Baptism

[Guest]

Chris, I thought you held your own very well but you're right about the fact it can degrade the Spirit. I've pulled back a little and have come to understand that most people there just make choices and they will have to live with those choices.

[Guest]

If you want to read a rather astonishing sermon, pertinent to baptism and faith in particular, do a Google on "Benjamin Franklin's The Gospel Preacher Positive Divine Law" and read Franklin's sermon. (No, he's not that Franklin). The concept in the sermon, once in common use (Hodge's Systematic Theology, for example) helps one to understand many things in the Bible, such as why Saul was rejected although not charged with any immoral act yet David commited horrible immoral sins and yet remained King. Would be interested in your thoughts on the sermon.

[Guest]

I wasn't thinking so much of those who have undergone infant "baptism" or baptism in other modes, that is, pouring or sprinkling, and therefore believe they have been baptized.

I was thinking of a person such as myself, who as a teenager believed I was "saved" because I "accepted Christ", but was taught by the Baptist church I attended that baptism is unnecessary as far as "salvation" goes, but ought to be done out of obedience to Christ, and as a witness to the world. So I decided not to get baptized, since it wasn't needed in order to get to heaven. I did however get baptized when I was 20 at the Lord's prompting.

Also, there are denominations, such as the Salvation Army, that believes not only that water baptism is unnecessary, but SHOULD NOT be received.
My understanding is that they believe that baptism into Christ is a purely spiritual act, and that the physical expression detracts from the real thing.

[Guest]

You have generally spoken only of immersion. Would anyone give a short perspective on validity of non-immersion baptism?

livingink

[Guest]

You have generally spoken only of immersion. Would anyone give a short perspective on validity of non-immersion baptism?

livingink

Col 2:12a
having been buried with him in baptism....

Baptism is supposed to be a burial. That means all the way under, just as someone who has died is buried in the ground. I believe that is the way it was practiced in the first century and the way it should be practiced today.

Now, I cannot comment on the Lord's acceptance of any other method.

Todd

[Guest]

There are two different Greek words for "immerse": baptO and baptizO.
(Note: Upper case "O" represents the Greek letter "Omega")
Both words are used in the New Testament. But there is a distinct difference in meaning:

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizO is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (baptO) into boiling water and then ‘baptized’ (baptizO) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

In addition to immersion, affusion (pouring) and "sprinkling"(there is a technical word for this also which I can't bring to mind) are all considered to be "modes" of baptism. But the Greek word "baptizO" was never used for pouring and sprinkling. So technically it is incorrect to use the word "baptize" in reference to ceremonies which employ pouring or sprinkling to dedicate someone to God.

But what if a person having poured or sprinkled, truly believes he has been baptized? Will God recognize him as having been 'baptized"? I don't know the answer to that question. In the Old Testament, God sometimes accepted the actions of the Israelites even when it was not His primary will. For example, the Israelites wanted a king like the other nations. God wanted to rule them through judges. God had even said, "You did not want ME to rule over you." Nevetheless, God allowed them to have a king ---- He even chose the man they were to have as king ---- Saul.

So perhaps, even though one must be immersed to be truly baptized (according to the meaning of the word), and even though only immersion properly represents burial and death to self, it may be that God in his patience wil accept a person who, having been sprinkled or poured, truly believes he has been baptized. I'm not saying that He would----- for who am I to determine what our gracious and loving Heavenly Father would or would not accept? He is the judge.

[Guest]

When you read the title of this booklet and saw the word "baptism," did you immediately think about water?

If so, your response is like that of the vast majority of Christians. But the question we must ask is why the word "baptize," which actually means "to dip" or "to immerse," has become almost solely associated with water, when, biblically speaking, there are other "liquid" alternatives to be considered?

Discovering the answer to that question will help us solve a problem that has for centuries caused great division among dedicated and well-meaning Christians. Our goal is to find out what is the "one baptism" prescribed for the Church, as per Ephesians 4:5. The fact that most Christians throughout the centuries have equated baptism with water is very understandable.

As we will see, water baptism was prescribed under the Mosaic Law. Jesus himself was baptized, and many early Christians practiced water baptism during the first years of the Church. But do the Church Epistles, that section of Scripture specifically addressed to believers living in the Church Administration, which began on the Day of Pentecost and will end with the "Rapture," call for this practice?

