The truth about scriptual Baptism

[GreenEyedLady]

These are the Biblical truths about baptism. This is not something that I feel can NOT be debated because every single example is given a scripture to back it up.
I would like this thread to be used for those who have never studied Scriptual baptism and need some help clearing up common misconceptions about baptism and for those who have believed false doctrines(unbiblical teachings), that they may better edify themselves in the TRUTH in GOD's word!
I just thank the Lord for giving us his Word, without it, we would be nothing.:bow:
GEL

There is only one baptism (Ephesians 4:5)

Scriptual baptism is by immersion. The Greek word for "baptize" means immerse and never means sprinkle or pour. scriptures about baptism also make immersion absolutely necessary in the ordinance. Baptism must be in water (Mark 1:5). It requires much water (John 3:23), going down into the water (Acts 8:38), burial in water and resurrectrion from the water (Colossians 2:12), and coming up out of the water (Acts 8:39)
Most Baptists agree that four things are necessary for the administration of the ordinance of baptism. Any so called baptism that does not meet these four conditions is not accepted as scriptual:

Proper subject: A Saved Person
Proper Authority: Church of the Lord Jesus Christ
Proper Purpose: To Show salvation, not procure it
Proper Mode: Immersion


Baptism sets forth the burial and resurrection of Christ and shows the individual's salvation by death to sin and resurrection to new life in Christ (Romans 6:4-8). It is an illustration by figure or symbol of salvation (I Peter 3:21), or putting on a uniform showing that we are saved (Galatians 3:27), done in obedience to Christ's command (Matthew 28:19-20).
Baptism is not essential for salvation. There is not one passage in the Bible that teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Some passages have been wrongly interpreted to teach it, but there is not one that really teaches it. There is no passage which says "except ye be baptized ye shall be lost". This is said of both repentance and faith (Luke 13:3, John 3:18). There are many passages which plainly teach that salvation is without baptism (Acts 16:31, Romans 10:13)
In the New Testament, only believers were baptized and believers were saved. Paul clearly teaches that baptism is not a part of the gospel message of salvation. In I Corinthians 1:14-17). Paul also said here that he was sent to preach the gospel, not to baptize. This plainly teaches that baptism is not part of the gospel, but Paul taught in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is "the power of GOD unto salvation".
Every Christian should be baptized, not in order to be saved, but because he is saved.
There is not one passage in the New Testament that in any way teaches infant baptism either by word or example.

[Koey]

I prefer immersion too, but we must be fair and completely honest in dealing with the Bible. You have some of the truth there, but not all of it. Baptize in Greek is LITERALLY "immerse." However, just like in English, Greek words are not always used in a literal sense.

The Greek word for baptize is also used to mean "wash." Mark 7:4 is an example of this. So, I cannot criticize those Christians who merely wash at baptism, because I do not want to be a judgmental Pharisee. The Bible only says baptize. It does not lay out a legalistic list of instructions as to how.

Another point in balance is the fact that the Israelites who were baptized to Moses, went through the Red Sea dryshod. They may have been sprinkled from the sides, but they were not immersed. So the obvious conclusion is that a symbolic "immersion" was also an appropriate baptism at least in that case.

Baptists are also against infant baptism for equally bigoted or ignorant reasons. I prefer a so-called believer's baptism, but again want to be fair. After all the process of repentance and faith, baptism and laying on of hands (confirmation) can be done just as much out of order as can other examples in the book of Acts, where some received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. The important thing is that all the ingredients are eventually there.

The weakest argument for infant baptism comes from Acts 2:39 where whole households were baptized. This alone is an argument from silence. We don't know who was in those households. However, two stronger arguments are: 1) When Israel was baptized to Moses, that included infants, and 2) Baptism pictures circumcision (Col 2:11-12), which was usually done on infants.

There is no sin in being baptized as an infant and confirming that when you come to belief. That makes it a believer's baptism by the way. Our whole Baptist argumentation in this regard is silly bigotry and ignorant prejudice.

As I said, I personally prefer immersion, and doing it when a person is of an age where they can believe and show fruits of repentance. However, I cannot discount the faith of others, nor the validity in the eyes of God, of other modes of baptism.

