Donations for the month of July


We have received a total of $0 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,471
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,651
Posts51,289
Members928
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,471
Tom 3,485
chestnutmare 2,916
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,762
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 35
Tom 30
John_C 4
Recent Posts
Apologetics
by Tom. Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:34 AM
Learning Presuppositional Apologetics
by Tom. Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:29 AM
Starting Out
by ReformedDisciple. Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:41 AM
Is the Following Legit?
by Tom. Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:08 AM
The PCA's Slide Into the Homosexual Abyss Accelerates
by ReformedDisciple. Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:50 PM
Conspiracy?
by ReformedDisciple. Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:32 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Is water baptism to be practiced today? #46283
Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:38 AM
Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:38 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
South Africa
P
Peytonator Offline OP
Plebeian
Peytonator  Offline OP
Plebeian
P
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
South Africa
To throw a few more spanners in the work... smile

1) Why did Christ Himself never baptise (Jn 4:2)?
2) Why, in the context of the "great commission," did Paul say He was not sent to baptise, but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:17)?
4) Why does John the Baptist contrast his water baptism with Christ's spiritual baptism?
5) Why, if there is only ONE baptism (Eph 4), do nearly all denominations hold both spiritual and water baptism? Either it is spiritual, or physical, but surely not both. Why do we gladly recite the creed: "I acknowledge ONE Baptism for the REMISSION OF SINS," and yet have two? Yet spiritual baptism does remit sins; "...it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing..."
6) Where in the NT is baptism ever a symbol or sign?

This issue has divided not only Protestants and Catholics, but also nearly all Protestant denominations today. Yet, if all held that there was but ONE baptism, "into Christ" (Gal 3:27), "by the Spirit" (1 Cor 12:13) and "fire" (Mat 3:11), that "saves" (1 Pet 3:21), and brings us into "one body" (1 Cor 12:13), there would be PROBLEM! I believe this is why Paul felt so strongly about the subject.

Last edited by Peytonator; Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:08 AM.
Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Peytonator] #46295
Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:43 PM
Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:43 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
South Africa
P
Peytonator Offline OP
Plebeian
Peytonator  Offline OP
Plebeian
P
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
South Africa
I hope I'm not digging my own grave by asking more questions, but:

7) Why allow a pastor to immerse you or sprinkle your child with water, when Christ Himself baptises? (Mat 3:11)
8) Why do many of us hold that some "gifts" of the Spirit in Acts have ceased, and yet vehemently hold to the fact that Baptism hasn't ceased? What if Acts is merely a transitionary period between Testaments? What is "more accurately" in Acts 18:25-26, and why does this precede Acts 19:3-5?
9) Why do we name our CHURCHES after some mode of Baptism, and yet Paul scarcely knew or cared who he baptised (1 Cor 1:16-17)?
10) Why are practically all verses in the Epistles "dry" verses, if I might use that term?
11) Why, if we hold that the old Testament types and shadows (including ceremonial washings) have ceased, do we then continue to baptise with water?
12) Prove that Mat 28:19 is not spiritual? Cannot this command be given in the same way as Jude 1:23 - i.e. do it through the preaching of the Word, as happened in Acts 19:3-5, no?

Last edited by Peytonator; Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:03 PM.
Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Peytonator] #46296
Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:38 AM
Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:38 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Peytonator,

wow1 Why not ask a few questions; twelve in total to be exact? giggle

I will attempt to give answers, albeit brief due to the sheer number and the complexity of some, to your questions. But I must first preface my answers by saying that the perpetuity and practice of water baptism has been universally acknowledged for over 2000 years by all but very few (Friends/Quakers) denominations/churches/individuals in Christendom. The fact that there is much disagreement in regard to who are proper recipients and the mode goes to give even more strength to this testimony of unanimity of its universal validity. Is it feasible that with the acknowledged disagreements among the various groups they ALL find the Scriptures to teach that water baptism is to be practiced, that none understood that water baptism was to be abolished? Can it be that men such as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Owen, Goodwin, Edwards, Whitfield, Hodge, Warfield, Strong, Dabney, Berkhof, et al totally missed the truth about water baptism, again given their differences concerning this rite? scratchchin

Originally Posted by Peytonator
1) Why did Christ Himself never baptise (Jn 4:2)?

