The Church of Christ and necessity of Baptism
I believe that there is both the baptism with water and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Both essential and seperate in their own functions.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Jesusfollower
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: NW
Ok that is what you believe, yet Ephesians says one Baptism so I'm taking that to mean you are ignoring that particular verse, in light of the history of the rise and expansion of the Church recorded in the Book of Acts. Got ya. 
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Allyn said:
In the commission in Mathew 28:19 Jesus told his disciples, and all who would follow after, (note v.20) to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into (greek word eis denoting movement from one place or state into another) the name (person) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This baptism is something we are to perform. Please explain to me, from the scriptures, how I can baptize someone with the Holy Spirit rather than with water, or better yet tell me how you do it. If we are to obey Jesus, we ought to know this, should't we?
I hope you will answer, rather than just quote scripture or refer to some article posted elsewhere
And, I mignt add normatively, in my opinion, both occuring on the same occasion, as with Jesus' baptism.I believe that there is both the baptism with water and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Both essential and seperate in their own functions.
In the commission in Mathew 28:19 Jesus told his disciples, and all who would follow after, (note v.20) to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into (greek word eis denoting movement from one place or state into another) the name (person) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This baptism is something we are to perform. Please explain to me, from the scriptures, how I can baptize someone with the Holy Spirit rather than with water, or better yet tell me how you do it. If we are to obey Jesus, we ought to know this, should't we?
I hope you will answer, rather than just quote scripture or refer to some article posted elsewhere
Last edited by karenstricycle on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Jesusfollower,
I was an active member for over twenty years in the Church of Christ and served in various leadership positions. Sense then I have relaxed my view somewhat.
What I hadn't learned (because the only interpretative method I was ever taught was "command/example/inference"; fairly unique to the Church of Christ), is that you don’t build entire doctrines from individual verses pulled from both local context and overall Biblical context while ignoring how the rest of the Bible affects the doctrine in question. The number of verses coupling salvation and baptism, are relatively few in relation to ALL the verses on salvation. Do we ignore these other verses as if they have no relevance? Or strive to know how these other verses illuminate the entire issue?
A cursory study of “believe” will result in a many verses stating that “belief in Christ” saves you, with no mention of Baptism (1John 1.5; 5.13; 1Pet 2.6; James 2.23; 1Thess 4.14; Eph 1.13; Rom 10.11; 4.24; 4.5; John 20.31; 6.47; 3.15-16; to list a few). These verses cannot be ignored anymore than can the typical “baptism” verses (Acts 2.38; 1Pet 3.21, etc). They ALL have to be considered together when concluding salvific doctrine.
Baptism is a commanded part of the process of becoming/being a Christian. To draw an arbitrary line and make salvation chronologically instantaneous at the moment of rising from the Baptismal waters is to ignore many other principles of salvation and Scripture. Is it logical? Yes. Is this conclusion plainly stated in Scripture, or is it simply that... a conclusion?
Then there's the other question that accompanies this issue: is Baptism essential (non-optional)? Absolutely. Is it commanded? Absolutely. Would I doubt the salvation of anyone who refused Baptism? Absolutely, though only God knows for sure of their eternal condition. Does the Bible teach that Baptism saves you? Absolutely NOT. And I don’t know many people who claim that BAPTISM saves. Even 1Peter 3.21 which uses this phrase clearly does not teach that the ACT of being immersed in water is what saves a person, but is speaking of the spiritual issues involved.
Does the Bible teach plainly and specifically that the MOMENT of salvation is equal to moment of baptism? No. The verse doesn’t exist. It is a conclusion. Right or wrong, it is a conclusion.
Some in the Church of Christ add to Baptism a sacramental (grace or salvation is imparted at or through the act) aspect that is not in Scripture. Other Churches of Christ make Baptism the chronological point of salvation based on what it symbolizes, but not on plain Scripture that states that fact. It’s NOT illogical, but neither is it plainly stated in the Bible. Baptism is OVER-emphasized past clearly stated Biblical emphasis. That doesn’t mean it’s a wrong conclusion, but it cannot be a dogmatic, salvific stance.
A great many non-Church of Christ, fundamental churches UNDER-emphasize the necessity of Baptism because they fear being labeled “sacramental”, works-oriented or legalists simply by boldly teaching Baptism is essential and commanded in the Christian experience. The Bible is plain and clear on the necessity of baptism. So to proclaim otherwise is to ignore plain Scripture.
