Water baptism

[Biblicist]

That might be true but it gives clear indications a couple were baptized and if 2 were then you can safely assume the others were at one point as well.

In John 1 it records John the Baptist speaking to "two of his disciples" about Jesus. NO WAY were those 2 disciples of John that became disciples of Jesus not baptized.

Why must the scripture mention all things before people accept them?

The scriptures do not say Paul spoke in tongues when he received the Holy Spirit yet most in this forum accept that as fact, why? The scriptures only state the scales came off his eyes and he could see. Nothing about Paul speaking in tongues until he admits it in his letter to the Corinthians.

"Why"! For many it simply becomes a great method of "escape" where we can then pick and choose what we think is relevant; it's one of the oldest tricks in the book - though to be honest, most (if not all of us) probably try and use this card from time to time.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Baptism is important. Is is part of the sacerdotal duties and a public expression of faith. It is perhaps one of the great witnesses you can do. It also symbolizes a number of things.

But......

It doesn't rise to the level of A qualifier for Salvation. Baptism in water is what happens as a result of Salvation. It is a very public act of faith. But it is not what saves you.

 

[Biblicist]

Baptism is important. Is is part of the sacerdotal duties and a public expression of faith. It is perhaps one of the great witnesses you can do. It also symbolizes a number of things.

But......

It doesn't rise to the level of A qualifier for Salvation. Baptism in water is what happens as a result of Salvation. It is a very public act of faith. But it is not what saves you.

I agree with you in that water baptism is certainly not a pre-requisite for salvation which is well evidenced to within the Scriptures.

Even though there has been a lot of discussion on water baptism over recent weeks on CF, one thing that has caught my attention is that there has not been enough recognition that even though water baptism is not necessary for our initial salvation, that when someone stubbornly refuses to be water baptised that it is something that should immediately raise a few red flags.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Baptism is important. Is is part of the sacerdotal duties and a public expression of faith. It is perhaps one of the great witnesses you can do. It also symbolizes a number of things.

But......

It doesn't rise to the level of A qualifier for Salvation. Baptism in water is what happens as a result of Salvation. It is a very public act of faith. But it is not what saves you.

I've tried to state many times that my opinion (right now as I'm still learning) is that baptism was conducted immediately in the book of Acts as a form of faith display. How we expect people to come forward at the end of services now, pray the sinner's prayer, that type of thing. Just the Apostles baptized.

That begs the question: Why? These men walked with Jesus and learned from him. Surely he would have told them baptism was of no great significance otherwise, instead he taught them how to baptize (John 4:1-3). He also taught them baptism is the FIRST step in Christian discipleship (Matthew 28:19-20). A view I am not alone in sharing.

I just think we should baptize someone immediately when they convert. That is all. Keep a sinner's prayer if it makes people feel better, but let's return to biblical principles and do things how the early church did. Again, the very first time someone in Acts asks, "What must we do [to be saved]?" The response given was not, pray Jesus into your heart, or don't worry about it God sees your heart, it was:

REPENT
BE BAPTIZED
RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT

I appreciate the comments and points of view

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I think the thing about baptism now is what it meant in the days of the Apostles. It was a public display of a person's faith. They were at that moment telling all that they were following Jesus. People lost houses, land, jobs, even their lives over the decision of baptism. You can't see faith on it's own, but when a person takes a stand and says this is who I am that says something. For whatever reason the Apostles baptized immediately and taught baptism as part of their gospel presentations (Acts 8) so clearly it has lost its importance over the years... as evidenced by this very thread and forum where some people openly question the need to be baptized.

 

[Edial]

[/color]
"Why"! For many it simply becomes a great method of "escape" where we can then pick and choose what we think is relevant; it's one of the oldest tricks in the book - though to be honest, most (if not all of us) probably try and use this card from time to time.

I like the way you highlight other posters point you refer to by greying out the rest.
Great idea.

 

[Biblicist]

I like the way you highlight other posters point you refer to by greying out the rest.
Great idea.