a) This prevented anyone from boasting that they had been baptized by the Lord Himself vs. being baptized by a mere disciple of Christ. (cf. 1Cor 1:17)
b) Jesus surely didn't forbid baptism but contrariwise commanded and approved of water baptism as administered by His disciples. (cf. 4:1; 3:22) "What they (his disciples) did, he was in reality doing (through His agents)." [Hendriksen]
c) As one of baptism's significant meanings, i.e., reception into the visible church upon a profession of faith, this was to be done by those who were to oversee those admitted. This was the responsibility of the Apostles and eventual Elders appointed as undershepherds. (Eph 2:19-22; Acts 14:23; 20:17; 1Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5; 1Pet 5:1)

Originally Posted by Peytonator
2) Why, in the context of the "great commission," did Paul say He was not sent to baptise, but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:17)?

a) See (a) and (c) above.
b) The text itself explains why Paul rarely baptized. It was his calling, as was the case with the other Apostles, to preach the Gospel and to teach throughout their travels.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
4) [there is no #3] Why does John the Baptist contrast his water baptism with Christ's spiritual baptism?

John's ministry was preparatory, i.e., to introduce the coming of the Messiah, Jesus. He had no authority nor power to send the Holy Spirit of God Who is instrumental in bringing salvation.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
5) Why, if there is only ONE baptism (Eph 4), do nearly all denominations hold both spiritual and water baptism? Either it is spiritual, or physical, but surely not both. Why do we gladly recite the creed: "I acknowledge ONE Baptism for the REMISSION OF SINS," and yet have two? Yet spiritual baptism does remit sins; "...it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing..."

a) There are in fact two "baptisms" taught in Scripture; water and Spirit. We must not confuse them nor especially to dismiss one or the other. One of the inherent meanings of the former signifies the latter.
b) Grammatically, it is best to take the 'triad' as one indivisible phrase; "one Lord in whom we all believe and in whose name we have been baptised." [Scott]
c) I really like what Grosheide wrote on the matter of "one baptism":
There is only one baptism which is received by many (perhaps a number of persons simultaneously). All the members of the congregation are baptized in the same manner, and we may well assume, after or in connection with the same sermonic elucidation."

"By means of baptism the fellowship of believers with their Lord was sealed (Gal 3:27)." [Hendriksen]
Originally Posted by Peytonator
6) Where in the NT is baptism ever a symbol or sign?

Sorry, but this question would require a lengthy response and I don't consider it to be relevant to the questions already asked nor those that follow. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Peytonator] #46297
Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:44 AM
Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:44 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Peytonator
7) Why allow a pastor to immerse you or sprinkle your child with water, when Christ Himself baptises? (Mat 3:11)

a) Christ commands that believers (and their children) be baptized in the name of the Triune God. (Matt 28:19) Surely, Christ wasn't instructing His disciples to baptize them with the Holy Spirit, over whom they had no authority nor ability to control.
b) It was the universal practice in the NT church; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,13,16,36,38; 9:18; 10:47,48; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:3-5; 22:16: Rom 6:3; 1Cor 1:13-16; 12:13 (the Spirit working in and through baptism).
c) The sending of the Spirit by Christ does not annul water baptism. The sending of the Holy Spirit was part of the superior blessings of the new covenant. Water baptism and Spirit baptism are not contrasting elements but are corollary elements belonging to salvation and the Church.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
8) Why do many of us hold that some "gifts" of the Spirit in Acts have ceased, and yet vehemently hold to the fact that Baptism hasn't ceased? What if Acts is merely a transitionary period between Testaments? What is "more accurately" in Acts 18:25-26, and why does this precede Acts 19:3-5?

a) The ecstatic gifts of the Spirit were given primarily to unite Jews and Gentiles into the one body of Christ; the Church. Additionally, they were given to show the supernatural character of this "new religion". And, they were given to authenticate the reality of God's messengers and the salvation received. There are other reasons which could be mentioned by this should suffice. Once the foundation of the Church was established, these gifts served no purpose. But the sacraments/ordinances of the Church; baptism and the Lord's Supper were to be perpetual since they served 1) as a sign and seal of the initial admittance of believers into the Church, the body of Christ, and 2) the continued spiritual nourishment of the members of that body.
b) re: "more accurately Acts 18:25,26"... Apollos knew only of "John's Baptism", i.e., the whole of John the Baptist's ministry and teaching. What John taught was preparatory to what was to follow. He pointed to the coming of the Messiah and the identity of that Messiah, Jesus Christ. But what John did not and could not teach is ALL that was to be known of Jesus Christ; His sacrificial death, resurrection and the coming of the Spirit, in other words, fulness of Christ and His atoning work and current reign as King.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
9) Why do we name our CHURCHES after some mode of Baptism, and yet Paul scarcely knew or cared who he baptised (1 Cor 1:16-17)?