Both positions (over/under emphasis) are wrong and based on inserted meaning (eisegesis), conclusion, opinions or traditions… and not specific, plain, and clear Scripture.
I know. It’s says it right there in Acts 2.38, 1Pet 3.21 and Mark16.16 you have to be baptized... again, you don’t build doctrine on a few verses… you build doctrine on the ENTIRE message of the Bible. Those verses clearly make Baptism mandatory and commanded. But nothing in those verses says the chronological point of salvation is the moment of Baptism. That is ASSUMED because of the mandatory nature of the instruction to be baptized.
It’s very natural to draw that conclusion, “The Bible commands Baptism, therefore if you are NOT Baptized you're not obeying God and you aren’t saved, therefore Baptism must be a requirement for salvation, therefore Baptism is the point at which you are saved”.
The other argument is that Baptism is when you “contact the blood of Christ”. Again, an understandable conclusion based on the obvious symbolism of Baptism, but not plainly stated in Scripture.
I understand the logic, but the fact is, it remains a CONCLUSION, not clear Scripture. That doesn’t necessarily make it the WRONG conclusion, but it has to be weighed against ALL Scripture. You’re forced to explain away numerous other verses which clearly teach that authentic belief in Christ is the effective requirement of salvation. Some verses add repentance to the equation (Act 2:38; Lk 13.3). Another verse proclaims faith without works is dead, leading you to believe that salvation has not occurred (James 2.26). Still other verses show love in various forms is “required” to be saved (1st John; in the sense that without this love salvation is not authentic).
So how do we reconcile all these “requirements” for salvation without turning salvation in to something that man EARNS through his own effort? By understanding that NOTHING MAN does, including belief, repentance or baptism, actually saves him. These things ARE required, but only the regenerating power of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ applied to the helpless begging sinner (Matt 5) who knows there is NO OTHER WAY TO SALVATION results in salvation.
It is a great paradox that salvation requires effort (or action) on our part, but nothing we can do (NOTHING!) adds one speck to our salvation. Salvation is a process, a series of moments, not a single moment. Consider with me:
Salvation begins when you are drawn by God (John 6.44) to hear the truth (Rom 10.17), believe that truth, repent of sin (2Cor 7.10) and turn in faith to God (1Pet 1.9).
At the point of man’s spirit being renewed (Tit 3.5), the Holy Spirit now enables us to righteousness (Eph 5.9), when previously we were slaves of sin (Rom 6.6) incapable of any act of righteousness. Whether regeneration occurs at the time of belief, or the time of baptism, is a conclusion that must be drawn, but is not declared plainly in Scripture.
Baptism is commanded and essential (non-optional). Anyone who would refuse to do it is directly defying God. So in that aspect, you might say the baptism is required for salvation, but Baptism is NOT what saves you, which I’m sure you agree with.
Our disagreement ends up being in regards to Baptism in the Holy Spirit only, or not. We disagree on this point, not the necessity of Baptism. Does the regeneration of the spirit (salvation) occur under the baptismal water? I believe it occurs previously, at the moment of genuine belief in Christ, repentance of sin and turning in faith to God. Baptism is the first act of obedience identifying the new Believer (an act of righteousness) and outwardly testifying to the inward change that has occurred.
I am very thoroughly aware of the Church of Christ teaching and the verses involved just so you will know that I have come to my opinion in light of the Church of Christ teaching, not in ignorance of it.
I didn’t come to my interpretation lightly. For me, having been a long time member of the Church of Christ, I faced the issue of whether I was willing to challenge my long held belief that was totally unquestioned simply because it was pronounced from the pulpit. No deviation was tolerated, none; not even a discussion of it in any of the many Churches of Christ I have attended or been a member of. I accepted the same handful of verses that are always cited (Acts 2.38; 1Pet 3.21, etc), and the CofC doctrine built around them, without scrutiny or serious contemplation.
In summary, is Baptism essential? Yes. Does the act of Baptism save you? No, and you probably agree with that. What we disagree that baptism is only the baptism of the Spirit.
It is beyond the scope of this answer to outline all the concepts, principles and verses that are involved. I trust this short answer will be enough to 1) give the reason for my belief (even though you may not agree); and 2) encourage you to analyze your beliefs. You will only strengthen your ability to defend your faith regardless of the final conclusion.