I know many Christians from whom God has not withheld His Spirit, yet were baptized in methods not approved by Baptists. I don't think God needs the baptism police coming along approving in whom the Holy Spirit can or cannot dwell.

[Frankie]

These are the Biblical truths about baptism. This is not something that I feel can NOT be debated because every single example is given a scripture to back it up.
I would like this thread to be used for those who have never studied Scriptual baptism and need some help clearing up common misconceptions about baptism and for those who have believed false doctrines(unbiblical teachings), that they may better edify themselves in the TRUTH in GOD's word!
I just thank the Lord for giving us his Word, without it, we would be nothing.:bow:
GEL

There is only one baptism (Ephesians 4:5)

Scriptual baptism is by immersion. The Greek word for "baptize" means immerse and never means sprinkle or pour. scriptures about baptism also make immersion absolutely necessary in the ordinance. Baptism must be in water (Mark 1:5). It requires much water (John 3:23), going down into the water (Acts 8:38), burial in water and resurrectrion from the water (Colossians 2:12), and coming up out of the water (Acts 8:39)
Most Baptists agree that four things are necessary for the administration of the ordinance of baptism. Any so called baptism that does not meet these four conditions is not accepted as scriptual:

Proper subject: A Saved Person
Proper Authority: Church of the Lord Jesus Christ
Proper Purpose: To Show salvation, not procure it
Proper Mode: Immersion


Baptism sets forth the burial and resurrection of Christ and shows the individual's salvation by death to sin and resurrection to new life in Christ (Romans 6:4-8). It is an illustration by figure or symbol of salvation (I Peter 3:21), or putting on a uniform showing that we are saved (Galatians 3:27), done in obedience to Christ's command (Matthew 28:19-20).
Baptism is not essential for salvation. There is not one passage in the Bible that teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Some passages have been wrongly interpreted to teach it, but there is not one that really teaches it. There is no passage which says "except ye be baptized ye shall be lost". This is said of both repentance and faith (Luke 13:3, John 3:18). There are many passages which plainly teach that salvation is without baptism (Acts 16:31, Romans 10:13)
In the New Testament, only believers were baptized and believers were saved. Paul clearly teaches that baptism is not a part of the gospel message of salvation. In I Corinthians 1:14-17). Paul also said here that he was sent to preach the gospel, not to baptize. This plainly teaches that baptism is not part of the gospel, but Paul taught in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is "the power of GOD unto salvation".
Every Christian should be baptized, not in order to be saved, but because he is saved.
There is not one passage in the New Testament that in any way teaches infant baptism either by word or example.
I think the most important "truth" about baptism is that it is spiritual baptism (being born again of the holy spirit) that saves, not water baptism. Water baptism is a beautiful experience that I think every believer should take part in but whether completely immersed or "sprinkled", it isn't the water that saves. I think it is human nature for us to get caught up in the legalities of things and by pass the spiritual. Whether someone confesses their faith in Christ publicly through baptism of immersion or baptism of pouring, what will matter is "did they have the baptism that matters and that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit". I have not found anything in the Word of God that says one will be turned away from heaven because they were sprinkled instead of completely dunked. The Bible does however say that one MUST be born again of the spirit to make it to heaven.

Frankie

[Beauty4Ashes]

I think the most important "truth" about baptism is that it is spiritual baptism (being born again of the holy spirit) that saves, not water baptism. Water baptism is a beautiful experience that I think every believer should take part in but whether completely immersed or "sprinkled", it isn't the water that saves. I think it is human nature for us to get caught up in the legalities of things and by pass the spiritual. Whether someone confesses their faith in Christ publicly through baptism of immersion or baptism of pouring, what will matter is "did they have the baptism that matters and that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit". I have not found anything in the Word of God that says one will be turned away from heaven because they were sprinkled instead of completely dunked. The Bible does however say that one MUST be born again of the spirit to make it to heaven.

Frankie

I agree. Thanks for making that point. :)

[FreeinChrist]

Baptizo means immerse. One washed their hands by immersing them in water. In the NT, baptizo is used of water baptism, of the filling of the Holy Spirit (baptism of the Holy Spirit), and as an identification with someone. In I Corinthians 10:2,in regards to 'baptized unto Moses', baptizo is used to say they were identified with Moses. When we are water baptized, we are identifying with Christ. It is a public declaration, a testimony.