That's a question for the credobaptists. giggle Most likely, they include the word "baptism" in naming their churches, to distinguish themselves from???... can't be in regard to those who don't baptize, eh? Unfortunately, this is a rather contentious question which I personally see no value in pursuing further.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
10) Why are practically all verses in the Epistles "dry" verses, if I might use that term?

Absolutely untrue. The vast majority of references to baptism in the NT and the OT too, are "wet", i.e., with the element of water as agent and in the OT, blood was also used. See one of my previous answers to the many passages which refer to water baptism.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
11) Why, if we hold that the old Testament types and shadows (including ceremonial washings) have ceased, do we then continue to baptise with water?

The "types and shadows" pointed to that which was to come in reference to sin, the coming of the Messiah to atone for sin, etc. When Christ came, the types and shadows were fulfilled and thus abrogated. Baptism in the NT has an entirely different significance as it is a sign and seal of that which has been accomplished, i.e., after the fact. And, baptism is the new covenant sign which has replaced the old covenant sign; circumcision (Col 2:11,12).

Originally Posted by Peytonator
12) Prove that Mat 28:19 is not spiritual? Cannot this command be given in the same way as Jude 1:23 - i.e. do it through the preaching of the Word, as happened in Acts 19:3-5, no?

a) Hermeneutically and grammatically there is no warrant to spiritualize Matt 28:19. If you want to insist that "baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is to be understood 'spiritually', i.e., not physically, then you must consistently take the commands prior to and following it, 'making disciples' and 'teaching' to be spiritual as well. This would make no sense whatsoever; aka: nonsense.
b) Again, I have supplied a respectable list of passages which show that physical, water baptism was practiced throughout the NT period. And, the 2000 years of church history equally testifies to its practice.
c) I fail to see the relevance of Jude 1:23. shrug
d) Those mentioned in Acts 19:3-5 were re-baptized since their knowledge of the Gospel and consequently their faith was inadequate. To repeat, John's Baptism (ministry) was preparatory and anticipatory only. The baptism which Jesus commanded His disciples to administer was of the fulfillment of that which John's baptism pointed. Thus, these individuals had not believed savingly upon Christ but only in His acknowledged coming. By their own admission, they weren't even aware that there was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (v.2), the sure sign that Christ had accomplished all that He promised He would do. Therefore, Paul saw the need for them to be identified with and joined to Christ which Christian baptism signifies.
e) This is the only account of re-baptism in the NT and therefore should not be construed as a principle to be practiced by the Church. Even the disciples of Christ had submitted to John's baptism but were never re-baptized because they were given the full Gospel of Christ thereafter and had wholly embraced it and the Christ of which it testifies.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Pilgrim] #46298
Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:15 PM
Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:15 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
South Africa
P
Peytonator Offline OP
Plebeian
Peytonator  Offline OP
Plebeian
P
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
South Africa
thanks

Ok give me at least a week to assimilate all this jawdrop

But until then, just to clarify a few things, so that we can continue the discussion...

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Peytonator
10) Why are practically all verses in the Epistles "dry" verses, if I might use that term?

Absolutely untrue. The vast majority of references to baptism in the NT and the OT too, are "wet", i.e., with the element of water as agent and in the OT, blood was also used. See one of my previous answers to the many passages which refer to water baptism.


I agree with you, but see what I said in bold.

I notice that you quoted Gal 3 and Col 2. Yet surely such passages have actually nothing to do with water.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by Peytonator
12) Prove that Mat 28:19 is not spiritual? Cannot this command be given in the same way as Jude 1:23 - i.e. do it through the preaching of the Word, as happened in Acts 19:3-5, no?

...
c) I fail to see the relevance of Jude 1:23. shrug


To give you an idea of why I quoted it: Jude 1:23 is command to "save" people. Yet only God can do that. We "save" people by preaching the gospel to them. In the same way, we (or rather God) "baptise" people by preaching the gospel to them. Same things applies for passages such as Jer 4:14 and John 3:7.

You are absolutely right about baptism being central in church history... that is a major concern for me. Thus the questions smile

Graham

Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Peytonator] #46299
Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:34 PM
Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:34 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Peytonator
Why are practically all verses in the Epistles "dry" verses, if I might use that term?... I agree with you, but see what I said in bold.