We do hopefully agree on the most crucial issue of all: that the atoning blood of Jesus Christ is the effective ingredient of salvation and accepting Jesus Christ as the ONLY way to salvation IS a requirement of genuine salvation. That is clearly stated in Scripture and is what I put my hope and trust in.
I was an active member for over twenty years in the Church of Christ and served in various leadership positions. Sense then I have relaxed my view somewhat.
What I hadn't learned (because the only interpretative method I was ever taught was "command/example/inference"; fairly unique to the Church of Christ), is that you don’t build entire doctrines from individual verses pulled from both local context and overall Biblical context while ignoring how the rest of the Bible affects the doctrine in question. The number of verses coupling salvation and baptism, are relatively few in relation to ALL the verses on salvation. Do we ignore these other verses as if they have no relevance? Or strive to know how these other verses illuminate the entire issue?
A cursory study of “believe” will result in a many verses stating that “belief in Christ” saves you, with no mention of Baptism (1John 1.5; 5.13; 1Pet 2.6; James 2.23; 1Thess 4.14; Eph 1.13; Rom 10.11; 4.24; 4.5; John 20.31; 6.47; 3.15-16; to list a few). These verses cannot be ignored anymore than can the typical “baptism” verses (Acts 2.38; 1Pet 3.21, etc). They ALL have to be considered together when concluding salvific doctrine.
Baptism is a commanded part of the process of becoming/being a Christian. To draw an arbitrary line and make salvation chronologically instantaneous at the moment of rising from the Baptismal waters is to ignore many other principles of salvation and Scripture. Is it logical? Yes. Is this conclusion plainly stated in Scripture, or is it simply that... a conclusion?
Then there's the other question that accompanies this issue: is Baptism essential (non-optional)? Absolutely. Is it commanded? Absolutely. Would I doubt the salvation of anyone who refused Baptism? Absolutely, though only God knows for sure of their eternal condition. Does the Bible teach that Baptism saves you? Absolutely NOT. And I don’t know many people who claim that BAPTISM saves. Even 1Peter 3.21 which uses this phrase clearly does not teach that the ACT of being immersed in water is what saves a person, but is speaking of the spiritual issues involved.
Does the Bible teach plainly and specifically that the MOMENT of salvation is equal to moment of baptism? No. The verse doesn’t exist. It is a conclusion. Right or wrong, it is a conclusion.
Some in the Church of Christ add to Baptism a sacramental (grace or salvation is imparted at or through the act) aspect that is not in Scripture. Other Churches of Christ make Baptism the chronological point of salvation based on what it symbolizes, but not on plain Scripture that states that fact. It’s NOT illogical, but neither is it plainly stated in the Bible. Baptism is OVER-emphasized past clearly stated Biblical emphasis. That doesn’t mean it’s a wrong conclusion, but it cannot be a dogmatic, salvific stance.
A great many non-Church of Christ, fundamental churches UNDER-emphasize the necessity of Baptism because they fear being labeled “sacramental”, works-oriented or legalists simply by boldly teaching Baptism is essential and commanded in the Christian experience. The Bible is plain and clear on the necessity of baptism. So to proclaim otherwise is to ignore plain Scripture.
Both positions (over/under emphasis) are wrong and based on inserted meaning (eisegesis), conclusion, opinions or traditions… and not specific, plain, and clear Scripture.
I know. It’s says it right there in Acts 2.38, 1Pet 3.21 and Mark16.16 you have to be baptized... again, you don’t build doctrine on a few verses… you build doctrine on the ENTIRE message of the Bible. Those verses clearly make Baptism mandatory and commanded. But nothing in those verses says the chronological point of salvation is the moment of Baptism. That is ASSUMED because of the mandatory nature of the instruction to be baptized.
It’s very natural to draw that conclusion, “The Bible commands Baptism, therefore if you are NOT Baptized you're not obeying God and you aren’t saved, therefore Baptism must be a requirement for salvation, therefore Baptism is the point at which you are saved”.
The other argument is that Baptism is when you “contact the blood of Christ”. Again, an understandable conclusion based on the obvious symbolism of Baptism, but not plainly stated in Scripture.
