Baptism doctrine, which way?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what is dying with Christ?

I take it to mean that because a person has experienced death, they have been released from the law that applies to the living. Christ's conquering of death allowed the person to survive the "death" of baptism.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Seems every church and person has their own distinct notions of baptism. The Catholics perform child sprinklings, the Baptist adult immersion, the Mormons for even the dead. Some deny it is even important at all. What are your beliefs concerning baptism and why?

Dunk em.

 

[e.r.m.]

So what is dying with Christ?

Dying with Christ is when our old self is crucified with Christ. (NASB)Romans 6:6
knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

 

[Villager]

I take it to mean that because a person has experienced death, they have been released from the law that applies to the living. Christ's conquering of death allowed the person to survive the "death" of baptism.

Baptism- that is, spiritual baptism, is itself death, death to the reign of sin, and in no way death to anything that does not deserve to die. It is a metaphorical washing, as well as a death, the making of a spiritual stand against the power of sin in one's life. It is the washing aspect that is also the killing aspect. It is sin that is 'washed away', and that gives life, spiritually, and does not threaten life. This appalling idea seems closer to murder than the gospel that gives abundant life.

The convert may then make a public, physical stand via water baptism to announce the fact of the spiritual change that is already complete. In view of the common practice of water baptism of unconverted people, a convert may consider this unnecessary, or even harmful, as it may well encourage people to think that all they have to do to become Christian is get themselves baptised in water. For the Christian, there are more effective ways of making one's faith known, as indeed there always were.

There are of course 'control freaks' to assist in this abuse or water baptism. They appoint themselves as specially qualified to baptise, gain a following, and teach that following many heresies, in great variety. I had not heard of this 'theology' of baptism before, certainly not in early Christianity, so it seems like a modern (as well as an utterly horrible) heresy- and very dubious, legally speaking.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

you could be talking about water baptism or baptism in the Holy spirit....

 

[Villager]

Not 'or'. Both, of course.

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

Why, please?

 

[Jethro]

There are many different forms of baptism today, but there was only one form in the days of John the Baptist and the early church (i.e. days of the apostles). It was believers baptism by immersion, which was an outward sign that the candidate had already died with Christ to their sinful nature/flesh, were buried with Christ, and were raised with Him to newness of life, through faith in Christ and repentance from sin. Believers baptism is not just for adults, but rather for those who are old enough to know their sins and to understand that Jesus Christ died to set sinners free from the power of sin, as well as from hell, whether they be 5 or 55. There is no "true" or "valid" Biblical evidence for infant baptism. For all the Biblical evidence clearly shows that all those baptised had believed the message. Furthermore, there is no "true" or "valid" Biblical evidence for sprinkling. For Jesus came up out of the water (Matt. 3:16), and so did the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:38). Moreover, the Catholic belief of baptismal regeneration is putting the cart before the horse. One needs to be regenerated (born again), before they can be baptised.

 

[e.r.m.]

There are many different forms of baptism today, but there was only one form in the days of John the Baptist and the early church (i.e. days of the apostles). It was believers baptism by immersion, which was an outward sign that the candidate had already died with Christ to their sinful nature/flesh, were buried with Christ, and were raised with Him to newness of life, through faith in Christ and repentance from sin. Believers baptism is not just for adults, but rather for those who are old enough to know their sins and to understand that Jesus Christ died to set sinners free from the power of sin, as well as from hell, whether they be 5 or 55. There is no "true" or "valid" Biblical evidence for infant baptism. For all the Biblical evidence clearly shows that all those baptised had believed the message. Furthermore, there is no "true" or "valid" Biblical evidence for sprinkling. For Jesus came up out of the water (Matt. 3:16), and so did the Ethiopian eunuYch (Acts 8:38). Moreover, the Catholic belief of baptismal regeneration is putting the cart before the horse. One needs to be regenerated (born again), before they can be baptised.

Villager and Jethro,
For the talk you both do about water baptism, as intended as a public profession of faith, all that, I ask you this: What mechanism do you use to put yourself at ease over the fact that (baptism=public profession of faith) never shows up written in the Bible? Is that not a concern?
Without an "Actual Scripture" to justify the teaching of this concept, all you have left is linguistic acrobatics.

 

[e.r.m.]

A good article on why baptism is not "a work."
Baptism, Faith, and Works