Can you give examples where baptism is "dry"? Again, there are two basic references to baptism; water and Spirit which must be distinguished, although as I have stated already, the former signifies and pictures the latter. One can receive water baptism but not have Spirit baptism (Acts 8:14ff). I am still puzzled why you want to virtually dismiss the historical record of the practice of the early Church in the book of "Acts" concerning water baptism? Can you provide good sound reasons for singling out this particular practice as being obsolete in exclusion to the many other practices which were done? To be consistent, would you not also have to likewise dismiss the perpetuity of the Lord's Supper? women's headcovering? giving of alms? praying for the saints in other locales? corporate worship? and even preaching? scratchchin

Originally Posted by Peytonator
I notice that you quoted Gal 3 and Col 2. Yet surely such passages have actually nothing to do with water.

Gal 3:27 - "baptized into Christ" cannot refer to Spirit baptism. The formula with eis (into) accords with Matt 28:19 and other passages which means one who is united and identified with Christ and His teaching which is signified in water baptism. (cf. Rom 6:3ff; 13:14; Col 2:12,13; 1Pet 3:21) Paul is speaking not ONLY about the outward sacrament of baptism as if it in and of itself had some inherent power, but about the sign and seal in conjunction with that which is signified and sealed. All those, then, who by means of their [water] baptism have truly laid aside, in principle, their garment of sin, and have truly been decked with the robe of Christ's righteousness, having thus been buried with Him and raised with Him, have put on Christ.

Col 2:12,13 - Hendriksen, I believe is most correct when he writes in his Commentary:

But why does Paul connect "in your baptism" with this having been buried with Christ and having been raised with him? He does not do this because he attaches any magical efficacy to the rite of baptism. See 1Cor 1:14-17; cf. 1Pet 3:21. In the passage now under discussion the apostle definitely excludes the idea that the act of baptizing, in virtue of the action itself, and independent of the condition of the heart of them who here and now professed to believe the gospel, has spiritual value. He carefully adds: through faith in the operative power of God who raised him from the dead. The man who hears the gospel as it is proclaimed must give his heart to the almighty God whose energizing power raised Christ from the dead. He must also believe that the spiritual power that proceeds from the risen Savior (Phil 3:10) will bestow upon him all he needs for body and soul, for time and eternity.

What then is the meaning of the phrase "in your baptism"? Evidently Paul in this entire paragraph magnifies Christian baptism as much as he, by clear implication, disapproves of the continuation of the right of circumcision if viewed as having anything to do with salvation. The definite implication, therefore, is that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. Hence, what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism. In the Colossian context baptism is specifically a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him. It is, accordingly, a sign and seal of union with Christ, of entrance into his covenant, of incorporation into Christ's body, the church (1Cor 12:13). The sign of baptism pictures the cleansing power of Christ's blood and Spirit. That vivid portrayal is very valuable (cf. Job 42:5,6). The seal certifies and guarantees the operation of this activity of love and grace in the lives of all those who embrace Christ by faith. Baptism, therefore, shows us a God who tenderly condescends to the weaknesses of his people: their doubts and their fears. (Cf. Heb 6:17; also for the sacrament of communion Luke 22:19.) Surely, Noah did not despise the rainbow (Gen 8:12-17). Happily married couples do not think lowly of their wedding rings.


Originally Posted by Peytonator

To give you an idea of why I quoted it: Jude 1:23 is command to "save" people. Yet only God can do that. We "save" people by preaching the gospel to them. In the same way, we (or rather God) "baptise" people by preaching the gospel to them. Same things applies for passages such as Jer 4:14 and John 3:7.

a) You are making a logical fallacy by comparing the preaching of the Gospel, the means by which the Spirit works to bring people to Christ, i.e., to save them and then equating baptism to the preaching of the Gospel. I find no such implication in Scripture; to preach the Gospel is to baptize. The fact is, the opposite is true. In baptism, the Gospel is preached. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are rightly held to be "visible signs" of God's saving grace in Christ. They are also included as means of grace, along with preaching and praying. This the Christian Church has affirmed for two millennia and has so testified in its Confessions and Catechisms.

re: Jer 4:14 - This is a call for the wicked to repent of their sinful deeds. The emphasis is upon their responsibility and not upon God's sovereignty in salvation.

