. He says you were buried with Christ. His burial becomes your burial by virtue of your baptism into His death. Paul is building on that truth now. Not only are you identified with His death (you no longer have to die for your sins), but you are buried with Him as well.

What is the importance of the burial of Christ? First, it shows Christ really died. You do not bury people who are not dead. He was truly dead and therefore, He was buried. But it also pictures the putting away of sin. When Christ rose from that grave, our sins stayed buried. This is the imagery that God wants us to see. The fact that we are identified with His death relieves us from having to die for our sins. The fact that we are buried with Him means that those sins are done away with, and finally, weare identified with His resurrection, because of spiritual baptism!

Finally, verse 4 goes on to say, “...that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Because of our identification with Christ, we now have the spiritual equipment by the Holy Spirit to live the Christian life. This is what spiritual baptism is all about.

Why would we trade all this for a water ceremony?

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Schroeder said:
no scripture says he did water baptize. it doesnt say he commisioned it either before his sacrifice. it merely says they were doing it. he may not have minded but it never says why they did does it. to use such passages which are not clear either way is not very convensing or good to build any doctrine.
They're quite convincing. Nobody would say John's disciples were baptizing without his command, and yet there's no such command from him to his disciples. I guess John didn't tell his disciples to baptize either? No, it's not plausible. Similarly, it's implausible that Jesus didn't tell His disciples to baptize.

So let's turn the argument on its head. If Jesus had some problem with His disciples baptizing (e.g., His church having only one baptism -- that sounds like a very clear problem!), then we certainly would have Jesus' command against water baptism.

But we don't.

Therefore Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize. You just don't happen to know the exact words 'til after Jesus' Resurrection.

But ... wouldn't Jesus' command be more relevant now, after Resurrection?

Please don't run back to attacks on water as a magical element or a direct cause of spiritual baptism. I've already said repeatedly, they're not associated either of those ways. It's boring to repeat myself, just avail yourself of the prior postings on this point.
Schroeder said:
it isnt brutally clear or you would give a brutally clear scripture.
You said you wanted a Scripture about Jesus baptizing, and these are brutally clear about your challenge.
After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. Jn 3:22
The disciples were baptizing on Jesus' authority prior to His Crucifixion. It even riled John's disciples. And why would they complain to John if this were Spirit baptism? They'd have no reason to! In that case Spirit baptism wouldn't be anything like water baptism.

But clearly it was.

Now you respond that you don't have Jesus directing His disciples to baptize until after His Resurrection. But John's explained why, too.
there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. Jn 21:25
Really, the reason why is that nobody thought Christian baptism would be attacked in the First Century. It occurred throughout all the Apostolic churches.

If there were some kind of baptising difference in Paul's Gospel, and no other Jewish Apostle came out and evangelized the Gentiles, consider what kind of history would result.

1 Corinthians wouldn't have any reference to baptizing by Paul, because Paul wouldn't have baptized. Yet Paul baptized. He said he did!

No church at all from Apostolic times would've baptized. Yet historical evidence traces baptism early into every single church founded by an Apostle. If water baptism gradually reestablished itself into the church you wouldn't find people describing it in 100-250 AD. Yet you do. You would find people arguing for it early on in the church. Yet you find it stated as a universal action in all the churches of Christ. Historical evidence shows water baptism was practiced, described and prescribed in text after text of early Christianity prior to 250 AD. Texts prescribing the method of performing Christian baptism pervasively prescribe a rite using water.
Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Didache, Section 3
Likewise, Barnabas, some of the Ignatius letters, Justin Martyr's Apologies and Dialogue, Irenaeus' apologetics, Tertullian, Origen, And Hippolytus' "Apostolic Tradition" all refer to baptism in water.

Water baptism is alluded-to in the New Testament time and again. And it's far more plausible to read many of the texts as water baptism that're reinterpreted here as spiritual baptism. As just one example the attempt at spiritual baptism in Mt 28:28-21 has failed to comprehend how we would baptize people by the Spirit. The Spirit does His own baptizing irrespective of our authority. The link-up of water and Spirit occurs again and again in the New Testament. The idea that "one baptism" excludes the ritual of baptism involving water, and only includes the internal indwelling of the Spirit, deprives the Spirit of God of ordaining His own method of signing His Covenant with us.

If water baptism meant nothing for Spiritual baptism no one would've used this word to describe Spiritual baptism. But they did. Baptism means something to Greek ears. It's a system involving being drenched with water. The word can't be totally detached from itself and placed into some dry meaning of "identification with Christ". It can't. The language's history doesn't support it.

If water baptism really meant nothing to early Christians, then it shouldn't show up in catacombs. Yet it does. There are early baptistries carved into the catacombs, in fact. Graffiti and paintings on the walls constantly refer to baptism. Yale University owns a baptistry carved out of stone and used before the ancient town's invasion in 235 AD.