Yes, over my time on the forum (and with others previously), I've often struggled with quoting a post where all too often I (we) are forced to quote only a part which can do a disservice to that poster. When we quote a lengthy post, if we leave maybe only 3 out of 10 paragraphs in black, where we grey out the rest, it makes it easier for others to realise that we are trying to address only these specific comments.

I'm glad to see that this approach is apparently working.

 

[Frogster]

True.
But water baptism is mentioned all over the NT as well as post resurrection of Christ.
And Peter actually made it a point to say it is a water.
And Paul made it a point to say there in only ONE Baptism.

The Lutheran views is the best view on this.

Water Baptism and Baptism of the Holy Spirit MAY happen at the same time, but not necessarily at the same time.

To remove or completely symbolize away water baptism into something so symbolic that it is no different than a celebration of a sort, is as foreign to the Bible as theory of evolution.

We should not be de-evolving water baptism in something it is not.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

I understand, but sometimes the pro baptism people, need to be "de-evolved", and sometimes fire meets fire.

As said, Paul did seem to minimize it.

 

[Edial]

Yes, over my time on the forum (and with others previously), I've often struggled with quoting a post where all too often I (we) are forced to quote only a part which can do a disservice to that poster. When we quote a lengthy post, if we leave maybe only 3 out of 10 paragraphs in black, where we grey out the rest, it makes it easier for others to realise that we are trying to address only these specific comments.

I'm glad to see that this approach is apparently working.

You don't mind if I steal this idea from you when needed.

 

[Edial]

I understand, but sometimes the pro baptism people, need to be "de-evolved", and sometimes fire meets fire.

As said, Paul did seem to minimize it.

How much more can Water Baptism de-evolve that we symbolize it to such a degree, we are discussing it as an option or an after-thought?

In 20 years we would be substituting Water Baptism with singing a Christian hymn ...

It was unheard of in Church history for a Christian not being baptized. Unheard of.

Much changed in 2000 years.

 

[Biblicist]

You don't mind if I steal this idea from you when needed.

I was sort of hoping that the idea would gain some support.

There is another "issue" that I have which is when I have to go back to an earlier post and maybe remove a sentence or even a sentence or two. I went and asked George95 if they could introduce the strike-through feature where vBULLETIN allows for single words, sentences or even paragraphs to be enclosed in <s>{param}</s> which would allow others to realise that we have either make a mistake or even realised that our comment was either incorrect or even inappropriate. This would allow for any follow-on posts which referred to the problematic text to remain in context; it would also allow us to apologise by leaving the offending words as they are.

Granted, there are those times when a strike-through may not always be the best option as I know that having posted a remark, then re-read it after it was posted, where I have quickly recognised that the remark was so inappropriate that it needed to be quickly erased before anyone clicked on the post - it does happen on the umm . . . odd occasion.

 

[Biblicist]

I understand, but sometimes the pro baptism people, need to be "de-evolved", and sometimes fire meets fire.

As said, Paul did seem to minimize it.

Mmm...maybe sometimes that could be required; but, I would be more inclined to say that the more extreme "anti"-baptism people need to be gently taken aside, spiritually-spanked, where they are then told to go go back home, think on their rebellious attitude, then come back the following Sunday with the right attitude.

 

[Frogster]

How much more can Water Baptism de-evolve that we symbolize it to such a degree, we are discussing it as an option or an after-thought?

In 20 years we would be substituting Water Baptism with singing a Christian hymn ...

It was unheard of in Church history for a Christian not being baptized. Unheard of.

Much changed in 2000 years.

well, yeah, but in a way, baptism was more of a common thing to do in their day. Some were baptized for the dead, 1 Cor 15, other religions had emersions, and Hebrews uses it in the plural, so it was different then.

6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

We know there was John's, who was different from the Lord's, and the word itself does not always mean water, as you know, I am just saying that culturally it is different now, it was bigger, and broader then.

 

[Edial]

I was sort of hoping that the idea would gain some support.

There is another "issue" that I have which is when I have to go back to an earlier post and maybe remove a sentence or even a sentence or two. I went and asked George95 if they could introduce the strike-through feature where vBULLETIN allows for single words, sentences or even paragraphs to be enclosed in <s>{param}</s> which would allow others to realise that we have either make a mistake or even realised that our comment was either incorrect or even inappropriate. This would allow for any follow-on posts which referred to the problematic text to remain in context; it would also allow us to apologise by leaving the offending words as they are.

Granted, there are those times when a strike-through may not always be the best option as I know that having posted a remark, then re-read it after it was posted, where I have quickly recognised that the remark was so inappropriate that it needed to be quickly erased before anyone clicked on the post - it does happen on the umm . . . odd occasion.

Strike-through for own posts (not the quoted posts of another poster) is a good idea.
However, at this time we would not be introducing anything new. We expect some exciting and significant changes to CF soon.
(Don't ask ).
Once we have that happen then we can discuss whatever you wish.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Frogster]

Mmm...maybe sometimes that could be required; but, I would be more inclined to say that the more extreme "anti"-baptism people need to be gently taken aside, spiritually-spanked, where they are then told to go go back home, think on their rebellious attitude, then come back the following Sunday with the right attitude.

so long as we have equal spanking under the law, you gotta spank the pro people first!

I know, you guys have different laws where you live, selective spanking.....

Happy new year! Frog.

 

[Alithis]

well, yeah, but in a way, baptism was more of a common thing to do in their day. Some were baptized for the dead, 1 Cor 15, other religions had emersions, and Hebrews uses it in the plural, so it was different then.

6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

We know there was John's, who was different from the Lord's, and the word itself does not always mean water, as you know, I am just saying that culturally it is different now, it was bigger, and broader then.

? don't we have to be very cautious with that style thinking though? if we "culturalize " scripture we risk become spiritual liberals thus deeming our own ways as authoritative over the scriptures .
-we are to conform to Gods ways ,not conform Gods ways to us .

 

[Frogster]

? don't we have to be very cautious with that style thinking though? if we "culturalize " scripture we risk become spiritual liberals thus deeming our own ways as authoritative over the scriptures .
-we are to conform to Gods ways ,not conform Gods ways to us .

well..yeah, but do we support slavery today? It is in the text.

I understand what you mean, but this is not an issue of morality..

 

[Edial]

well, yeah, but in a way, baptism was more of a common thing to do in their day. Some were baptized for the dead, 1 Cor 15, other religions had emersions, and Hebrews uses it in the plural, so it was different then.

6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

We know there was John's, who was different from the Lord's, and the word itself does not always mean water, as you know, I am just saying that culturally it is different now, it was bigger, and broader then.

And this is the danger of teaching symbolic baptism - slippery slope.

If we depend on our intellect and say we know it is just a testimony and has absolutely no meaning in itself, then in time we find another form of a testimony and commit Water Baptism into a museum together with the dummies in animal skins and woolen mammoth.

And then, emboldened by our newly found freedom, we would start teaching how Christianity progressed from the archaic written word into the intellectual heart-felt theology that interprets the ABCs of ancient and dearly infant Christianity into a complex and beautiful expression of the Living Word that is not bound by pen.

In hell, :o ... after we re-evaluate our freedom of expression and thought we wished we went back to the archaic Christianity "6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment".

In Christ,
Ed the Primate

 

[Biblicist]

so long as we have equal spanking under the law, you gotta spank the pro people first!

I know, you guys have different laws where you live, selective spanking.....

Happy new year! Frog.

Not bad at all . . . I was actually thinking if I should have included the word 'spanking' due to the connotations that this particular word has gained over recent years; of course, it is still a better word than saying someone should be thumped.

As for the New Year, I see that the East Coast of the USA still has about 4 hours to go. Of course, we were able to lay on our beaches and river banks as the balmy weather allowed us to observe the fireworks. Oh yeah . . . "fireworks", we need to get back to water baptism.

Enjoy your new year!

 

[Biblicist]

Strike-through for own posts (not the quoted posts of another poster) is a good idea.
However, at this time we would not be introducing anything new. We expect some exciting and significant changes to CF soon.
(Don't ask ).
Once we have that happen then we can discuss whatever you wish.

Thanks,
Ed

Yes, going by the support threads, it does appear that there will be a number of interesting changes.