re: Jh 3:7 - Here Jesus is setting forth the sovereignty of God the Spirit in regeneration. Fallen men have a fundamental need to be "born again" (regenerated) but it is totally outside of their power to bring it about or to even instigate it. The non-Reformed churches have made a damnable error in putting the cart before the horse by teaching that "if/when you believe, you will be born again", thus making a spiritually dead man capable of not only contributing to his salvation but robbing God the Spirit of His sovereignty to save whosoever HE will. In short, in contrast to the preaching of the Word, baptism and prayers, there are no means involved in the new birth. Thus, Jh 3:7 is irrelevant to the subject at hand.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Peytonator] #46308
Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:19 PM
Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19
texas
B
BIGD Offline
Plebeian
BIGD  Offline
Plebeian
B
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19
texas
yes,there is only one baptism for today as mentioned in Eph.4, but from scripture, I believe we can see it is water baptism not a " dry baptism".I would like to look at the first two questions asked for it will take some time to answer all. Why didn't Christ baptized? Really not for sure what this has to do with anything.It is apparent he believed in it and taught it by reading verse 1. " Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John...." I guess we must ask the question, why didn't he baptize them in the Holy Spirit? In fact maybe someone could tell us how many people Jesus baptized in the HS while alive?

How many people that he made Disciples believed in the Death, Burial and Ressurrection? Since Jesus didn't teach them about the DBR, does that mean we don't have to? The reality of it is that we are not under Johns baptism for our baptism today is " in the name of Jesus". Lastly, if I teach someone the truth and they wish to be baptized and someone else baptizes them, does that mean I don't believe one has to be baptized?

Second question about Paul not sent to baptize.I find it amazing that you know this is talking about water baptism. Let's make it Holy Spirit baptism. What you missed though is that Paul just gave the strogest argument for water baptism and then you think he turns around and says not really? Look at 1 Cor.1:12-13.

Paul says " each of you says, " I belong to Paul or " I belong to Apllos"......" I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the NAME OF PAUL". Do you see what Paul is saying here? In order to BELONG to Paul he had to be crucified for you, was he? NO. also you had to be baptized into his name. Were you? No. So, you don't belong to Paul. Now, what about Jesus? Did Jesus die for you? Yes. Were you baptized into his name? Yes. So I belong to Christ.So two things have to happen for you to BELONG to Christ, his death and baptism in his name.

Now, how do we know batism in his name is water baptism? Look at Acts 10: 47-48 " Can any man forbid WATER FOR BAPTIZING THESE PEOPLE....and he commanded them to be BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST".

Lastly, 1 Cor. 1:17 is what you call a not/but. We can see an example of this in John 12:44 " he who believes in me, believes not in me but him who sent me". Jesus means by this that believes in me only, but also in him who sent me. Paul in 1 cor 1:17 is saying, " Christ did not send me to baptize only, but also to preach the gospel".

there were alot of assertions of claiming certain scriptures were talking about HS baptism and no proof was given. Like Romans 6 and Col2. I would like to look at these later and I believe from context and other scripture, we can clearly see these are talking about water baptism.while looking at these scriptures we will also see that children were not included.


....and he commanded them to be BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST".


Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Peytonator] #46309
Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:15 AM
Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:15 AM
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19
texas
B
BIGD Offline
Plebeian
BIGD  Offline
Plebeian
B
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19
texas
some questions for " dry baptism".

1) when is a person buried in Holy Spirit baptism?
2) when is a person raised in Holy Spirit Baptism?
3) where in scripture was anyone ever commanded to be baptized in the Holy Spirit?
4) does one have to recieve Holy Spirit Baptism to be saved?
5) where does it say Holy Spirit baptism remits sins?
6) on the day of Pentecost why didn't the 3000 souls that were saved that day, recieve Holy Spirit baptism?
7) at what point is a person saved? Point of Faith? Point of HS baptism?

In Luke 24:47 it says," and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in HIS NAME to all nations beginning in Jerusalem." When you turn to Acts 2 you see they are in Jerusalem and after Peter had preached the good news, they asked in v.37 " Brethren, what shall we do?" Notice these were believers for in v37 it says," they were cut to the heart".

So we have believers, where is the HS baptism? Peter said, " Repent and be baptized everyone of you in THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the forgiveness of your sins". Still waiting on the " dry baptism."Peter here commanded WATER BAPTISM for we know baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism. Acts 10:47-48.
Keep reading, v41" they that gladly recieved his word were baptized" still waiting for the " dry baptism." Notice v44," and all who BELIEVED were together" and finally in v47 they were added to the saved by God.

Where in this context does the HS fall on them? It doesn't and yet God added them to the saved and the only baptism mentioned is water baptism.

Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: BIGD] #46310
Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:16 PM
Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:16 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
South Africa
P
Peytonator Offline OP
Plebeian
Peytonator  Offline OP
Plebeian
P
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
South Africa
I will give you and Pilgrim a THOROUGH answer hopefully by the end of the week... Up to 7 pages at the moment wink Just struggling to keep up with varsity and this at the same time.

Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Peytonator] #46311
Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:23 PM
Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:23 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Peytonator
I will give you and Pilgrim a THOROUGH answer hopefully by the end of the week... Up to 7 pages at the moment wink Just struggling to keep up with varsity and this at the same time.

"Thoroughness" is good, of course. But I do hope you don't intend to copy/paste all 7 pages in one reply, eh? wow1 You definitely will not be able to put everything into one reply anyway as there is a functional limit on the length of a post/reply here.

IF <---- you really want to submit your entire answer, I would suggest you attach it to a reply in one of the allowed formats, e.g., .txt, .doc, .pdf. In that way, those interested can download it to their personal PCs and read it at their leisure.

[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Peytonator] #46340
Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:23 AM
Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:23 AM
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19
texas
B
BIGD Offline
Plebeian
BIGD  Offline
Plebeian
B
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19
texas
greetings to everyone.

I just wanted to continue to look at baptism. Is it water baptism or a " dry baptism".I think so far it has been proven by scripture that baptism " in the name of Jesus" is water baptism. Acts 10:47-48 and that baptism in the name of Jesus is something that has to be done in order to BELONG to Christ. 1 Cor.1:12-13. So the conclsion so far is that in orger to belong to Christ you must be baptized in his name and that baptism is water baptism, not Holy Spirit baptism.

The next scripture to look at is Acts 8 and the conversion of the eunuch and begin in verse 35. " Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus".So now the question has to be asked, since Philip preached "Jesus" to him, how did he know about Water baptism? for in verse 36 he says, "Look here is WATER what is to prevent my being baptized?" Conclusion would be to preach " Jesus" includes preaching water baptism. Why?

Jesus himself commanded it in Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19. Now the question was asked, " how do we know this is water baptism?"

1) Holy Spirit baptism was a promise, this is a command.
2) HS baptism was done only by Jesus, this baptism was something man did. The preaching was done by man and so was the baptism.
3) as Matthew 28 states in was to be done " in the name" and we have already shown this to be water baptism. This of course ties in with Luke 24:47 where it states, " remission of sins to be preached in my name would begin in Jerusalem."
4) All examples in Acts are water baptism and we have shown water baptism in 1Cor1:12-13 and it is also mentioned in 1 Peter 3:21
5) lastly in Acts 11:14 it states that Peter was to tell them " words by which to be saved." None of those "words" mention HS baptism, but they do mention "water baptism" Acts10:47-48

Again it was stated that spirit baptism remits sins....I am still waiting for the proof.

Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: BIGD] #46341
Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:41 PM
Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:41 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Originally Posted by BIGD
I think so far it has been proven by scripture that baptism "in the name of Jesus" is water baptism. Acts 10:47-48 and that baptism in the name of Jesus is something that has to be done in order to BELONG to Christ. 1 Cor.1:12-13. So the conclsion so far is that in orger to belong to Christ you must be baptized in his name and that baptism is water baptism, not Holy Spirit baptism.

1. Baptism "in the name of Jesus" is synonymous with "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19), which is indicative of water baptism.

2. Re: "baptism in the name of Jesus is something that has to be done in order to BELONG to Christ." This is has yet to be proven. I, for one, believe this to be a non-biblical statement. In order to BELONG to Christ, one must be regenerated and out of which flows repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Christ. Baptism is a sacrament which signifies, among other things, that a true believer HAS BEEN united with Christ and has been adopted as a son of God. Baptism is not essential to salvation, albeit it should be submitted to and administered unless there are mitigating circumstances which make it impossible. The passage used as reference, 1Cor 1:12,13, is not salient to your conclusion. The text is showing that baptism is a 'sign' of identity; the believer to the one whose name he/she is baptized in. It can be said to signify that the name used in the sacrament is the one who the recipient professes to be a disciple, follower.

Originally Posted by BIGD
The next scripture to look at is Acts 8 and the conversion of the eunuch and begin in verse 35. "Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus".So now the question has to be asked, since Philip preached "Jesus" to him, how did he know about Water baptism? for in verse 36 he says, "Look here is WATER what is to prevent my being baptized?" Conclusion would be to preach "Jesus" includes preaching water baptism. Why?

1. The eunuch could have learned about baptism from various sources. Baptism was not unique to that time period. There are various "baptisms" to be seen in the OT. The spread of Christianity was initially rapid and it is therefore also possible that the eunuch witnessed other conversions and consequent baptisms. Or, it could be that Philip taught the eunuch about the sacrament of baptism as something CONSEQUENT TO conversion, but not an inherent and necessary part of the Gospel.

