Baptism?

[joeboonda]

... but you do joe... I don't know why you can't see that.

Christ's sacrafice is not enough for you.... it is your acceptance of that sacrafice that saves you.

Hehe... forget it... like I said in that other thread, I'm not having much luck communicating with LDS members... we'll just have to move on.

Lol, well of course that is what I mean by putting your trust in Christ alone, you accept the sacrifice, I dont disagree with you.

 

[joeboonda]

Joe, let's look at the first conversion: Acts 2

It began with a sermon that was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Peter helped them see that they were responsible for Jesus' death:

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" NIV

Now notice that they were truly convicted: "they were cut to the heart". Then they asked Peter what the next logical question; "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Now read the passage closely and note carefully the highlighted portion.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." NIV

You see, once you believe, you ask and then DO what God wants of you. Once you obey his simple request, you get the Holy Spirit. Not a gift FROM the Holy Spirit, but a gift OF the Holy Spirit. This was so different from John's baptism in that you recieved salvation as well as the Holy Spirit as a seal of that salvation.

Now, as an exercise, go and find a SINGLE example of conversion in the New Testament that does not include baptism. Just one, and that will convince me that baptism is "optional".

That is a very good arguement! I will have to get a better answer, can't right now, my son needs the computer, lol. I still contend that we are all baptised by one Spirit into the body of Christ, that salvation occurs the moment you believe, and baptism is a natural next step. In other words, we know we are saved because our works show it, and if someone does not want to be baptized after they accept Christ, then I question their conversion, as they have not the works that follow. But what about someone on their deathbed? Or is it too late for them? Anyway, I got to go, but that was a good arguement! Just for the record, I did get dunked, lol.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I wish I could take credit for the "argument", but all the credit belongs to God.

As for the "exceptions", well that is up to God (isn't it all?). If someone truly repented and wished to be baptised I could not imagine God letting them pass on before it happened.

II Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. NIV

Somehow I think Peter has the inside scoop on this. God is patient because God is love.

 

[true blood]

Not "exactly" .... the frequency of verses should not be a major factor in determining doctrine.... it is quite unscholarly to think that Christians should "count verses" do determine what the Lord intended....

I strongly disagree. The key to the true interpretation of the Word of God is always in The Word itself.

II Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

This means that if none of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, then I dare not, or you, interpret it or anyone else. Seems impossible, but if it truly is of no private interpretation, then it must of a necessity interpret itself. And that I believe it does. Why not count verses? Why not trace a word back to when it was used elsewhere, first, at an earlier time? Why is this unscholarly? And why does the Catholic church support private interpretation in violation of II Peter 1:20?

I am not doubting spiritual baptism.... but the "mode" of said baptism.... and the Apostles most certainly used the physical means (water baptism) to effect the spiritual... this sacramental theology has been the foundation of Christianity from the begining.... and that brings to mind the old addage "if it aint broke...."

The records of baptism in Acts, the book which records the events of Pentecost and thereafter, do not mention water at all; thus to say there is water involved in baptism (in these accounts of Scripture) can only be private interpretation. In Acts 2:28 Peter baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ", in Acts 8:16 people were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus", in Acts 9:18, "Paul received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." In Acts 19:5 "When they heard, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus". However, nowadays whenever the word "baptize" is mentioned, water is immediately associated with it because of the influence of religious doctrines while in the above verses water is never stated. With that in mind, and on the other hand, there are Scriptural accounts which imply the use of water in baptism that should be considered. Peter speaks of water in Acts 10:47"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Why does Peter include water in Acts 10 when earlier in Acts 2:28 he did not? The reason isn't for private interpretation. Peter himself clarifies this in Acts 11:16"Then remembered I [after I had ordered water baptism] the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

In Acts 19:2, 3 Paul asked certain disciples at Ephesus regarding what Apollos did. "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since [when] ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism [water]." So yes, water baptism did happen in Acts because Apollos had not been fully instructed even though something much greater had come to replace the water. Why? Acts 21:20 "...Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law" The people believed and therefore were saved, but the revelation had not yet been given explaining the magnitude of the coming of the holy spirit on Pentecost so the believers were still zealous for the law. And one of the requirements of that law was to be water baptized. People are still, to this day zealous of that law just like those people we read about in the Scriptures. They do not accept that which was addressed to them in the Epistles. Not once is water baptism ever mentioned in these Epistles. Still very few people dare to believe God's Word. Tradition is too comfortable a rut.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The records of baptism in Acts, the book which records the events of Pentecost and thereafter, do not mention water at all;

Really? How about the Ethiopian Eunuch?