I understand the logic, but the fact is, it remains a CONCLUSION, not clear Scripture. That doesn’t necessarily make it the WRONG conclusion, but it has to be weighed against ALL Scripture. You’re forced to explain away numerous other verses which clearly teach that authentic belief in Christ is the effective requirement of salvation. Some verses add repentance to the equation (Act 2:38; Lk 13.3). Another verse proclaims faith without works is dead, leading you to believe that salvation has not occurred (James 2.26). Still other verses show love in various forms is “required” to be saved (1st John; in the sense that without this love salvation is not authentic).
So how do we reconcile all these “requirements” for salvation without turning salvation in to something that man EARNS through his own effort? By understanding that NOTHING MAN does, including belief, repentance or baptism, actually saves him. These things ARE required, but only the regenerating power of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ applied to the helpless begging sinner (Matt 5) who knows there is NO OTHER WAY TO SALVATION results in salvation.
It is a great paradox that salvation requires effort (or action) on our part, but nothing we can do (NOTHING!) adds one speck to our salvation. Salvation is a process, a series of moments, not a single moment. Consider with me:
Salvation begins when you are drawn by God (John 6.44) to hear the truth (Rom 10.17), believe that truth, repent of sin (2Cor 7.10) and turn in faith to God (1Pet 1.9).
At the point of man’s spirit being renewed (Tit 3.5), the Holy Spirit now enables us to righteousness (Eph 5.9), when previously we were slaves of sin (Rom 6.6) incapable of any act of righteousness. Whether regeneration occurs at the time of belief, or the time of baptism, is a conclusion that must be drawn, but is not declared plainly in Scripture.
Baptism is commanded and essential (non-optional). Anyone who would refuse to do it is directly defying God. So in that aspect, you might say the baptism is required for salvation, but Baptism is NOT what saves you, which I’m sure you agree with.
Our disagreement ends up being in regards to Baptism in the Holy Spirit only, or not. We disagree on this point, not the necessity of Baptism. Does the regeneration of the spirit (salvation) occur under the baptismal water? I believe it occurs previously, at the moment of genuine belief in Christ, repentance of sin and turning in faith to God. Baptism is the first act of obedience identifying the new Believer (an act of righteousness) and outwardly testifying to the inward change that has occurred.
I am very thoroughly aware of the Church of Christ teaching and the verses involved just so you will know that I have come to my opinion in light of the Church of Christ teaching, not in ignorance of it.
I didn’t come to my interpretation lightly. For me, having been a long time member of the Church of Christ, I faced the issue of whether I was willing to challenge my long held belief that was totally unquestioned simply because it was pronounced from the pulpit. No deviation was tolerated, none; not even a discussion of it in any of the many Churches of Christ I have attended or been a member of. I accepted the same handful of verses that are always cited (Acts 2.38; 1Pet 3.21, etc), and the CofC doctrine built around them, without scrutiny or serious contemplation.
In summary, is Baptism essential? Yes. Does the act of Baptism save you? No, and you probably agree with that. What we disagree that baptism is only the baptism of the Spirit.
It is beyond the scope of this answer to outline all the concepts, principles and verses that are involved. I trust this short answer will be enough to 1) give the reason for my belief (even though you may not agree); and 2) encourage you to analyze your beliefs. You will only strengthen your ability to defend your faith regardless of the final conclusion.
We do hopefully agree on the most crucial issue of all: that the atoning blood of Jesus Christ is the effective ingredient of salvation and accepting Jesus Christ as the ONLY way to salvation IS a requirement of genuine salvation. That is clearly stated in Scripture and is what I put my hope and trust in.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Evangelion
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
- Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)
No, but he was obviously a believer. Why else would Jesus say to him that he would be in paradise?Jesusfollower wrote:Yet another doctrine and commandments of men as far as I can see.
The thief on the cross was not part of the Church Evangelion.
God commands some things for all of us - but in cases where we cannot perform them, His grace is sufficient!Even if that were not the case, if I am understand you, God commands some things for some of us but they do not apply to all in certain circumstances?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
God commands some things for all of us - but in cases where we cannot perform them, His grace is sufficient!
And/Or maybe if you can't be baptized then a true believer will be credited with Christ's baptism just like we are credited with His sinless life.
And/Or maybe if you can't be baptized then a true believer will be credited with Christ's baptism just like we are credited with His sinless life.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Jesusfollower
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: NW
I hope you will answer, rather than just quote scripture or refer to some article posted elsewhere[/quote]
Wow, listen to yourself " rather than quote scripture" what is the final word for you? I've seen this before, when truth bumps up against tradition, "we don't care what the scripture says" I have made my case.