The view simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, history, or in the final analysis, plausibility.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Schroeder said:
yes worship but i am saved already yes prayer because i am saved already.
So you must already be saved for God to listen to you. God doesn't listen to the prayers of those who seek Him. Hm. Hey! Wait a minute! Doesn't Scripture say something diametrically opposed to your position here? :doh:
Schroeder said:
Do you say water is part of the salvation process or as you say through or by the SPirit. if so HOW could we be obediant and worship God when we are not yet saved? you cant.
Water is associated with the Spirit of God because the Spirit of God associates His actions with water. Sorry, it's just that way. It's no different from any other association with visible events. Christ died for my sins on a Cross, an horrific, bloody, fleshly, gory event. A criminal's capital punishment. A scandal to the whole world. Now why would God die on a Cross? Why wouldn't He offer up some bloodless Spiritual sacrifice? Can you see where the logic of your argument is headed? The logic shatters in the case of the Cross, so why should it even be considered for baptism?
Schroeder said:
rites are not worship especially a one time act such as water baptism. how you live is your worship. how you act along with signing and prayer and even all the other stuff that has been added in church servises can be. but it by no means make it commands or neseccary.
Oh, so since my faith is one, it's not involved in worship? Since the church and the communion of the saints are one they're not involved in worship? Since God is one, He's not involved in worship?

Rites aren't worship, eh? The Wise Men came but once to the Christ Child, and gave gifts but once. Yet it's called worship by the Word of God. Also, it looks like it only took Israel one ritual party before the Golden Calf for God to call it worship (Ex 32:8).

So public worship involves ritual, and that prescribed by God. Confusing it with personal & private worship doesn't deprive public worship of its meaning and intent.
 
Upvote 0

Schroeder

Veteran
Jun 10, 2005
3,234
69
OHIO. home of THE Ohio State Buckeyes
✟26,248.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
GLJCA said:
First let me remind you that I asked that you not give speculation but scriptural proof. All you have given is your opinion without proof. You will have problems as you can't provide any proof, because using scripture you can't prove that any scripture speaking of baptism is not speaking about water baptism. You are reading into the scripture what you want it to say instead of accepting what it says. When you interpret the Word of God you have to interpret it in context. There is no basis for interpreting any reference to baptism as spirit baptism unless it says clearly says it. You have to look at what baptism signifies and when you do you will see that it corresponds directly to the Old Testament rite of circumcision.
i said i would get back to add scripture. patient. Luke 12:50, Mark 10:38, 1 cor 12:13, are obviouse ones not about water baptism. the same should be said for refering it to water baptism when we are CLEARLY told we would be baptised by the Spirit by Christ. So we see it signifies CLEANSING which the SPIRIT baptism does COMPLETLY. Not water baptism. funny the new testement doesnt say much good of circumcision. Paul said if you did it Christ would profit you nothing.

Secondly, John 7:38-39 is not speaking of baptism. It is speaking of the indwelling Holy Spirit flowing out from the believer. This is a promise of the New Covenant found in Eze 11:19-20 notice the wording is the same as Jer 31:33. Spirit baptism isn't where the Holy Spirit is placed in us. Spirit baptism is where the Holy Spirit places us into the body of Christ. 1Cor 12:13 We must stick to what we can prove from scripture not what some person told us was the truth. If we can prove it from scripture then it isn't truth.
how is John 7:38-39 NOT about the SPirit baptism. it says in verse 39 WHom those who believe would RECEIVE. How might i ask do we receive it. all scripture that speaks of this says AFTER belief. NO the SPirit baptism places us into Christ sacrifice. Rom 6. this saves us WHICH is when we are placed in the body or CHURCH. the body of Christ is the Church not his death. if you refuse to see Spirit baptism as ONLY through Christ and by Christ when we believe you will not see it or be able to. notice 1 cor 12:13 says we are all given the one Spirit to DRINK, clearly a reference to water but yet it is about the SPirit. read 2 cor 3:6, but the Spirit gives life,3:17 now the lord is Sp[irit, Gal 3:3 HAVING BEGUN IN THE SPIRIT. read gal 3:2 DID YOU RECEIVE THE SPIRIT BY OBSEVING THE LAW OR BY BELIEVING WHAT YOU HEARD? (the gospel). So we see Paul does NOT mention water baptism when he speaks of receiving the Spirit. which goes with Eph 1:13-14, when you heard the Truth, the gospel of salvation, having believed you were MARKED in him with a SEAL, the promised Holy SPirit quarenteeing our inheratance. So it seems clear to me we receive this Spirit apon belief in the gospel message. which as Paul states is not about water baptism but about Christ death for us and his ressurection. 2 Thess 2:13 says we are SANCTIFIED BY THGE SPIRIT. So iut is clear by SCRIPTURE that they never but SPirit and water baptism together. the SPirit is spoke about a ton more then water baptism.