Acts 8:36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. NIV

Are you suggesting this is a spiritual typo? Philip did not tell him that only the Spirit was used, but baptised him immediately IN WATER and without protestation. Refer to my previous post and re-read the promise of Acts 2:38; If we repent and are baptised into Jesus we are given the Holy Spirit. This is the baptism of the water AND the Spirit. John's baptism was just of water.

Acts 19:1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."


3 So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied. 4 Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all. NIV

Please notice two different actions here: They were baptised into Jesus (where they recieved the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) and then Paul put his hands on them (as is his apostolic right) to give them Spritual "gifts". A double dose of the Spirit!!

 

[Scott1]

And why does the Catholic church support private interpretation in violation of II Peter 1:20?

This statement makes NO sense at all.... the Catholic Church does not support private interpretation... that's why we have the pillar and bullwark of truth = the Church, to interpret scripture..... or you can just have the confusion of you and every other Protestant having a Bible of their own... having a God of their own... a church of their own.... etc.. the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Boy I am glad I am not a Protestant!

 

[joeboonda]

Yeah, the whole deal in Acts, Peter's sermon, was special, it was pentecost, the Jews were just receiving the Holy Spirit. Then later in Acts the Samaritans, the disciples of John the Baptist, and the gentiles recieved the Holy Spirit. Now when one believes, they are baptised into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, water baptism being an outward profession of that faith, and a symbol of the death, burial, and ressurection of Christ, and wonderful experience in obedience to the Lord.

Once a person has accepted Christ, at the moment one believes, they are saved. Everything after that is good works or bad works that are not meant for us to earn or keep our salvation but are a result of our salvation. We are saved by Christ's blood alone. So even though baptism is one of the first good works we do after we are saved, it is important to distinguish that it is something we do AFTER we our saved, not to get saved or keep saved, just like no amount of good works will save or keep you saved. God keeps us, his death covers ALL the sins of ALL the world which includes all your/my sins. So unless you want to lose your freedom in Christ, and become a legalist, like the Galatians, you should not add anything to Christ's death, by adding something else you do besides accepting the free gift, you take away from what he did. Again it was by his death, his blood, that our sins were paid for, and there is nothing we can do to add to that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Once a person has accepted Christ, at the moment one believes, they are saved.

Do you have a clear scriptural reference here? The crowd during Peter's first sermon believed: they were even cut to the heart. They didn't receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until they were baptised.

James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15S uppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.


18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24Y ou see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. NIV

Now deeds should not be confused with works. You can't do enough good "works" to get into heaven. But unless you do the deeds of believing, repenting and then are baptised, you have not shown your belief in God.

 

[true blood]

This statement makes NO sense at all.... the Catholic Church does not support private interpretation... that's why we have the pillar and bullwark of truth = the Church, to interpret scripture..... or you can just have the confusion of you and every other Protestant having a Bible of their own... having a God of their own... a church of their own.... etc.. the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.