Allyn a lengthy bunch of words to justify a man's doctrine Eph. is plain, one Baptism. Am I to take you and Homers word or God's. My answer is plain enough. I find it interesting you would say you were in leadership in the Church of Christ, do you think maybe you were influenced by that?
I know one thing for sure Homer in the book of Acts when someone did not Speak in Tongues they were concerned and went down there to sort it out.
The third reason why water baptism continued as a custom in the early Church was that few, if any, of Jesus’ original disciples had really understood what he said in Acts 1:5-8, and most were still practicing “the baptism of John.” Especially around Jerusalem, many ex-Jewish Christians were still “zealous for the law,” and the ritual of water baptism thus became deeply rooted in the Church. Even when the revelation of the Church Epistles was completely unfolded, and Ephesians 4:5 loudly proclaimed that there is only “ONE BAPTISM” for the Church, most believers continued to practice the old tradition of water baptism. Sad to say that the same holds true to this day.
Do what you want.
Wow, listen to yourself " rather than quote scripture" what is the final word for you? I've seen this before, when truth bumps up against tradition, "we don't care what the scripture says" I have made my case.
Allyn a lengthy bunch of words to justify a man's doctrine Eph. is plain, one Baptism. Am I to take you and Homers word or God's. My answer is plain enough. I find it interesting you would say you were in leadership in the Church of Christ, do you think maybe you were influenced by that?
I know one thing for sure Homer in the book of Acts when someone did not Speak in Tongues they were concerned and went down there to sort it out.
The third reason why water baptism continued as a custom in the early Church was that few, if any, of Jesus’ original disciples had really understood what he said in Acts 1:5-8, and most were still practicing “the baptism of John.” Especially around Jerusalem, many ex-Jewish Christians were still “zealous for the law,” and the ritual of water baptism thus became deeply rooted in the Church. Even when the revelation of the Church Epistles was completely unfolded, and Ephesians 4:5 loudly proclaimed that there is only “ONE BAPTISM” for the Church, most believers continued to practice the old tradition of water baptism. Sad to say that the same holds true to this day.
Do what you want.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Jesusfollower, you may choose to believe whatever you want to. I related my story on the subject but if that doesn't meet your criteria you may take it or leave it. If you believe in the trinity then you shouldn't have trouble with understanding two baptisms in one. But maybe so.Allyn a lengthy bunch of words to justify a man's doctrine Eph. is plain, one Baptism. Am I to take you and Homers word or God's. My answer is plain enough. I find it interesting you would say you were in leadership in the Church of Christ, do you think maybe you were influenced by that?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Allyn,
I must compliment you on your fine post, there is much good in it. I would ask you to consider something you may have overlooked.
You said:
If we say the person must repent we are requiring them to do something. Saving repentance is a "turning about", a change of life, not merely a change of mind.
Most evangelicals say the believe they are saved when they believe yet virtually all of them practice a conversion ritual of some sort (sinner's prayer, alter calls, close your eyes and raise your hand, ad infinitim), all of them without precedent in scripture, the invention of men.
With you, as with Steve, I have no practical difference regarding baptism.
There is one other point of interest. You said:
Blessings, Homer
I must compliment you on your fine post, there is much good in it. I would ask you to consider something you may have overlooked.
You said:
In regard to the scriptures you listed regarding "believe", seven of them are in the present tense in the Greek which indicates an ongoing or perservering faith rather than referring to the moment of belief and conversion. In other words "faithful till death....". One of the seven scriptures, John 20:31, is a present subjunctive active regarding "believe" and "have life" which indicates some uncertainty whether they will persevere in faith. James 2:23 is a quote from the OT, 1 Thess. 4:14 appears to be a comparison of those alive to Christians who have died, and Ephesians 1:13 simply indicates they believed prior to being sealed with the Spirit. Romans 4:24 seems to be unclear, referring to something that will occur. On balance, these scriptures would not seem to be relevant to when a person is born again. (Was 1John 1:5 a typo? I didn't see how it was relevant.)A cursory study of “believe” will result in a many verses stating that “belief in Christ” saves you, with no mention of Baptism (1John 1.5; 5.13; 1Pet 2.6; James 2.23; 1Thess 4.14; Eph 1.13; Rom 10.11; 4.24; 4.5; John 20.31; 6.47; 3.15-16; to list a few). These verses cannot be ignored anymore than can the typical “baptism” verses (Acts 2.38; 1Pet 3.21, etc). They ALL have to be considered together when concluding salvific doctrine.
