Baptism doctrine, which way?

[Villager]

If I understand what you're saying correctly, that historically, baptism was intended as a public profession of faith

Historically, water baptism has had a variety of conflicting interpretations. Scripturally, baptism was intended as a public profession of faith. There is no alternative to this view, within a Protestant context. If one believes that justification is by works, then water baptism as a means of justification can make sense.

The early church fathers, such as Tertullian, declared the purpose of baptism as forgiveness of sins and salvation.

Protestantism ignores such people (though Tertullian was a heretic even in Catholic eyes).

Historically, the notion of baptism for public profession of faith was popularized by Zwingli in the 1520's

Zwingli was not a tyrant, unlike Constantine, Theodosius and indeed all of those who insisted that the old paganisms of Rome be maintained under another name, and insist even today. Zwingli and many others like him did that which, only a few years previously, they would have been burned for. Zwingli and many others like him did that which, only a few years previously, could not have been done because the Bible was unavailable to people like them. One must regard history between Theodosius or perhaps Constantine and Wyclif or perhaps Marsilius as disqualified, a total blank, as far as the significance of Christian thought is concerned.

In addition there is no vocabulary in the Bible, in the slightest, describing 'the purpose' of baptism as public profession of faith.

There is no explicit definition of water baptism in the Bible. One has to extrapolate in order to define it. And when one has found it, and placed it in the present social context, one might well decide that it no longer exists, or matters. What matters is public witness of what Jesus has done in one's life.

 

[e.r.m.]

Historically, water baptism has had a variety of conflicting interpretations. Scripturally, baptism was intended as a public profession of faith. There is no alternative to this view, within a Protestant context. If one believes that justification is by works, then water baptism as a means of justification can make sense.

Protestantism ignores such people (though Tertullian was a heretic even in Catholic eyes).

Zwingli was not a tyrant, unlike Constantine, Theodosius and indeed all of those who insisted that the old paganisms of Rome be maintained under another name, and insist even today. Zwingli and many others like him did that which, only a few years previously, they would have been burned for. Zwingli and many others like him did that which, only a few years previously, could not have been done because the Bible was unavailable to people like them. One must regard history between Theodosius or perhaps Constantine and Wyclif or perhaps Marsilius as disqualified, a total blank, as far as the significance of Christian thought is concerned.

There is no explicit definition of water baptism in the Bible. One has to extrapolate in order to define it. And when one has found it, and placed it in the present social context, one might well decide that it no longer exists, or matters. What matters is public witness of what Jesus has done in one's life.

Thank you for your response. Will respond either after work or little by little throughout the day.

First, there is no SCRIPTURAL basis whatsoever, that baptism was intended as a public profession of faith. The protestant context is flawed. Example, labeling baptism as a work, -major flaw, since the
scriptures themselves do not label baptism as a work, I checked. An overwhelming majority of
protestant baptism theologies are based on "Extrapolating", such as the baptism-works thing, in the
absence of scriptures.

Second, Tertullian was one of several early church fathers who believed baptism was for salvation and forgiveness. On what basis was Tertullian considered a heretic and by whom? The catholic church as late at the council of trent still believed that baptism saved. The earlier in the church record you go the greater the consensus is that baptism is for forgiveness and salvation. Will address the abscence of the Bible, prior to Wycliff probably next post.

 

[Walkntune]

I have pondered on the argument of full ermerging or being sprinkled and have come to the conclusion that since it is about the cleansing of the inside of a person that maybe they should just drink a glass of water.
Really as far as my own understanding it symbolizes the death,burial and resurection of Jesus and being fully emerged seems to resemble a better symbolism.
Also when it comes to the baptism of the Spirit I want to be fully emerged and not just sprinkled!

 

[Villager]

Thank you for your response. Will respond either after work or little by little throughout the day.

First, there is no SCRIPTURAL basis whatsoever, that baptism was intended as a public profession of faith.

People came to John in public. The Pharisees did so, evidently in order to make themselves seem pious, and certainly not to make themselves pious. There is no evidence that water baptism was any more than a public profession of faith.

 

[e.r.m.]

People came to John in public. The Pharisees did so, evidently in order to make themselves seem pious, and certainly not to make themselves pious. There is no evidence that water baptism was any more than a public profession of faith.

There is no evidence that the purpose of baptism IS a public profession of faith. Tell me where in John's baptism stories that the "purpose" of baptism is either commanded or described as a public profession of faith or tell me where it describes the "purpose" of the public setting. Scriptural basis/evidence means vocabulary. Come on, AT LEAST 1 direct scripture in the entire Bible! A specific doctrine that is based "entirely" on reading between the lines is REALLY BAD theology. The whole of Protestant theology on baptism is a house of cards. I don't mean you personally, but the system that has trained you to take scriptures loosely.