Look. The Scriptures state that no Scripture is for private interpretation. You are saying, that the Church, true born again believers have the right to interpret. You are saying that. Not the Bible. The Bible teaches that the Scriptures interprets itself. But you, who disagree, think that you and other born again can interpret. ***. Your statement proves my point. No one, not even the Church, has the right to interpret the Scriptures. This is what the Scriptures teach. No one can interpret the Scriptures. Why do you not believe this? And how can you say the Catholic church doesn't support private interpretation when you quote all the time from a book outside of the Bible? (Note, you were the first to bring up Catholic vs. Protestant bullcrap and I personally feel like I've lowered myself in using such labels and I will gladly discard such labels that would separate us and I hope you feel the same) The Scriptures even teach about those who did and will support the water baptism, blood (spiritual) baptism and the mix of said elements baptism and it then confirms that only the blood (spiritual) baptism can clean a man. How does it not make sense? Are there too many dots to connect? Should it be a more plain and simple language? The truth is that baptism cannot be explained except by the Scriptures. Do you truly believe that a little water is going to clean a defiled man? Please.. Do you even know why a baptism is necessary? Are you aware that a price was paid by God for our baptism? The true baptism is being dipped into the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Only His blood can cleanse a man. Are you argueing that the blood of Jesus Christ does not clean a man? Do you believe that God rose Jesus Christ from the dead? I've read in one of your posts that you do not believe that God physically raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Is this true? If so, why do you consider yourself a member of the called-out? I"m not exactly calling you a poser but they are out there...ya know. Tell me, is the baptism being dipped in water? or being dipped in blood? Or do we need a mixture of elements?

Netdoc, I'm not saying baptism of water did not happen. After all it was an Old Testament law. I'm just saying something better came along. And the Enuch story proves nothing. Philip did not even mention the Holy Spirit. Please, what is a double dose of the Spirit? I'm strongly against people who feel that different measures are given unto people when the Scriptures say it fills all with all. Knockout

 

[Scuba Pete]

After all it was an Old Testament law.

WHAT??? Just where in the OT do you find baptism??? Naamun comes close, but it was not for repentance.

Maybe you should spend some time in personal study on a topic before you try to debate it.

I'm strongly against people who feel that different measures are given unto people when the Scriptures say it fills all with all.

OK, where do you get this notion? II Opinions 3:4???

Ephesians 4:7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men." 9 (What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. NIV

As for "interpretation", what do you think Paul was talking about?

 

[Scott1]

Look. The Scriptures state that no Scripture is for private interpretation. You are saying, that the Church, true born again believers have the right to interpret. You are saying that. Not the Bible. The Bible teaches that the Scriptures interprets itself.

The Bible teaches no such thing.... in fact, it makes no sense at all.... the Scripture is not a person, it is the word of God, and does not have to "interpret" itself... the PEOPLE who read it have to interpret what they read... and if Scripture is not to be interpreted by individuals... what does that leave? The Church. Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.... it must be interpreted by the same Spirit that led Peter to write that verse... it must be interpreted by the Bishops whom Peter and the other Apostles chose to lead the Church after they died... and they did this by the laying of hands.

(Note, you were the first to bring up Catholic vs. Protestant bullcrap and I personally feel like I've lowered myself in using such labels and I will gladly discard such labels that would separate us and I hope you feel the same)

Separate us? Would "Christian" work for you? Or do you not believe Catholics are Christians?

The truth is that baptism cannot be explained except by the Scriptures.

... but you just stated that YOU can't interpret Scripture... nor can I.... we both can quote passages that support each of our positions, who then, is correct?

Do you truly believe that a little water is going to clean a defiled man?

Nope.

Please.. Do you even know why a baptism is necessary?

Yes, thanks for asking.

Are you aware that a price was paid by God for our baptism? The true baptism is being dipped into the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Only His blood can cleanse a man.

Yes, I'm aware.... but can you tell me where I can find this "blood" so I can cleanse myself?

Do you believe that God rose Jesus Christ from the dead? I've read in one of your posts that you do not believe that God physically raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Is this true?

You must have misread my post... He is Risen, praise God.

If so, why do you consider yourself a member of the called-out? I"m not exactly calling you a poser but they are out there...ya know. Tell me, is the baptism being dipped in water? or being dipped in blood? Or do we need a mixture of elements?

Hehe... I've been called worse... but I would not suffer you the same treatment.

Peace in Christ,
Scott

 

[Scuba Pete]

Actually Scott,

the Bible almost always makes itself clear... at least in my mind. However, I don't think "interpretation" is being used correctly here. It really applied to the particular prophet's speach, and not to the subsequent understanding of it. The scriptures are pretty clear that the counselor (Holy Spirit) will make all things clear. It also makes it abundantly clear that we will understand more as we mature (use the word). Studying the Bible is great, but understanding God takes having his Spirit within us.