The only baptism spoken of in the New Testament is water baptism because that is the only baptism that we can do. We can not control whether or not we are baptized by the spirit into the body of Christ. That is God's doing, not ours
not true at all. if so why would john the baptist not say christ would baptize us with the Spirit through water baptism. he didnt say that. read John 3:5-8 he says born from above. he says Spirit gives the Spirit. in verse 8 he says So it is with those BORN OF THE SPIRIT. again you see he does not mix the two at all. yes we can control whether or not we are baptized by the Spirit. if we do not TRUELLY believe in our hearts we will not get Spirit baptized. that is why Mark 16:16 says TWICE if you do not believe you are condemed. just like what he said in John 3:18. it is GOds work which is why it is CALLED GRACE. WE HAVE NO PART OF IT. NONE

Again water baptism is the outward sign of covenant membership and is required just as circumcision was in the Old Testament. It gives us the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1Peter 3:21 We must obey God and be baptized if we are to have the answer of a good conscience toward God.
read this passage then read Hebrews 9:14-15. How much more, then will the BLOOD of Christ, who THROUGH the eternal SPIRIT offered himself unblemished to God, CLEANSE OUR CONSCIENCES from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God. Read 1 cor 2 we can serve him AFTER we receive the SPirit, whichb is when we truelly believe in our hearts about christ sacrifice, the gospel. versde 15 For this reason Christ is the mediator OF A NEW COVENANT, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. (eph 1:13-14). Christ is our sign of this new covenant because that ias what God sees in us CHRIST and NOT our flesh or us. So 1 Peter 3:21 is about the SPirit baptism bacause just as the waters in the FLOOD were the work of GOd to cleanse the earth so the work of God through Spirit baptism is the Work of God to cleanse our hearts and conscience through Christ. Titus 3:5, heb 9:14-15. so water baptism is not a reguirement as SCRIPTURE has proven. if you wish to see it.

Circumcision in the Old Testament was a blood rite that pointed to the shedding of Christ's blood. This rite was replaced by the non-bloody rite, baptism, that corresponds to everything that circumcision signified. Passover also changed from the bloody sacrifice of a lamb to the non-bloody New Covenant celebration of the Lord's Supper with bread and wine.
no it was not. the passover meal and what it was for did. the blood over the doors represented Christ future sacrifice that is why it was done. as was all the sacrifices for there sins in the temple. water baptism did not replace this circumcision. no scripture says that and no apostles EVER taught that.

Baptism is the sign of covenant membership and is required to enter into the body of Christ just as circumcision was required in the Old Testament to enter into the Covenant people of God. No one can enter into the body of Christ unless they are first baptized. This is why we, as Christians, are told to make disciples and baptize them because by doing so they are entering into the body of Christ, the Church
no the SPirit baptism is. your change in life or how you act and behave is the sign. this is what PEOPLe will see NOT water baptism who sees it other then those in your church. we are told to TEACH the gospel which will make disciples when they believe in christ which in turn wioll baptize them into the Church 1 cor 12:13. SALVATION makes you a member or HEIR to God, which is the same as the being a member of the Church. again eph 1:13-14.

Again I asked for proof not speculation. It is pure speculation to say that Mark 16:16 is not speaking of water baptism. If Mark was speaking of spirit baptism then why is it that all of the disciples, Mark included, baptized in water in the book of Acts. Why didn't Mark inform the people that they didn't need to be baptized in water, yet we see that every time someone believed in the book of Acts they were baptized in water.
not at all if you read john 7:38. it says those who believe would LATER receive. after his glorification Mark 16:16 is after this. hrist only spoke of salvation when we believed. so he says believed and is baptized but if you do not believe you will not be saved. Spirit baptism is salvation. John 6:63. the SPirit is life. the whole purpose was to show a association with Christ and what he taught. 1 cor 1 shows this to be what it was for. because Paul was mad they were associating themselves with who was speaking the gospel and not who the gospel was about CHRIST.

Please understand you don't have a leg to stand on. You need to drop this anti-scriptural belief and adhere to the pure truth from the Word of God. Until then I will wait for the scriptural proof that you are going to show me.

GLJCA
SO no it is not anti scriptural at all. the Scripture is speaking MOSTLY all about the work of the spirit not the work of man. the flesh counts for NOTHING. the SPirit is life. a reading of hebrews 9-10 should make it clear it is christ and the SPirit in salvation and that is ALL. whethe ror not water baptism is need or should be done is mute since we are already saved before we do it. because for one we can not please God or worship him outside of the SPirit.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.