 

[Villager]

There is no evidence that the purpose of baptism IS a public profession of faith.

People came to John in public. The Pharisees did so, evidently in order to make themselves seem pious, and certainly not to make themselves pious.

' the "purpose" of baptism'

... is nowhere stated- as already stated.

A belief system that is based "entirely" on reading between the lines is REALLY BAD theology.

Then Catholicism must be in that category.

 

[e.r.m.]

People came to John in public. The Pharisees did so, evidently in order to make themselves seem pious, and certainly not to make themselves pious.



... is nowhere stated- as already stated.


Then Catholicism must be in that category.

It is not evident, there is no vocabulary. The pious motives you mentioned are called "inference" not "evident." The pharisees could also have thought they could flee the coming wrath with baptism alone and been called out by John the baptist to repent also. The fact is, it doesn't say what their motives were, we can only infer. "Inference" is not "evidence" or "evident" to indicate the "purpose" of baptism was a public profession of faith. It holds no weight.

Actually, the purpose is explicitly stated. But first we're establishing the claim of public profession of faith "is nowhere written." Tell me if we agree on that part. When we have a choice between "between the lines" doctrine and explicitly stated, we should follow the explicitly stated.

We can also both agree that Catholicism falls into that category. I am not catholic, but to be fair, catholics do not claim that following the Bible closely is necessary, but we do (John 12:47-48).

 

[e.r.m.]

I have pondered on the argument of full ermerging or being sprinkled and have come to the conclusion that since it is about the cleansing of the inside of a person that maybe they should just drink a glass of water.
Really as far as my own understanding it symbolizes the death,burial and resurection of Jesus and being fully emerged seems to resemble a better symbolism.
Also when it comes to the baptism of the Spirit I want to be fully emerged and not just sprinkled!

We can discuss opinion all day, but does the Bible "say" what you say about baptism? If so, where?

 

[Walkntune]

We can discuss opinion all day, but does the Bible "say" what you say about baptism? If so, where?

No the bible never mentioned using a glass. They used a river!
This is what it says about Jesus's baptism.

. In Matthew 3:16 the New Testament records, "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him." The description is clear that John and Jesus were in the River Jordan and when as John lifted Jesus up from being immersed, the Holy Spirit descended on Him.

Doesn't sound like he was sprinkled to me since he went up straightway out of the water.Maybe there were others around who got sprinkled from a splash as He went straightway and started a mass confusion!

 

[e.r.m.]

No the bible never mentioned using a glass. They used a river!
This is what it says about Jesus's baptism.

. In Matthew 3:16 the New Testament records, "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him." The description is clear that John and Jesus were in the River Jordan and when as John lifted Jesus up from being immersed, the Holy Spirit descended on Him.

Doesn't sound like he was sprinkled to me since he went up straightway out of the water.Maybe there were others around who got sprinkled from a splash as He went straightway and started a mass confusion!

Your funny!, lol.
Yes, the Bible refers to immersion, absolutely. I was referring more to baptism being just symbolism.

 

[Walkntune]

Your funny!, lol.
Yes, the Bible refers to immersion, absolutely. I was referring more to baptism being just symbolism.

Ok I will riddle you that if you ridlle me this.In the scripture they drank of the blood of Jesus and ate of his flesh. Was it symbolic? If so please clarify witht the scriptures.
John Ch. 6
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

I will go a head and reference a few scriptures and why i said it is symbolic of the Death,burial and resurection of Christ.
Romans 6:4
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Colossians 2:12
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

 

[e.r.m.]

I don't know where you live. It is late here. Will reply by thursday. Tomorrow is extremely busy, until then.

 

[e.r.m.]

Sorry for the delay. I still plan to answer.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

baptism is for adults not children and should be full immersion, they should be baptised in the name of the father, the son and the Holy spirit...

 

[Villager]

should be full immersion, they should be baptised in the name of the father, the son and the Holy spirit

Why, please?

 

[e.r.m.]

Why, please?

The original command in the Greek given by Jesus and all the apostles is "Dipize"=to immerse.

 

[e.r.m.]

Why, please?

The original command in the Greek given by Jesus and all the apostles is "Dipize" = to immerse. The catholics who conducted the first non-immersion baptisms, were duly primanded by their peers for their disobedience to the scripture.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I remember a while back, one of the other members here (sojourner) mentioned something about how in the early church, baptism was performed by full immersion... and holding the person under water nearly to the point of drowning, in order to induce a near-death experience.

I don't know how well that's supported, but I think it helps a fair bit of what Paul says about "dying with Christ" to make much more sense.

 

[Villager]

So what is dying with Christ?

 

[e.r.m.]

I've never heard of the near death experience baptism teaching. But full immersion baptism is historically supported.