Baptism?

[ChristineES]

Some people who seem unemotional on the outside, may be filled with emotion that he hides from people.

 

[rocka21]

You described EMOTIONS here: For grins, fo find "fired up" or "fires you up" in the scriptures. It's definitely NOT the acid test for a Christian!

did i say it was an acid test for a christian? did i say it made you more or less of a christian?

 

[rocka21]

Now here you guys are also teaching that there is MORE than one baptism, and this goes directly against scriptures.

Ephesians 4:3 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

All this crazy talk of two or three baptisms just baffles me. No where in the scriptures does it mention a second type of baptism by which we can be saved, and especially not a third. Yes, there are laying on of hands by the apostles (we seem in short supply of apostles these days), but that is not an additional baptism. Why not just stick to the scriptures rather than inventing your own

you seem to have it all figured out scuba.

just one point here.

yes, there is ONE baptisim INTO the faimily of God.

that is the ( baptism in Jesus. Believe in your heart, confess with your mouth).

but, there are MORE than ONE baptism mentioned in the scriptures. so i am sticking with the scriptures.
acts 1
5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


wow! now thats crazy talk that baffles me!

 

[Scuba Pete]

you seem to have it all figured out scuba.

just one point here.

yes, there is ONE baptisim INTO the faimily of God.

that is the ( baptism in Jesus. Believe in your heart, confess with your mouth).

but, there are MORE than ONE baptism mentioned in the scriptures. so i am sticking with the scriptures.
acts 1
5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


wow! now thats crazy talk that baffels me!

Well, if you start eating locusts then go ahead and DO John's Baptism. After all, it predated the Baptism talked about by Peter in Acts 2. To the Lord, John's Baptism meant nothing at all, and so they were baptized again. That's why there is only ONE Baptism

Do I have things "figured out"? Well, I study the scriptures and follow them: not some talking head in a pulpit.

 

[rocka21]

Well, if you start eating locusts then go ahead and DO John's Baptism. After all, it predated the Baptism talked about by Peter in Acts 2. To the Lord, John's Baptism meant nothing at all, and so they were baptized again. That's why there is only ONE Baptism

Do I have things "figured out"? Well, I study the scriptures and follow them: not some talking head in a pulpit.

again,

the word baptism does not mean ( water).

why wouldn't acts or John mention water at all? Then the Holy Spirit came in the upper room. was there water there?

what about when Paul laid his hand and they were filled? did they go run and find a river first? why no mention of water?

also, when Peter baptized 3000 people in one day, did he really dunk 3000 in water? or were they saved by confession of the lord Jesus and baptized in the Holy Ghost. what water was there? 3000 dunks?

signed,
the talking head

 

[Scuba Pete]

Show me a baptism that said it used something OTHER than water.

 

[rocka21]

Show me a baptism that said it used something OTHER than water.

first show me the water in the upper room.

then, show me the water where Paul laid his hands and they were filled with the Holy Ghost.


Hebrews 6


1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.


and then explain why the doctrine of baptisms is plural here.

 

[Hope]

again,

the word baptism does not mean ( water).

why wouldn't acts or John mention water at all? Then the Holy Spirit came in the upper room. was there water there?

what about when Paul laid his hand and they were filled? did they go run and find a river first? why no mention of water?

also, when Peter baptized 3000 people in one day, did he really dunk 3000 in water? or were they saved by confession of the lord Jesus and baptized in the Holy Ghost. what water was there? 3000 dunks?

signed,
the talking head

I think you're extrapolating a bit, rocka.

As far as I can tell, any time baptism is mentioned in Scripture, without a qualifier---such as "in the Holy Spirit," "by fire," etc.----it means by water. So to say Peter didn't baptize all those people in water is reading into Scripture what isn't there. Why wouldn't there have been water there? They weren't in the desert were they?

 

[rocka21]

I think you're extrapolating a bit, rocka.

As far as I can tell, any time baptism is mentioned in Scripture, without a qualifier---such as "in the Holy Spirit," "by fire," etc.----it means by water. So to say Peter didn't baptize all those people in water is reading into Scripture what isn't there. Why wouldn't there have been water there? They weren't in the desert were they?

yes ,this is true. (but still debatable.)

but the point I was tring to make is that not all baptism is water.

 

[Scuba Pete]

the word baptism does not mean ( water).

It means immersed in a liquid. This is the problem with transliterations like this.

why wouldn't acts or John mention water at all? Then the Holy Spirit came in the upper room. was there water there?

You should study more. The Soreq was the river Jerusalem was founded on and was alive and well during the first century. There was PLENTY of dunking space available and I would have LOVED to have seen that sight!

what about when Paul laid his hand and they were filled? He didn't call that a baptism, now did he. They were baptized FIRST and then the hands were laid on them.

did they go run and find a river first? why no mention of water?

Of course, do you have proof that they didn't?

also, when Peter baptized 3000 people in one day, did he really dunk 3000 in water? or were they saved by confession of the lord Jesus and baptized in the Holy Ghost. what water was there? 3000 dunks?

The Soreq

signed,
the talking head

Then you should head this:

II Timothy 2:14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. NIV

For further evidence that WATER was used for baptism, please check out both Acts 8 and 10, and then I Peter 3.

 

[Quiddity]

first show me the water in the upper room.

then, show me the water where Paul laid his hands and they were filled with the Holy Ghost.


Hebrews 6


1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.


and then explain why the doctrine of baptisms is plural here.

Hmm...mine reads:

Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, instruction about baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

 

[rocka21]

still, no water in the upper room? where is it?

Of course, do you have proof that they didn't?

of course, you have no proof that they did. ( back and forth)


and Paul laid his hand after they were saved ( believe in Jesus) ( no mention of water)

 

[rocka21]

Hmm...mine reads:

Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, instruction about baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

why does yours read that way? mine is KJV.

still baptisms is plural. ( but with your traslation, you can say " many people"?)

 

[Scuba Pete]

1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.


and then explain why the doctrine of baptisms is plural here.

Easy enough: more than one person was baptized.

Here is what Paul said about differing baptisms:

I Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. NIV

Funny enough, some twist Paul's words here to try and prove that you don't NEED to be baptized.

 

[Quiddity]

why does yours read that way? mine is KJV.

That explains it.

 

[rocka21]

Then you should head this:

II Timothy 2:14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. NIV

I can easily use this scripture for you as well. ( eye of the beholder)

i beleive i correctly handle the word of truth. and you?

 

[rocka21]

Easy enough: more than one person was baptized.

or there is more than one baptism

 

[rocka21]

Easy enough: more than one person was baptized.

Here is what Paul said about differing baptisms:

I Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. NIV

Funny enough, some twist Paul's words here to try and prove that you don't NEED to be baptized.

I don't beleive in any other than baptizing in the name of Jesus also. so?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Let's look one last time at the conversion of the Ethiopian Ruler. Read carefully the verses that I have emboldened:

Acts 8:30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 31 "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."[e]
34 The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
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. 40 Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea. NIV

Some late manuscripts add: :37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." NIV

Here you have it as PLAIN as day. Phillip didn't use peanut butter or goat's milk. He didn't use tapioca or even sprinkle the Eunuch. They went down INTO the water where Phillip baptized him. You can argue with the sign post and take the wrong way home, but don't be surprised if we shake and scratch our heads and wonder why you go against the scriptures. Baptism means immersion and it's obvious with this passage that this immersion was into WATER.

Now, I am done. I have done my best. I will answer any questions, but I won't restate the Biblical case for using water during baptism.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't beleive in any other than baptizing in the name of Jesus also. so?

You were all excited about John's baptism a few posts before, calling it another baptism.