2. The phrase "to preach Jesus" is another one of those idiomatic forms, an abbreviation which refers to something larger than itself, e.g., the Gospel can and sometimes must include the existence and nature of God, the origin of man, the Fall, its consequences, Christ and His perfect life and atoning death and resurrection, the giving of the Holy Spirit, the return of Christ, and the final judgment. The meaning conveyed by water baptism is many-faceted, all of which are not to be found in one text but in the comparing of all the passages where baptism is mentioned... in BOTH the OT and the NT.

Originally Posted by BIGD
4) All examples in Acts are water baptism and we have shown water baptism in 1Cor1:12-13 and it is also mentioned in 1 Peter 3:21

Not so... there are several instances which are often referred to as "spirit baptism", e.g., 1Cor 8 and 10, when there were Gentile converts and they were admitted into the Church.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Pilgrim] #46342
Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:59 PM
Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:59 PM
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19
texas
B
BIGD Offline
Plebeian
BIGD  Offline
Plebeian
B
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 19
texas
greetings,
Thanks for your reply but I believe 1 Cor.1:12-13 is very clear. In order to belong to Paul, he would have had to die for you and you would have to be baptized into his name. Were you? now comes Jesus. Did Jesus die for you? were you baptized into his name/ Yes, so I belong to Jesus. That is the argument Paul is making, so Paul made a non-biblical statement? So who is right? You or Paul?

Who says baptism has nothing to do with salvation? You make alot of assumptions with no proof. Tell us everytime Baptism and salvation are mentioned together, baptism comes first? I guess Jesus was mistaken in Mark 16;16. I guess God doesn't remove the sins of the flesh in baptism even though Col2 says he does. I guess Peter was wrong in Acts 2:38. I guess Peter was wrong when he said Baptism saves you....you say baptism does not save you. Whom should I believe?

when did remission of sins in Jesus name begin? What were they told? Who commanded baptism, Jesus or man? Is baptism a command of Jesus? Can I love jesus and not be baptized?

Philip and the Eunch and again alot of assumptions. He could have? Tell us, was this baptism in the name of Jesus? Find baptism in his name in the OT. You have alot of could/shoulds but know proof.When you look at the other conversions in Acts, it leaves no doubt what was done. Look at Acts 2:38, look at Acts 10:47-48, Conversion of Paul and so on. Tell us was Peter wrong in Acts 2:38 when they asked what they had to do? When you look at these examples, your shoulda/couldas go out the window.

To sum it up, I see alot of assumptions with no scriptures. Please give us verses that talk about baptism that prove your point. Lastly,there are two times in Acts with HS baptism. Acts 2 and Acts 10. In both cases it had nothing to do with forgiveness of sins or salvation. I will talk more about this later. Have a great night and I look forward to scriptures to prove your points, so far you are lacking....

Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: BIGD] #46343
Sun May 01, 2011 7:45 AM
Sun May 01, 2011 7:45 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,471
NH, USA
Originally Posted by BIGD
Thanks for your reply but I believe 1 Cor.1:12-13 is very clear. In order to belong to Paul, he would have had to die for you and you would have to be baptized into his name. Were you? now comes Jesus. Did Jesus die for you? were you baptized into his name/ Yes, so I belong to Jesus. That is the argument Paul is making, so Paul made a non-biblical statement? So who is right? You or Paul?

There is no need to become obnoxious in your replies. First of all, my reply was not to you but to Peytonator. Your question, "So who is right? You or Paul?" is rather insulting to me and quite presumptuous on your part, as if you are the infallible interpreter of Scripture. nono

Perhaps, just perhaps you could consider another interpretation of 1Cor 1:12,13 in contradistinction to your own?

Is Christ divided? Paul, in this verse, proceeds to show the impropriety of their divisions and strifes. His general argument is, that Christ alone ought to be regarded as their Head and Leader, and that his claims, arising from his crucifixion, and acknowledged by their baptism, were so pre-eminent that they could not be divided, and the honours due to him should not be rendered to any other. The apostle therefore asks, with strong emphasis, whether Christ was to be regarded as divided? Whether this single supreme Head and Leader of the church had become the head of different contending factions? The strong absurdity of supposing that, showed the impropriety of their ranging themselves under different banners and leaders.

