What Is The Purpose Of Baptism?

[tigrers2019]

The 2 water baptisms were the same: 'water baptisms of repentance' and they were 'unto the remission of sins'.

It was 'repentance unto the remission of sins' that was the thrust of the preaching of John, Paul in Acts 17:30, and Peter in Acts 11:18 .

The only thing different was the the authority of the master to disciple. This was signified by the phrase of whose name the baptized were made disciples of and their master's teaching they received.

 

[e.r.m.]

The 2 water baptisms were the same: 'water baptisms of repentance' and they were 'unto the remission of sins'.

It was 'repentance unto the remission of sins' that was the thrust of the preaching of John, Paul in Acts 17:30, and Peter in Acts 11:18 .

The only thing different was the the authority of the master to disciple. This was signified by the phrase of whose name the baptized were made disciples of and their master's teaching they received.

Thank you. I've heard this before, but before I respond, would you please tell me why you believe this is a downfall?

Thank you.

 

[metis]

We don't have the authority to baptize someone before faith. The Bible gives us only that order, faith/repentance & then baptism. Infant baptism has no meaning in the scriptures.

The Church separated baptism into two sacraments because of a plague that killed an estimated 1/3 of all children in Europe. Because the Gospel of Mark says that one must believe and be baptized in order to be saved, the Church allowed for infant Baptism and then coupled that with the sacrament of Confirmation.

In Acts, it mentions that an entire family was baptized, and at that point in time it was the father who was viewed as being the leader of the family, thus the wife and any children would typically be brought up as Christians. Even though adult baptism was the norm, there were some baptisms of entire families mentioned in 2nd century writings [source: "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson-- Anglican-- great book, btw, & if you can find a copy of it it's worth its weight in gold].

 

[Thief]

Ok Thief, how does Jesus baptizing by spirit and fire tie into the baptisms in water after Jesus's resurrection?

I don't think they do

 

[tigrers2019]

Thank you. I've heard this before, but before I respond, would you please tell me why you believe this is a downfall?

Thank you.

A New Testament example of water baptism being applied to one's having repented unto the remission of their sins, is found in Acts 19:4

Paul asked the people if they had received the Holy Spirit (miraculous power) when they came to faith. They said they knew nothing of a Holy Spirit. Paul asks what baptism they had undergone. They said; John's baptism.
Paul told them that VERILY (God's stamp of approval) John's baptism was sufficient showing that they had repented unto the remission of their sins, however, they were now without their master and they would have to become the disciples of the one John pointed to. They did this by being water baptized under His (Jesus) authority, name.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The teaching of 'water baptism unto the remission of sins' falls apart starting with this passage o scripture:

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. (Mk.1:4)

John baptized before the Messiah had shed his blood, so there was no forgiveness of sins. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. See Matthew 3:11 and Acts 19:4

Once the Messiah shed his blood, then forgiveness could be obtained by baptism in his name. Acts 2:38 That was the reason some who had been baptized unto John's baptism, were baptized again in Acts 19:1-6 This time in the name of the one that shed the blood, for forgiveness of their sins.

The Messiah taught that you must be born again, born of water and of the Spirit to enter the kingdom. John 3:3-5
A scriptural example of being born again - being born of water and of the Spirit:
They were born of the water when they were baptized in his name. Acts 19:5
And they were born of the Spirit when they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Acts 19:6

A 2nd example of being born again:
Here were some people in Samaria that had believed Philips preaching and were baptized in the name. (Born of water) Acts 8:12 and Acts 8:16
The apostles heard Samaria had received the word of God, and sent Peter and John to pray for them that they might receive the Spirit. Then it says they received the Holy Spirit. (Born of the Spirit) Acts 8:14-17

A 3rd example of being born again:
Peter was preaching to some Gentiles and they were filled with the Holy Spirit. (Born of the Spirit) Acts 10:44-46
Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name. (Born of water) Acts 10:47-48

 

[JJ50]

John baptized before the Messiah had shed his blood, so there was no forgiveness of sins. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. See Matthew 3:11 and Acts 19:4

Once the Messiah shed his blood, then forgiveness could be obtained by baptism in his name. Acts 2:38 That was the reason some who had been baptized unto John's baptism, were baptized again in Acts 19:1-6 This time in the name of the one that shed the blood, for forgiveness of their sins.

The Messiah taught that you must be born again, born of water and of the Spirit to enter the kingdom. John 3:3-5
A scriptural example of being born again - being born of water and of the Spirit:
They were born of the water when they were baptized in his name. Acts 19:5
And they were born of the Spirit when they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Acts 19:6

A 2nd example of being born again:
Here were some people in Samaria that had believed Philips preaching and were baptized in the name. (Born of water) Acts 8:12 and Acts 8:16
The apostles heard Samaria had received the word of God, and sent Peter and John to pray for them that they might receive the Spirit. Then it says they received the Holy Spirit. (Born of the Spirit) Acts 8:14-17

A 3rd example of being born again:
Peter was preaching to some Gentiles and they were filled with the Holy Spirit. (Born of the Spirit) Acts 10:44-46
Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name. (Born of water) Acts 10:47-48

YAWN!

 

[TrueBeliever37]

YAWN!

Why get involved if you truly don't believe the scriptures? Why waste your time? You might as well just enjoy whatever you can out of this life. If someone wants to believe 2+2 = 9 after I have shown them the answer is 4 , I don't just keep arguing with them about it.

 

[tigrers2019]

John baptized before the Messiah had shed his blood, so there was no forgiveness of sins. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. See Matthew 3:11 and Acts 19:4

Once the Messiah shed his blood, then forgiveness could be obtained by baptism in his name. Acts 2:38 That was the reason some who had been baptized unto John's baptism, were baptized again in Acts 19:1-6 This time in the name of the one that shed the blood, for forgiveness of their sins.

The Messiah taught that you must be born again, born of water and of the Spirit to enter the kingdom. John 3:3-5
A scriptural example of being born again - being born of water and of the Spirit:
They were born of the water when they were baptized in his name. Acts 19:5
And they were born of the Spirit when they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Acts 19:6

A 2nd example of being born again:
Here were some people in Samaria that had believed Philips preaching and were baptized in the name. (Born of water) Acts 8:12 and Acts 8:16
The apostles heard Samaria had received the word of God, and sent Peter and John to pray for them that they might receive the Spirit. Then it says they received the Holy Spirit. (Born of the Spirit) Acts 8:14-17

A 3rd example of being born again:
Peter was preaching to some Gentiles and they were filled with the Holy Spirit. (Born of the Spirit) Acts 10:44-46
Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name. (Born of water) Acts 10:47-48

One cannot digest the 'meat' until they are able to digest the 'milk'.

It is clear you are getting into the 'meat' before you are ready. The purpose of water baptism never changed from John the Baptist to Jesus and the 12, clear up to today. It was and still is, to show that the person has repented and who the master is of the baptized.

On (Jn.3:5,6) Jesus responds to the question of a man being able to crawl back into the womb to be born all over again. He contrasts the water of (Jn.3:5) with flesh. So the questioner now understands that this is being born from the womb.

We already know that water baptism has no ability to remove sins even though used figuratively to appease the conscience- (Acts 22:16) (1Pet.3:21).

As far as receiving the Holy Spirit as the Apostles did.....it is explained in Acts 11:17 that it was the (like) gift. Meaning that it was similar but not the measure to pass on power to others demonstrated throughout the New Testament.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

One cannot digest the 'meat' until they are able to digest the 'milk'.

It is clear you are getting into the 'meat' before you are ready. The purpose of water baptism never changed from John the Baptist to Jesus and the 12, clear up to today. It was and still is, to show that the person has repented and who the master is of the baptized.

On (Jn.3:5,6) Jesus responds to the question of a man being able to crawl back into the womb to be born all over again. He contrasts the water of (Jn.3:5) with flesh. So the questioner now understands that this is being born from the womb.

We already know that water baptism has no ability to remove sins even though used figuratively to appease the conscience- (Acts 22:16) (1Pet.3:21).

As far as receiving the Holy Spirit as the Apostles did.....it is explained in Acts 11:17 that it was the (like) gift. Meaning that it was similar but not the measure to pass on power to others demonstrated throughout the New Testament.

Your comments don't agree with scripture. Acts 2:38 ...be baptized everyone of you in the name for the remission (forgiveness) of sins...

Acts 22:16 ...arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins ... It's not just figurative, that is the purpose of water baptism. That is where the blood is applied.

 

[tigrers2019]

Your comments don't agree with scripture. Acts 2:38 ...be baptized everyone of you in the name for the remission (forgiveness) of sins...

Acts 22:16 ...arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins ... It's not just figurative, that is the purpose of water baptism. That is where the blood is applied.

The way the listeners heard Peter's preaching of Acts 2:38 is the same as the listeners of (Mk.1:4) and (Acts 11:18)....."Repent, everyone of you unto the remission of sins, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

 

[JJ50]

One cannot digest the 'meat' until they are able to digest the 'milk'.

It is clear you are getting into the 'meat' before you are ready. The purpose of water baptism never changed from John the Baptist to Jesus and the 12, clear up to today. It was and still is, to show that the person has repented and who the master is of the baptized.

On (Jn.3:5,6) Jesus responds to the question of a man being able to crawl back into the womb to be born all over again. He contrasts the water of (Jn.3:5) with flesh. So the questioner now understands that this is being born from the womb.

We already know that water baptism has no ability to remove sins even though used figuratively to appease the conscience- (Acts 22:16) (1Pet.3:21).

As far as receiving the Holy Spirit as the Apostles did.....it is explained in Acts 11:17 that it was the (like) gift. Meaning that it was similar but not the measure to pass on power to others demonstrated throughout the New Testament.

The way the listeners heard Peter's preaching of Acts 2:38 is the same as the listeners of (Mk.1:4) and (Acts 11:18)....."Repent, everyone of you unto the remission of sins, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

No thanks, I have no wish to be tainted with something like that, even if it isn't the mythical human creation I believe it to be.

 

[Muffled]

My Pentecostal church baptism by total immersion when I was a young teenager was absolutely hilarious, I still laugh when I think about it. A woman, probably in her 50s, was being baptised too. I had my swimsuit on under my long white baptismal gown, as did the other young people who were being baptised. The woman was done first, and oh dear, she had nothing on under her gown, which didn't leave anything to the imagination when she surfaced. The men in the congregation certainly got an eyeful. The women helpers rushed forward with towels to cover her. As you can imagine the young people were trying without much success to stifle their giggles.

I believe all you got was wet and a chuckle. I don't consider that a great bargain.

 

[Muffled]

There is no scripture for

-Christian's first act of obedience.

-Publically identifying with Christ or public profession of faith.

-Having a public event announcing that we are now a Christian.

-"Symbolizing"/"representing"/"illustrating" the dbr.

The Bible comes up empty on these.

I might not agree with the first part but I would say it is a required act which require obedience.
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[tigrers2019]

Unfortunately the section of scripture (Mk.16:9-20) has been found to be bogus.

It is an addition, which means the person or persons who added it (like many church leaders) were definitely not converted to Christ.

 

[e.r.m.]

I might not agree with the first part but I would say it is a required act which require obedience.
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

That goes for all of Jesus's commands. Baptism is nothing special that it should be called an act of obedience, while ALL OTHER commands are not. This phrase not written in the Bible is used only to try to give baptism in Jesus's name a purpose other than the purposes actually written in the Bible.

 

[e.r.m.]

The way the listeners heard Peter's preaching of Acts 2:38 is the same as the listeners of (Mk.1:4) and (Acts 11:18)....."Repent, everyone of you unto the remission of sins, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

Nah, I think they heard it just as it was said
Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

 

[e.r.m.]

A New Testament example of water baptism being applied to one's having repented unto the remission of their sins, is found in Acts 19:4

Paul asked the people if they had received the Holy Spirit (miraculous power) when they came to faith. They said they knew nothing of a Holy Spirit. Paul asks what baptism they had undergone. They said; John's baptism.
Paul told them that VERILY (God's stamp of approval) John's baptism was sufficient showing that they had repented unto the remission of their sins, however, they were now without their master and they would have to become the disciples of the one John pointed to. They did this by being water baptized under His (Jesus) authority, name.

You're adding to the scripture. Paul did not tell them John's baptism was sufficient showing that they had repented unto the remission of their sins

 

[e.r.m.]

The Church separated baptism into two sacraments because of a plague that killed an estimated 1/3 of all children in Europe. Because the Gospel of Mark says that one must believe and be baptized in order to be saved, the Church allowed for infant Baptism and then coupled that with the sacrament of Confirmation.

You may believe that church authority was equal to the authority of the Bible, I do not.

In Acts, it mentions that an entire family was baptized, and at that point in time it was the father who was viewed as being the leader of the family, thus the wife and any children would typically be brought up as Christians. Even though adult baptism was the norm, there were some baptisms of entire families mentioned in 2nd century writings [source: "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson-- Anglican-- great book, btw, & if you can find a copy of it it's worth its weight in gold].

The Philippian jailer account doesn't mention babies. and if it did have babies, that means that Paul and Silas would have had them woken up in the middle of night and preached the word of the Lord to them. Read the account again.

 

[metis]

You may believe that church authority was equal to the authority of the Bible, I do not.

It was the "Church authority" that chose the canon of the Bible you are using, and that was a highly contentious decision in the 4th century that took over a half-century to finish, and even over that time they were indecisive when it came to what we now call the "Apocrypha". Jesus said that he would guide the Church until the end of time, and Pentecost was one manifestation of that promise and is considered the "birthday" of the Church. And Paul said that we should follow the traditions that they left us, so not all was written that happened.

The Philippian jailer account doesn't mention babies. and if it did have babies, that means that Paul and Silas would have had them woken up in the middle of night and preached the word of the Lord to them. Read the account again.

Generally speaking, back then what the father was the rest of the family also was since Jewish and early Church society was highly patriarchal.

Either way, the issue really is far less important than one may think since baptism does not involve forgiving any sins beyond the sacrament/ordinance itself. IOW, it's a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Also, the element that is missing in infant baptism, namely belief, is made up in the sacrament of confirmation.

So, if you and your family don't believe in infant baptism, then maybe don't baptize your infants; but for those who do believe in it when it's matched with confirmation, I would suggest that this is their choice and is a rather logical one at that.

Finally, no church today is an exact replica of the early Church in terms of their practices. For example, do your women keep their hair covered in public? Are they silent in services? Does your church choose your leaders by drawing lots? Do you greet each other with a "holy kiss"? etc?

The Church has always been dynamic, not static, which is undoubtedly why Jesus said he would guide the Church. And a static church would need no guidance, so all churches make decisions on what they think is right.