Scripture shows that the old, ceremonial, outer washing in water prescribed in the Mosaic Law for Israel pointed toward, and has now been superseded by, the new, actual, inner cleansing in holy spirit (the divine nature of God).

The old water baptism could not, and still cannot, change the heart of a man, but the spirit of the Holy God can revolutionize a person from the inside out and enable him to be like Jesus Christ, his true baptizer.

If you have been taught the traditional doctrine of water baptism, you may find that what you read in this booklet is more spiritually invigorating and liberating than the belief you now hold, and that it also opens up greater possibilities for more powerful Christian living.

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... le&sid=289

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... ew_topic=7

[Guest]

When you read the title of this booklet and saw the word "baptism," did you immediately think about water?

If so, your response is like that of the vast majority of Christians. But the question we must ask is why the word "baptize," which actually means "to dip" or "to immerse," has become almost solely associated with water, when, biblically speaking, there are other "liquid" alternatives to be considered?

Discovering the answer to that question will help us solve a problem that has for centuries caused great division among dedicated and well-meaning Christians. Our goal is to find out what is the "one baptism" prescribed for the Church, as per Ephesians 4:5. The fact that most Christians throughout the centuries have equated baptism with water is very understandable.

As we will see, water baptism was prescribed under the Mosaic Law. Jesus himself was baptized, and many early Christians practiced water baptism during the first years of the Church. But do the Church Epistles, that section of Scripture specifically addressed to believers living in the Church Administration, which began on the Day of Pentecost and will end with the "Rapture," call for this practice?

Scripture shows that the old, ceremonial, outer washing in water prescribed in the Mosaic Law for Israel pointed toward, and has now been superseded by, the new, actual, inner cleansing in holy spirit (the divine nature of God).

The old water baptism could not, and still cannot, change the heart of a man, but the spirit of the Holy God can revolutionize a person from the inside out and enable him to be like Jesus Christ, his true baptizer.

If you have been taught the traditional doctrine of water baptism, you may find that what you read in this booklet is more spiritually invigorating and liberating than the belief you now hold, and that it also opens up greater possibilities for more powerful Christian living.

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... le&sid=289

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... ew_topic=7

[Guest]

Chris, I thought you held your own very well but you're right about the fact it can degrade the Spirit. I've pulled back a little and have come to understand that most people there just make choices and they will have to live with those choices.

Or not live for that matter

There are two different Greek words for "immerse": baptO and baptizO.
(Note: Upper case "O" represents the Greek letter "Omega")
Both words are used in the New Testament. But there is a distinct difference in meaning:

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizO is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (baptO) into boiling water and then ‘baptized’ (baptizO) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

In addition to immersion, affusion (pouring) and "sprinkling"(there is a technical word for this also which I can't bring to mind) are all considered to be "modes" of baptism. But the Greek word "baptizO" was never used for pouring and sprinkling. So technically it is incorrect to use the word "baptize" in reference to ceremonies which employ pouring or sprinkling to dedicate someone to God.

But what if a person having poured or sprinkled, truly believes he has been baptized? Will God recognize him as having been 'baptized"? I don't know the answer to that question. In the Old Testament, God sometimes accepted the actions of the Israelites even when it was not His primary will. For example, the Israelites wanted a king like the other nations. God wanted to rule them through judges. God had even said, "You did not want ME to rule over you." Nevetheless, God allowed them to have a king ---- He even chose the man they were to have as king ---- Saul.

So perhaps, even though one must be immersed to be truly baptized (according to the meaning of the word), and even though only immersion properly represents burial and death to self, it may be that God in his patience wil accept a person who, having been sprinkled or poured, truly believes he has been baptized. I'm not saying that He would----- for who am I to determine what our gracious and loving Heavenly Father would or would not accept? He is the judge.

I think what is agreed upon with all Christians is the external practice must be backed up by the internal change.

Have you seen the movie O’ Brother Where Out Thou? There is a scene where they are in the woods and they see a baptism revival taking place. One of the criminals gets immersed in the water and thinks all of his sins are immediately and literally washed away by the water. He doesn’t realize the internal change that needs to take place. Anyhow, I just thought it was a great example of the difference between the two acts.

I agree with you God wants a true baptism, but I just can’t wrap my mind around a scenario where we are standing at the throne of God at the last judgment and God says; oh, so close, but you weren’t fully immersed in water, off to the lake of fire.

Like you said though he is the judge.

[Guest]

Hahahahaahahahahayour off to the lake of fire for not being baptized

Whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved!!