Was Paul crucified for you? This question implies that the crucifixion of Christ had an influence in saving them which the sufferings of no other one could have, and that those sufferings were in fact the peculiarity which distinguished the Work of Christ, and rendered it of so much value. The atonement was the grand, crowning work of the Lord Jesus. It was through this that all the Corinthian Christians had been renewed and pardoned. That work was so pre-eminent that it could not have been performed by an other. And as they had all been saved by that alone-as they were alike dependent on his merits for salvation-it was improper that they should be rent into contending factions, and ranged under different leaders. If there is anything that will recall Christians of different names and of contending sects from the heat of strife, it is the recollection of the fact that they have been purchased by the same blood, and that the same Saviour died to redeem them all. If this fact could be kept before their minds, it would put an end to angry strife everywhere in the church, and produce universal Christian love.

Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Or into, or unto the name of Paul. To be baptized into, or unto any one, is to be devoted to him, to receive and acknowledge him as a teacher, professing to receive his rules, and to be governed by his authority.--Locke. Paul here solemnly reminds them that their baptism was an argument why they should not range themselves under different leaders. By that, they had been solemnly and entirely devoted to the service of the only Saviour. "Did I ever," was the implied language of Paul, "baptize in my own name"? Did I ever pretend to organize a sect, announcing myself as a leader? Have not I always directed you to that Saviour into whose name and service you have been baptized?" It is remarkable here, that Paul refers to himself, and not to Apollos or Peter. He does not insinuate that the claims of Apollos or Peter were to be disparaged, or their talents and influence to be undervalued, as a jealous rival would have done; but he numbers himself first, and alone, as having no claims to be regarded as a religious leader among them, or the founder of a sect. Even he, the founder of the church, and their spiritual father, had never desired or intended that they should call themselves by his name; and he thus showed the impropriety of their adopting the name of any man as the leader of a sect.

Originally Posted by BIGD
Who says baptism has nothing to do with salvation? You make alot of assumptions with no proof. Tell us everytime Baptism and salvation are mentioned together, baptism comes first? I guess Jesus was mistaken in Mark 16;16. I guess God doesn't remove the sins of the flesh in baptism even though Col2 says he does. I guess Peter was wrong in Acts 2:38. I guess Peter was wrong when he said Baptism saves you....you say baptism does not save you. Whom should I believe?

Is this a Campbellite response? My main point is that baptism is not an inherent part of salvation so that if one is not baptized salvation is impossible. Notice Jesus' own words on this matter:

Mark 16:16 (ASV) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned."

The negation doesn't include baptism, does it! Jesus did NOT say, "but he that disbelieveth and is not baptized shall be condemned." So, my point again, which is solidly biblical and totally consistent confessionally, is that salvation is by grace ALONE, through faith ALONE, in Christ ALONE... not by faith and baptism.

Originally Posted by BIGD
Philip and the Eunch and again alot of assumptions. He could have? Tell us, was this baptism in the name of Jesus? Find baptism in his name in the OT. You have alot of could/shoulds but know proof.When you look at the other conversions in Acts, it leaves no doubt what was done. Look at Acts 2:38, look at Acts 10:47-48, Conversion of Paul and so on. Tell us was Peter wrong in Acts 2:38 when they asked what they had to do? When you look at these examples, your shoulda/couldas go out the window.

Yes, assumptions because we are not told how it is that the eunuch became familiar with the practice of baptism. And no, you will not find "baptism in his name" in the OT, but that was hardly what I was implying. You obviously missed the point entirely. My point was that "baptism" was not something totally new to the NT era. Other cultures and religions practiced baptism and the practice of baptism was very much prominent in the OT, e.g., ceremonial washings, etc.

To sum it up, I see alot of antagonism and disrespect, especially coming from someone very new to this board. I certainly don't mind being challenged by anyone, including you. But your attitude, at least as it can be discerned from your rhetoric, is less than amiable at this point. A change would be most appreciated.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Is water baptism to be practiced today? [Re: Pilgrim] #46350
Sun May 01, 2011 11:58 AM
Sun May 01, 2011 11:58 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
South Africa
P
Peytonator Offline OP
Plebeian
Peytonator  Offline OP
Plebeian
P
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22
South Africa
I've just about finished writing the paper. I'm reluctant to put it up today though... want to bounce it off family, and give it some more thought and prayer (I would appreciate your prayers as well). Rather that than hastily throwing it out there. Just need a couple more days....

Thanks for the comments so far. The more you write, the more I write... smile

Last edited by Peytonator; Sun May 01, 2011 12:00 PM.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 25 guests, and 99 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Movinforward86, Micki Bowman, Nigel J, wischnotes, Dutch Michael
928 Registered Users
Shout Box
July
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
779,385 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.063s Queries: 16 (0.005s) Memory: 3.0214 MB (Peak: 3.3318 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-07-20 18:22:57 UTC