I Corinthians 2:6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16" For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. NIV (highlights are mine)

Not all of us will understand the scriptures the same way. Jesus is FAR bigger than our different understandings. Not all of us will respond precisely in the same way to his holiness. That's OK too. But our understanding is limited only by how much we submit to his Spirit and how far we allow God's grace to dwell in us.

 

[Scott1]

the Bible almost always makes itself clear... at least in my mind.

Pete,
To me, it is not a matter of the Bible being "almost always" clear... it is a matter of what are we to do on those occasions that we Christians can not "see" what is clearly written... get me?

You and I (if you don't mind me being less than humble) love the Lord with all our hearts.... we have been friends for about a year, interacting one-on-one almost every week during that time.... I would guess that we both read the Bible every day.... attend Church service as often as we can...... BUT...

... we still don't see eye to eye on many issues.

And that's ok... but my point about Scripture and how it relates to Baptism show that the Bible is VERY clear... but we sinners need glasses sometimes... hehe.... and true blood is a great example of that.... I think we both agree that he loves the Lord and is trying to remain faithful to Scripture.... but this, to me, is clear evidence that a sincere heart and a desire for the truth is not enough when reading the Bible.

 

[Scuba Pete]

When we don't understand we need to be patient and trust that God has it all figured out, even if we don't.

As for being friends: I think brothers is a better term. We see more in common with each other than not. And one day I am sure you will come around and see things rightly just like I do! :jiggy: Bwahahahaha! (Had to say it!)

 

[joeboonda]

Why is it Christians still do Baptism if they do not believe the creation story of Adam and Eve is literal? If one doesn't believe the Adam and Eve story is literal, it would stem to reason there shouldn't really be "origional sin" because this concept is based off Adam and Eve.

Hi, all! I believe the creation story of Adam and Eve is literal. Sin and therefore death came into the world when they sinned. Now we are all born with a sinful nature. While I do not believe any sacrement or ritual or work WE do will save us, I still feel it is important, in obedience to the Lord, to be baptized as a believer. I suppose there is nothing wrong with baptizing an infant, perhaps more for the parents' to raise them up in the Lord. I was always taught that concerning children, Jesus said to suffer the little children to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of God. Or, all children go to heaven, until they reach an age of accountability, where they can understand the gospel message and their need to accept Christ. But that's just me, I don't plan to argue that position, just wanted to state it. PEACE!

 

[Scott1]

When we don't understand we need to be patient and trust that God has it all figured out, even if we don't.

I do (we.. including Trueblood as well I'm sure) trust that God has things figured out... but we are not talking about God's "knowledge" but our own... and we, as believers, should want to get it "right"... and I just don't see that happening when every man interprets Scripture for themselves.

100 non-Catholics = 100 opinions
100 Catholics = 1 Statement of fact (as we see it)

I just would not leave something as important as my faith to chance.

Peace brother,
Scott

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ephesians 4:1 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. NIV

You see Scott... you depend on your church... I depend on the Spirit. He is the counselor for all Christians. I don't see where the church is given the role of "counselor" in the scriptures, but I do see that ascribed to the Spirit.

 

[Katzpur]

Ephesians 4:1 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. NIV

You see Scott... you depend on your church... I depend on the Spirit. He is the counselor for all Christians. I don't see where the church is given the role of "counselor" in the scriptures, but I do see that ascribed to the Spirit.

Here's more from Ephesians 4, NetDoc.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ..."

The Church Jesus Christ established was established according to a very specific organizational structure (which I don't believe the Catholic Church operates under today -- but that's a topic for another thread and another day). Paul is saying here that without this organization, Christ's followers would be like children, left to interpret doctrines on their own, being influenced by cunning and crafty men whose intent it is to deceive them.

Of course we need to depend on the Spirit to reveal the truth to us. But look how many, many different interpretations of "truth" people have come to, by depending upon the Spirit alone. How do you know that someone who believes differently from you and claims to be basing his belief on the Spirit isn't receiving correct "counsel"?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I quoted this in a seperate thread, Kat. Indeed the Spirit moves each of us as the Lord sees fit.