Could not the same be said of believe? If a person is born again the moment they believe, how many can know when that occured? Doesn't faith generally grow from the seed implanted by the word? I know in my case it did. I have no consciousness of a moment when I passed from unbelief to faith. I do remember when I was baptized. Could not baptism be the God given "sensible token" of our salvation?Does the Bible teach plainly and specifically that the MOMENT of salvation is equal to moment of baptism? No. The verse doesn’t exist. It is a conclusion. Right or wrong, it is a conclusion.
If we say the person must repent we are requiring them to do something. Saving repentance is a "turning about", a change of life, not merely a change of mind.
Most evangelicals say the believe they are saved when they believe yet virtually all of them practice a conversion ritual of some sort (sinner's prayer, alter calls, close your eyes and raise your hand, ad infinitim), all of them without precedent in scripture, the invention of men.
With you, as with Steve, I have no practical difference regarding baptism.
There is one other point of interest. You said:
Evangelicals commonly disparage the Catholics for being sacramentalists. I believe many of them (evangelicals) are more sacramental than they would ever admit. I intend to start another thread regarding this, Lord willing.Some in the Church of Christ add to Baptism a sacramental (grace or salvation is imparted at or through the act) aspect that is not in Scripture.
Blessings, Homer
Last edited by karenstricycle on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Jesusfollower,
You said: "Wow, listen to yourself 'rather than quote scripture' what is the final word for you? I've seen this before, when truth bumps up against tradition, 'we don't care what the scripture says' I have made my case."
I do not know how you got the idea "we don't care what the scripture says". I certainly do, but it is more important to understand what the scripture means. That is why most of us bother to post here. I have learned a great deal, and changed some of my views as a result.
You may have heard "iron sharpens iron". Well, it dulls it too. I hope you will help in the sharpening process. We learn not by just quoting scripture, otherwise we would just read our bibles. As the noble Ethiopian said when Phillip inquired if he understood the scripture he was reading, "How could I, unless someone guides me"? We all need help.
You said:
To assert that the baptism in Ephesians 4:5 has no reference to water baptism strains credulity. Notice that in Hebrews 6:2 baptism ("washings", Greek baptismos, to baptise) is listed among the "ABC's" of the faith!
Why do you ignore my questions to you regarding the passage in Matthew 28:19-20? I can only assume you are unable to answer. If you are going to involve yourself at this forum, you had better do your homework, for any poorly reasoned and supported assertions (and well supported ones too!) will certainly be challenged.
May God bless, Homer
You said: "Wow, listen to yourself 'rather than quote scripture' what is the final word for you? I've seen this before, when truth bumps up against tradition, 'we don't care what the scripture says' I have made my case."
I do not know how you got the idea "we don't care what the scripture says". I certainly do, but it is more important to understand what the scripture means. That is why most of us bother to post here. I have learned a great deal, and changed some of my views as a result.
You may have heard "iron sharpens iron". Well, it dulls it too. I hope you will help in the sharpening process. We learn not by just quoting scripture, otherwise we would just read our bibles. As the noble Ethiopian said when Phillip inquired if he understood the scripture he was reading, "How could I, unless someone guides me"? We all need help.
You said:
Untrue. The practice continued because Jesus commanded it, Matthew 28:19-20. The entire early Church understood this; no unimmersed person was considered to be a Christian. To this the scriptures and all the early church fathers testify.The third reason why water baptism continued as a custom in the early Church was that few, if any, of Jesus’ original disciples had really understood what he said in Acts 1:5-8, and most were still practicing “the baptism of John.” Especially around Jerusalem, many ex-Jewish Christians were still “zealous for the law,” and the ritual of water baptism thus became deeply rooted in the Church.
To assert that the baptism in Ephesians 4:5 has no reference to water baptism strains credulity. Notice that in Hebrews 6:2 baptism ("washings", Greek baptismos, to baptise) is listed among the "ABC's" of the faith!
Why do you ignore my questions to you regarding the passage in Matthew 28:19-20? I can only assume you are unable to answer. If you are going to involve yourself at this forum, you had better do your homework, for any poorly reasoned and supported assertions (and well supported ones too!) will certainly be challenged.
May God bless, Homer
Last edited by karenstricycle on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean