Is being baptised twice better than once?

[Shiversblood]

When I was a baby I was baptised in a catholic church by being sprinkled by holy water from a priest. And when I was 15 I was baptised in my non-denomational church submerged by my pastor. I asked some of the other people in the church if they were baptised as a baby, and like only one of them were. So the question is, is two better than one? Should every baby be baptised at birth even if they are Christian. My cousin was baptised in a catholic church even though his family is niether catholic or christian or etc.

[icedtea]

Same story here, except I was 25 when I was baptized for real.
It meant nothing to me as an infant, and God was never real to me.
So yes, one baptism, but only if one is old enough to understand.

[Zecryphon]

When I was a baby I was baptised in a catholic church by being sprinkled by holy water from a priest. And when I was 15 I was baptised in my non-denomational church submerged by my pastor. I asked some of the other people in the church if they were baptised as a baby, and like only one of them were. So the question is, is two better than one? Should every baby be baptised at birth even if they are Christian. My cousin was baptised in a catholic church even though his family is niether catholic or christian or etc.
Not if you get it right the first time.

[holo]

You should cover your bases and get one baptism in each denomination :)

[icedtea]

But I was non denom, so it was a non baptism?
Really, though, one baptism after you realize Jesus.

[bithiah2]

When I was a baby I was baptised in a catholic church by being sprinkled by holy water from a priest. And when I was 15 I was baptised in my non-denomational church submerged by my pastor. I asked some of the other people in the church if they were baptised as a baby, and like only one of them were. So the question is, is two better than one? Should every baby be baptised at birth even if they are Christian. My cousin was baptised in a catholic church even though his family is niether catholic or christian or etc.

baptism is an act of personal faith in Christ, according to the Bible. when people were baptized, it was because of faith in God. a baby cannot excersise personal faith in God, because they are not yet responsible for what they do. i have never read anywhere in the Bible that every baby should be baptized, and they cannot be a christian except by choice. a lot of my family is episcopalian (anglican) and i was sprinkled. but i had to make my own choice.

blessings:bow:

bithiah2

[New_Wineskin]

When I was a baby I was baptised in a catholic church by being sprinkled by holy water from a priest. And when I was 15 I was baptised in my non-denomational church submerged by my pastor. I asked some of the other people in the church if they were baptised as a baby, and like only one of them were. So the question is, is two better than one? Should every baby be baptised at birth even if they are Christian. My cousin was baptised in a catholic church even though his family is niether catholic or christian or etc.

Water baptism is a Jewish ritual that was performed sometimes many times in ones life as it was a symbolic ritual of forgiveness because of repentance .

You can perform the ritual as many times as you want - even none . It is only getting wet .

[Zecryphon]

Water baptism is a Jewish ritual that was performed sometimes many times in ones life as it was a symbolic ritual of forgiveness because of repentance .

You can perform the ritual as many times as you want - even none . It is only getting wet .
Wineskin,

if baptism is nothing more than getting wet, why bother getting baptized at all? There has to be more to it than that.

[onelamb]

We get baptised to symbolize our new life with Christ. Once you are saved-you should be baptised as an act of obedience to your Lord. It doesn't save you-but is for those who are already under the Blood.

[Zecryphon]

We get baptised to symbolize our new life with Christ. Once you are saved-you should be baptised as an act of obedience to your Lord. It doesn't save you-but is for those who are already under the Blood.
When you use the word "we" here, are you talking about Christians as a whole or are you saying Pentacostals as a group hold to this view?

[GrannieAnnie]

I was baptised and raised in a Catholic family. I left the Catholic church 20 yrs ago. I always thought my Catholic baptism was ok, but after I left the church I had a great desire to be fully baptised as a free Christian rather than as a Catholic. I was baptised by a non denom minister in the Indian Ocean in 1992 and it was the most MARVELLOUS experience of my life.

[Shiversblood]

I think having the baby baptised is the right thing to do, and if they want to be baptised when they are older too they can.

[icedtea]

There you go! But some say One baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

[New_Wineskin]

Wineskin,

if baptism is nothing more than getting wet, why bother getting baptized at all? There has to be more to it than that.

There *is* more to it than that - manmade doctrines to make it about salvation by works of the hands . Paul goes on and on about that and gets quite riled at Jewish believers attempting to have the Gentile believers circumcized . He goes on to say that they may as well go all the way and emasculate themselves .

Here , we have another Jewish ritual and people are insisting that new believers do *that* . Paul would say that they may as well go all the way and drown themselves .

To those that the Lord leads to have water baptism performed , that is all well and good . The majority are convinced by people who insist on the doctrine .

[New_Wineskin]

We get baptised to symbolize our new life with Christ. Once you are saved-you should be baptised as an act of obedience to your Lord. It doesn't save you-but is for those who are already under the Blood.

If it doesn't save you - there is no "should" . If the Lord *does* tell you to be water baptized , there is a "should" . But , that is a big "if" .

[Zecryphon]

There *is* more to it than that - manmade doctrines to make it about salvation by works of the hands . Paul goes on and on about that and gets quite riled at Jewish believers attempting to have the Gentile believers circumcized . He goes on to say that they may as well go all the way and emasculate themselves .

Here , we have another Jewish ritual and people are insisting that new believers do *that* . Paul would say that they may as well go all the way and drown themselves .

To those that the Lord leads to have water baptism performed , that is all well and good . The majority are convinced by people who insist on the doctrine .
"There *is* more to it than that - manmade doctrines to make it about salvation by works of the hands."

I don't believe that salvation through water baptism is available through the works of man, but is only available through the power of God's Word combined with the water, otherwise it's just plain water in there and all you end up with is a wet person.

"Here , we have another Jewish ritual and people are insisting that new believers do *that* . Paul would say that they may as well go all the way and drown themselves ."

I believe the ritual you're talking about is miqveh, which is a ritual cleansing. It is similar to the reformed view of baptism which states that it is a symbolic ritual only and is devoid of any salvific power. My Archaeological Bible says the following it actually says alot more than this, but I don't have the time to type it all out. These are the highlights:

Ritual immersion in water, or baptism, represented a powerful and frequently used religious symbol in ancient Judaism. This sacramental ceremony was enacted to symbolize purification and the removal of sin or was sometimes used as an initiation rite to consecrate a change of stature or a conversion.
In the OT, rites of immersion were associtated with maintaining ritural purity, especially for priests (Leviticus 15, 16:4,24. During the NT period, water itself and immersion in water functioned as the primary means by which ritual impurity was removed within Pharisaic Judaism, (Matthew 15:2; John 2:6).
A number of Jewish ritual baths, or miqvaot (singular miqveh), have been excavated in Jerusalem, Jericho and elsewhere. By rabbinical law these had to hold at least 60 gallons of water and be deep enough to completely immerse the body.
The Gospels present the bpatism of John as a necessary precursor to the public ministry of Jesus, who would baptize, "with the Holy Spirit and with fire," (Matthew 3:11). The risen Jesus sanctioned this sacramental act as an important aspect of conversion, requiring baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19)."To those that the Lord leads to have water baptism performed , that is all well and good . The majority are convinced by people who insist on the doctrine ."

I'm convinced by Jesus' own words in Matthew 28:19, not by doctrines of men. But your point is noted.

[New_Wineskin]

Hey , :wave:

"There *is* more to it than that - manmade doctrines to make it about salvation by works of the hands."

I don't believe that salvation through water baptism is available through the works of man, but is only available through the power of God's Word combined with the water, otherwise it's just plain water in there and all you end up with is a wet person.



Yup .





"Here , we have another Jewish ritual and people are insisting that new believers do *that* . Paul would say that they may as well go all the way and drown themselves ."

I believe the ritual you're talking about is miqveh, which is a ritual cleansing. It is similar to the reformed view of baptism which states that it is a symbolic ritual only and is devoid of any salvific power. My Archaeological Bible says the following it actually says alot more than this, but I don't have the time to type it all out. These are the highlights:

Ritual immersion in water, or baptism, represented a powerful and frequently used religious symbol in ancient Judaism. This sacramental ceremony was enacted to symbolize purification and the removal of sin or was sometimes used as an initiation rite to consecrate a change of stature or a conversion.
In the OT, rites of immersion were associtated with maintaining ritural purity, especially for priests (Leviticus 15, 16:4,24. During the NT period, water itself and immersion in water functioned as the primary means by which ritual impurity was removed within Pharisaic Judaism, (Matthew 15:2; John 2:6).
A number of Jewish ritual baths, or miqvaot (singular miqveh), have been excavated in Jerusalem, Jericho and elsewhere. By rabbinical law these had to hold at least 60 gallons of water and be deep enough to completely immerse the body.
The Gospels present the bpatism of John as a necessary precursor to the public ministry of Jesus, who would baptize, "with the Holy Spirit and with fire," (Matthew 3:11). The risen Jesus sanctioned this sacramental act as an important aspect of conversion, requiring baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).


Wow . That third one places it right back into being a salvation ritual . However , the rest is what I have been discussing . So , we are more or less on the same page ( except for that last part ) .





"To those that the Lord leads to have water baptism performed , that is all well and good . The majority are convinced by people who insist on the doctrine ."

I'm convinced by Jesus' own words in Matthew 28:19, not by doctrines of men. But your point is noted.

The Jewish believers were also convinced by the Lord's own words about circumcism and Paul went nuts - even concerning those Gentiles that would be convinced as you have been . I see the same idea behind water baptism as that of the Jewish believer's idea behind circumcism : The writings say so - so do it . The exception is that the Jews had a more specific command while those insisting on water don't .

I am glad that you were not convinced by another person's leading and teaching but by looking into it completely by yourself and no encouragement or threat to do so . I have not been convinced thus far and attempt to at least slow people down towards it in the meantime .

Thank you for seeing my point . I understand yours . :)

[onelamb]

If it doesn't save you - there is no "should" . If the Lord *does* tell you to be water baptized , there is a "should" . But , that is a big "if" .
Jesus said,...

"Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations baptising them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

[New_Wineskin]

Jesus said,...

"Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations baptising them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

My post was ...
If it doesn't save you - there is no "should" . If the Lord *does* tell you to be water baptized , there is a "should" . But , that is a big "if" .



Where does your quote mention that all people today *should* be water baptized ?

Who did He say that to ? Some person named "ye" that was in His company . The quote certainly tells nobody that they *should* be baptized only that those He was talking to were *to* baptize .

If that quote *were* to all people *today* , how many nations have you been making disciples thus far ? If not "all" , then you must not be in a hurry to do so . Others then don't need to be in a hurry to get wet .

[RenaeN]

I don't believe in baptizing babies. They are too young to know right from wrong, so I see no point. I myself was emersed twice. The second time was when I truely understood what I was doing. The first, I was pressured into doing.

As to the baptism debate, I am of the mind that you need to be baptized. There are a number of verses that talk about it. However as wineskin points out nothing says specifically that you "should" or "must" be baptized.

I believe that you should. My reasons for this are based in the Bible. Jesus himself was bapized, Paul was baptized and I am of the mind that if Jesus did it, that if Jesus said to baptize people and that Paul baptized people, then simply for the reasons that we are told to baptize, that we SHOULD be baptized. If Jesus didn't want it to happen to people, then why did he himself set the example of baptism and TELL people to baptize? I don't think he said anything just to say something. So I see it as an outward sign of inward faith, because as was pointed out, the baptism itself is just like taking a bath or jumping in the pool, but if you are doing it to show the world where your allegance lies and because Jesus himself did it, then it becomes something much more meaningful.

[stelow]

If it doesn't save you - there is no "should" . If the Lord *does* tell you to be water baptized , there is a "should" . But , that is a big "if" .

New_Wineskin, God is not going to tell you anything about it like the way you are saying but the Word of God has already revealed to us we should be baptized. Those who support baptism as necessary for salvation have no biblical grounds to do so. Baptism is a religious work and is not necessary for salvation. The Word of God does support water baptism as a public act of submission that identifies the person being baptized with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The Word of God does not tell us works are not necessary just that they are not necessary for salvation.

Matthew 5:16 - "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

[New_Wineskin]

Hi !! :)

New_Wineskin, God is not going to tell you anything about it like the way you are saying but the Word of God has already revealed to us we should be baptized.


How so ? Where does the Law say that "we" ( indicating *me* ) "should" be water baptized ? If you are convinced that they say that *you* should , that is fine and good . But , "we" ? The Lord did not reveal that to me .

What way am I saying that the Lord would tell me something ?



Those who support baptism as necessary for salvation have no biblical grounds to do so.


Yet , you just stated that there was biblical support . If it is a "should" , it is a should for salvation . Otherwise , why "should" ? No effect on salvation means no "should" .



Baptism is a religious work and is not necessary for salvation. The Word of God does support water baptism as a public act of submission that identifies the person being baptized with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The Word of God does not tell us works are not necessary just that they are not necessary for salvation.


If they are necessary , it could only mean "for salvation" . Otherwise , they wouldn't be necessary .

Paul didn't tell the Gentile believers that it was necessary for them to be circumcized - necessary but not for salvation . The Jewish believers said the same thing you did . They had the Scriptures ( you call "the Word of God" ) and had an exact quote from the Lord that the believers should be circumcized . Yet , Paul said not to do it at all . They had the same argument as you but Paul said "no" .

Now , both circumcism and water baptism are Jewish rituals . But , circumcism was far more important . And , to that Paul said , "no" . And , Paul even stated that he was glad that he didn't water baptize because people were *already* doing stupid things because of it . He even stated that he didn't come to baptize but to present the gospel - indicating that water baptism was not a part of the gospel .



Matthew 5:16 - "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

That doesn't say to do those works just because His quote would be written down at a later time . Those works come naturally . Once you do works for the sake of doing them , you are doing them as by Law and without faith - dead works .

Even so , back to the topic , water baptism was not identified as one of those good works .

[icedtea]

Romans 10:9
For if you confes with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

If baptism were necessary for salvation, it would've said it there.
case closed.

[Aibrean]

When babies are baptized, it a confessional of faith from the parents to lead the child to Christ through family and regular church attendance.

We have a confirmation class (ours is 8th grade) to reinforce this in children.

Personally I was dedicated (never baptized) and never was baptized until I went to the church where I'm at now and so I was baptized and joined as a member the same day (I did take a membership class which is required...and it goes over everything from salvation to the history of the Lutheran church).

The question itself I think can be answered as no. Once you are baptized you are baptized...if you are were a baby then you can appreciate it later.

[Zecryphon]

New_Wineskin, God is not going to tell you anything about it like the way you are saying but the Word of God has already revealed to us we should be baptized. Those who support baptism as necessary for salvation have no biblical grounds to do so. Baptism is a religious work and is not necessary for salvation. The Word of God does support water baptism as a public act of submission that identifies the person being baptized with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The Word of God does not tell us works are not necessary just that they are not necessary for salvation.

Matthew 5:16 - "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."
For everyone who thinks baptism is symbolic only and has nothing to do with salvation read this before you declare "case closed":

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_baptism.pdf

[twistedsketch]

I fail to see the value in baptizing a baby, because there is nothing special about the water - the significance takes place in the heart (1 Peter 3:21).

[JolieHeart]

Twice vs. once.... Lots of support for both trains of thought. For lack of better wording, it can't hurt to cover all the bases and do both, if one is so inclined.

[Aibrean]

To twistedsketch : From WELS.org (I love their extensive Q/A)

Baptism is a gospel promise from God. It is not contrary to "grace alone" but is in fact one of the greatest expressions of grace alone. The child brings nothing to God, but is a recipient of God's grace. It is actually the Baptist view of baptism which is a denial of grace alone, because it makes baptism into a pledge we are making to God rather than a pledge God is making to us.

Baptism is not contrary to "by faith alone," since baptism as a gospel promise is aimed at creating faith as every gospel promise is. No one will be saved without faith.

Baptism is a gracious promise of God, but a person can reject that grace and fall from faith. No one will benefit from baptism without faith.

You will find extensive discussion of the passages about the power of baptism by searching infant baptism in the archive section of this site. Really only one passage is needed. 1 Peter 3 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=&passage=1+Peter+3)says baptism saves us. It does this not as a magic rite but by connecting us with Christ's resurrection.

[Aibrean]

From 1Peter 3:21 "and this water symbolizes baptism"

The water SYMBOLIZES baptism..not baptism is a symbol. In context...it's talking about how Noah was saved through water and that is a symbol of how WE are saved through baptism.

[Aibrean]

I fail to see the value in baptizing a baby, because there is nothing special about the water - the significance takes place in the heart (1 Peter 3:21).

If there wasn't anything special about water then we wouldn't be using it.

If we weren't using water we wouldn't be calling it baptism.

Baptism is derived from the Greek "Baptizo" which refers to ceremonial washing.

[twistedsketch]

Baptism is a gospel promise from God. It is not contrary to "grace alone" but is in fact one of the greatest expressions of grace alone. The child brings nothing to God, but is a recipient of God's grace. It is actually the Baptist view of baptism which is a denial of grace alone, because it makes baptism into a pledge we are making to God rather than a pledge God is making to us.
Except what Peter said in the letter is the opposite. Not only that, the Catholic/Orthodox tradition which came up with infant baptism denies "grace alone" since if grace was a work, it would no longer be grace.


Baptism is not contrary to "by faith alone," since baptism as a gospel promise is aimed at creating faith as every gospel promise is. No one will be saved without faith.
However, the problem you run into there is people baptizing their children as babies, and thinking that's it for the rest of their lives. They place more emphasis on the baptism than they do the faith.


Baptism is a gracious promise of God, but a person can reject that grace and fall from faith. No one will benefit from baptism without faith.
Precisely why infant baptism has no value.


You will find extensive discussion of the passages about the power of baptism by searching infant baptism in the archive section of this site. Really only one passage is needed. 1 Peter 3 says baptism saves us. It does this not as a magic rite but by connecting us with Christ's resurrection.
Yes, but the baptism that counts is an obedient baptism done in faith, as verse 21 illustrates.

[New_Wineskin]

Romans 10:9
For if you confes with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

If baptism were necessary for salvation, it would've said it there.
case closed.

That is correct .

[New_Wineskin]

Twice vs. once.... Lots of support for both trains of thought. For lack of better wording, it can't hurt to cover all the bases and do both, if one is so inclined.


Or , even once a year .

I am water baptized every day when I take a shower . And , the Lord water baptizes me Himself whenever I walk in the rain .

[New_Wineskin]

From 1Peter 3:21 "and this water symbolizes baptism"

The water SYMBOLIZES baptism..not baptism is a symbol. In context...it's talking about how Noah was saved through water and that is a symbol of how WE are saved through baptism.


And , the baptism through which we are saved is the baptism the Lord went through in His real death , burial , and ressurection . *That* is the baptism that saves - *that* is the gospel .

18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%203&version=31#fen-NIV-30428d)] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%203&version=31#fen-NIV-30430e)] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
(NIV)

Water baptism was used as a symbol of death and rebirth . It symbolized the fact that repentance and faith brought forgiveness from the Lord - washing sin away as free-flowing water washes dirt away . It also symbolized death and ressurection . However , in Jesus , there was a literal death , burial , and ressurection . There is no longer a need for symbolism because He did it in reality . His real baptism makes symbolic baptism obsolete . Noah's water symbolized the baptism that saves us - the Lord's baptism .

[twistedsketch]

Water baptism was used as a symbol of death and rebirth . It symbolized the fact that repentance and faith brought forgiveness from the Lord - washing sin away as free-flowing water washes dirt away . It also symbolized death and ressurection . However , in Jesus , there was a literal death , burial , and ressurection . There is no longer a need for symbolism because He did it in reality . His real baptism makes symbolic baptism obsolete . Noah's water symbolized the baptism that saves us - the Lord's baptism .
If water baptism was made obsolete, why is it that Jesus commanded that converts be baptized?

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'" - Matthew 28:18-20

I believe we are saved by grace through faith, but baptism is still something that needs to happen out of obedience to the Lord. I happen to believe in believer's baptism, not infant baptism.

[Aibrean]

another WELS explanation:

Baptism is not an outward sign to God of our faith, but rather a gracious means of grace through which the Holy Spirit works to create or strengthen faith in our hearts. The Holy Spirit brings us salvation through water baptism because of the Word and promise of God attached to the water in baptism (see 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38-39, Titus 3:4-7, Acts 22:16).

We do not repeat baptism because in baptism God enters into a covenant relationship with us. He always remains faithful to that covenant because he cannot disown himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The New Testament writers often remind their readers that they have been baptized (e.g. Romans 6:1-11, Galatians 3:26-27, etc.) but they never encourage those who have received legitimate baptism to be baptized again.

on infant baptism:

Perhaps it would be good to consider three basic reasons why we believe we should baptize infants. This will allow us to clarify some misconceptions that some have about the spiritual state of infants and how God works through baptism.

First of all, we baptize infants because God tells us to do so. It is true that there is no scriptural passage that specifically tells us to baptize infants and children. However, Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=&passage=Matthew+28%3A19)does tell us to baptize “all nations.” This is an inclusive term that is not limited to older children and adults. “All nations” includes all people, all households, all individuals regardless of age.

Secondly, we baptize infants because they are sinful and need forgiveness. Children not only have original sin but also commit actual sins. In Psalm 51:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=&passage=Psalm+51%3A5)David writes, “I was sinful from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David points out that from the very beginning of his life—the moment of conception—he was sinful and accountable to God for his sins. From the beginning of our lives we are sinful and need to repent of our sins. Without forgiveness, we would be lost forever and suffer eternal punishment in hell. Baptism is something that saves us from the punishment of our sins (1 Peter 3:21), offers forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and gives us the gift of faith in Christ as our Savior which the Holy Spirit works in our hearts through this means of grace. The very faith that is needed to receive this gift of forgiveness is something the Holy Spirit works in our hearts through God's word in baptism. It is not something we take by our choosing or deciding. If it were, then salvation would no longer be by grace.

Finally, we baptize infants because they can believe (Matthew 18:6 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=&passage=Matthew+18%3A6)). Jesus uses the term “little ones” in this verse, a term which also includes infants. This demonstrates that faith is not a conscious decision of the will, as some would define it, but a simple child-like trust that accepts what God gives us in Christ.

It is important that as we look at what Scripture says about the doctrine of baptism we look at those clear passages which explain it to us (we often call these "prescriptive" passages). While accounts of people being baptized can be helpful (we call these "descriptive" passages), they do not necessarily tell us what should be done, but simply what was done in particular case. For example, the Ethiopian was baptized after he confessed his faith, which is what is usually done with an adult. However, that account does not teach us that people should always confess their faith before they are baptized.

The comfort we have in the doctrine of infant baptism is that we know the Holy Spirit uses this as his tool to bring people to faith and strengthen them in the faith. It does this because God attaches a promise to this sacrament. He calls it a “washing of rebirth” (Titus 3:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=&passage=Titus+3%3A5)) and something that washes away sins (Acts 22:16). Through baptism we put on the clean, holy robes of Christ’s righteousness (Galatians 3:27). These are the promises God attaches to baptism.

[stelow]

Hi !! :)



How so ? Where does the Law say that "we" ( indicating *me* ) "should" be water baptized ? If you are convinced that they say that *you* should , that is fine and good . But , "we" ? The Lord did not reveal that to me .

What way am I saying that the Lord would tell me something ?




Yet , you just stated that there was biblical support . If it is a "should" , it is a should for salvation . Otherwise , why "should" ? No effect on salvation means no "should" .




If they are necessary , it could only mean "for salvation" . Otherwise , they wouldn't be necessary .

Paul didn't tell the Gentile believers that it was necessary for them to be circumcized - necessary but not for salvation . The Jewish believers said the same thing you did . They had the Scriptures ( you call "the Word of God" ) and had an exact quote from the Lord that the believers should be circumcized . Yet , Paul said not to do it at all . They had the same argument as you but Paul said "no" .

Now , both circumcism and water baptism are Jewish rituals . But , circumcism was far more important . And , to that Paul said , "no" . And , Paul even stated that he was glad that he didn't water baptize because people were *already* doing stupid things because of it . He even stated that he didn't come to baptize but to present the gospel - indicating that water baptism was not a part of the gospel .




That doesn't say to do those works just because His quote would be written down at a later time . Those works come naturally . Once you do works for the sake of doing them , you are doing them as by Law and without faith - dead works .

Even so , back to the topic , water baptism was not identified as one of those good works .

I will not sink to your level, you twist things to your advantage which are tactics of the enemy. What I said was very plain and understandable. All works done after we are saved do not have anything to do with earning are salvation.

1. Matthew 5:16 - "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.
2. 1 Timothy 2:10 - but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.
3. 1 Timothy 5:10 - well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work.
4. 1 Timothy 5:25 - Likewise, the good works of some are clearly evident, and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden.
5. 1 Timothy 6:18 - Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share,
6. Titus 2:7 - in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence,
incorruptibility,
7. Titus 2:14 - who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
8. Titus 3:8 - This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.
9. Titus 3:14 - And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful.
10. Hebrews 10:24 - And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 11. 1 Peter 2:12 - having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.

It is very clear that when people were saved in the times of the New Testament they were then baptized afterwards.

[New_Wineskin]

If water baptism was made obsolete, why is it that Jesus commanded that converts be baptized?

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'" - Matthew 28:18-20


That is not a command for new converts . That was a command for those "to them" that He spoke .

Nevertheless , let's say that command *is* for now and for everyone . I don't personally know of a single person who quotes that passage who has made disciples of even 10% of the nations let alone "all" as the command states . Very few have even been in every nation ( and there are more now than twenty years ago ) let alone made disciples in every one . Why are people who have not obeyed the first part of that command stressing the second part for others ?



I believe we are saved by grace through faith, but baptism is still something that needs to happen out of obedience to the Lord. I happen to believe in believer's baptism, not infant baptism.

If salvation is not affected , it isn't a need . People give the same reasons with the same attitude for water baptism as the Jewish believers gave for circumcism . Paul's arguments against circumcism can be directly applied to water baptism .

[twistedsketch]

That is not a command for new converts . That was a command for those "to them" that He spoke .

Nevertheless , let's say that command *is* for now and for everyone . I don't personally know of a single person who quotes that passage who has made disciples of even 10% of the nations let alone "all" as the command states . Very few have even been in every nation ( and there are more now than twenty years ago ) let alone made disciples in every one . Why are people who have not obeyed the first part of that command stressing the second part for others ?
So by that logic we shouldn't spread our faith either. The Eleven didn't get to all the nations on Earth, does that mean they were disobedient?

This passage is for all Christians, because Jesus commands the disciples to command their disciples to pass on everything He taught them - which would logically include both spreading the faith and having new believers be baptized.


If salvation is not affected , it isn't a need .
I suppose that could stand if you didn't mind if your wife were to ditch her wedding ring, because the ring doesn't technically make the marriage. Most people would be rather offended, though. Baptism is like the ceremony of exchanging rings. It serves many of the same purposes.

People give the same reasons with the same attitude for water baptism as the Jewish believers gave for circumcism . Paul's arguments against circumcism can be directly applied to water baptism .
They can, as far as it is concerned about boasting of the flesh. However, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be baptized; rather it means they should have the proper attitude towards baptism.

[New_Wineskin]

So by that logic we shouldn't spread our faith either. The Eleven didn't get to all the nations on Earth, does that mean they were disobedient?


I am using your logic on your passage .

The "Eleven" did not attempt to fullfill a written code that was a recording of what was spoken to others and then apply it to all while leaving out that they themselves didn't do the first part .



This passage is for all Christians, because Jesus commands the disciples to command their disciples to pass on everything He taught them - which would logically include both spreading the faith and having new believers be baptized.


I have not been discipled by a line of disciples going back to that event . Do you have the list of people going back to the Eleven to know that they were in fact following the command ? If not , how do you know that you were ? We all know that even going in a room and having someone pass along a sentence , it is all screwed up by the end . What was all that He taught them ? All was not recorded . He was with them for three years ( give or take ) . There is no where near three years worth of teachings recorded .

If people are being discipled in this way , why are those like yourself quoting a written code instead of doing what those disciples did - repeat what was told them by word of mouth ? He didn't tell them to teach others what other people wrote . He already taught them .



I suppose that could stand if you didn't mind if your wife were to ditch her wedding ring, because the ring doesn't technically make the marriage. Most people would be rather offended, though. Baptism is like the ceremony of exchanging rings. It serves many of the same purposes.


You assume much about my being able to have a wife .

Yep , people are offended by ritual and doing things that everyone else was doing . Everyone has to be the same - clones and robots .



They can, as far as it is concerned about boasting of the flesh. However, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be baptized; rather it means they should have the proper attitude towards baptism.

Ah . The same could have been said by the Jewish believers to Paul about circumcism . It doesn't mean that people shouldn't be circumcized ; rather it means that they should have the proper attitude towards circumcism . But , Paul didn't even want that . Once the attitude was in place ( as is in this case with people insisting that it is a need or a should ) , it continues working through the dough .

Also , I never wrote that anyone should not be water baptized - I was always writing that it is not a should to be water baptized . But , Paul certainly wrote that people should not be circumcized . If I was into following the letter of the Scriptures , I *would* say that people should not be water baptized as the same situation exists .

Well , the circle continues . This forum has thread upon thread on this topic . I look at people telling me and others that they must be water baptized as telling me and others that observance of the Law obtains righteousness and salvation . And , I bring this up to anyone I know that is thinking of doing it so they don't listen to any human including myself and they dont' do it as by written code but by listening to the Lord . If the Lord wants them to be water baptized , I am happy for them .

The circle is finished . Each is set in their ways - for now . I will continue to listen to the Lord to see if He has this for me - not for anyone else - just for me .
Take care and thanks . :)

[Aibrean]

As I said, you can't be baptized without water because the word is derived from baptismos " a washing, purification effected by means of water".

wels.org
A valid Baptism requires three things--water, the Word of God, and action, that is, someone who is being baptized. The water is not holy water that has been blessed or consecrated. It is just plain and simple water. The Word of God consists of applying the water "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" as Jesus commands in Matthew 28:19. Action means that this water is applied to someone who is being baptized and it not just poured on the ground. If any of these are lacking, there is no Baptism.

From this you can see that a "baptism" without water would not be a valid Christian Baptism. Such a person would need to be (re)baptized.
and


Nowhere does Scripture command a particular method of applying water in baptism. While the Greek verb that is translated "to baptize" did in its original usage mean "to put completely under water," by the time of the writing of the New Testament that word had taken on a far broader meaning of "putting water on something." It no longer was used only or even chiefly for putting something completely under water. Applying water in many different ways (pouring, sprinkling, or immersing) could fit that term as it was used at the time of the New Testament.

Take note also, that nowhere does Scripture even once tell us how the water was applied in a baptism! Those who point to references of people coming "out of the water" (Acts 8:39 for example) still must deal with two simple facts: 1) the "baptizer" and the "baptizee" are mentioned as coming "out of the water"--that hardly means that both were "immersed" or "dunked" under the water; and 2) that only tells us what happens after the baptism--how the water was applied as they stood in that water is still not mentioned! If the method of applying water was the critical issue in baptism, wouldn't you think Scripture would have given us a clear statement of that fact, or at least given us one example of how the water was applied in a baptism?

Those who insist on baptism by "immersion" usually also corrupt baptism from a beautiful means of grace (God is the one acting!) to nothing but a matter of human obedience. They turn baptism from beautiful gospel into a biblical law we must fulfill. Their "demand" of baptism by immersion only is consistent with their corruption of baptism from pure gospel into a law to observe. How sad to take the beautiful gift of baptism, by which God gives to us all the gifts of salvation won for us by Christ (1 Peter 3:21), and turn it into a work of human obedience!