A key point to remember, though, is that after the resurrection of Christ,water baptism is to identify with a Christ who had died, and rose again. In regards to the 'baptism unto Moses', it is just to be identified with Moses in the act of following Moses across the Red Sea.


So, I cannot criticize those Christians who merely wash at baptism, because I do not want to be a judgmental Pharisee. The Bible only says baptize. It does not lay out a legalistic list of instructions as to how.

I sure hope you are not accusing anyone here of being a judgemental Pharisee!!!!!!


Baptists are also against infant baptism for equally bigoted or ignorant reasons.


So now Baptists are bigoted and ignorant???



I prefer a so-called believer's baptism, but again want to be fair. After all the process of repentance and faith, baptism and laying on of hands (confirmation) can be done just as much out of order as can other examples in the book of Acts, where some received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. The important thing is that all the ingredients are eventually there.
We bigoted, ignorant Baptists believe that water baptism is an act of obedience and does not save. It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit (regeneration by the Holy Spirit) that saves.

Perhaps you should be asking questions of Baptists before you put labels on them! And judge them.



There is no sin in being baptized as an infant and confirming that when you come to belief. That makes it a believer's baptism by the way. Our whole Baptist argumentation in this regard is silly bigotry and ignorant prejudice.
I disagree that it makes a beleivers baptism. And again, you are calling us bigoted and ignorant, and now predjudiced! I suppose the apostles were bigoted too.




I know many Christians from whom God has not withheld His Spirit, yet were baptized in methods not approved by Baptists. I don't think God needs the baptism police coming along approving in whom the Holy Spirit can or cannot dwell.This is RUDE!!!

IF you had a concept of what most Baptists believe, you would understand that we do not equate water baptism with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that water baptism is an act of obedience. Saying how we believe baptism should be done is in no way trying to say who the Holy Spirit can indwell!!!




You need to learn before you write.

[Frankie]

I prefer immersion too, but we must be fair and completely honest in dealing with the Bible. You have some of the truth there, but not all of it. Baptize in Greek is LITERALLY "immerse." However, just like in English, Greek words are not always used in a literal sense.

The Greek word for baptize is also used to mean "wash." Mark 7:4 is an example of this. So, I cannot criticize those Christians who merely wash at baptism, because I do not want to be a judgmental Pharisee. The Bible only says baptize. It does not lay out a legalistic list of instructions as to how.

Another point in balance is the fact that the Israelites who were baptized to Moses, went through the Red Sea dryshod. They may have been sprinkled from the sides, but they were not immersed. So the obvious conclusion is that a symbolic "immersion" was also an appropriate baptism at least in that case.

Baptists are also against infant baptism for equally bigoted or ignorant reasons. I prefer a so-called believer's baptism, but again want to be fair. After all the process of repentance and faith, baptism and laying on of hands (confirmation) can be done just as much out of order as can other examples in the book of Acts, where some received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. The important thing is that all the ingredients are eventually there.

The weakest argument for infant baptism comes from Acts 2:39 where whole households were baptized. This alone is an argument from silence. We don't know who was in those households. However, two stronger arguments are: 1) When Israel was baptized to Moses, that included infants, and 2) Baptism pictures circumcision (Col 2:11-12), which was usually done on infants.

There is no sin in being baptized as an infant and confirming that when you come to belief. That makes it a believer's baptism by the way. Our whole Baptist argumentation in this regard is silly bigotry and ignorant prejudice.

As I said, I personally prefer immersion, and doing it when a person is of an age where they can believe and show fruits of repentance. However, I cannot discount the faith of others, nor the validity in the eyes of God, of other modes of baptism.

I know many Christians from whom God has not withheld His Spirit, yet were baptized in methods not approved by Baptists. I don't think God needs the baptism police coming along approving in whom the Holy Spirit can or cannot dwell.Hello. I don't think you have a proper understanding of what baptism means to a baptist person. The things you have stated above do not resemble the beliefs of the Baptist I know (and love, by the way)

[Koey]

Hello. I don't think you have a proper understanding of what baptism means to a baptist person. The things you have stated above do not resemble the beliefs of the Baptist I know (and love, by the way)I was trying to point out that we Baptists do not have as complete an understanding of baptism, as we think we do.
:)

[Andyman_1970]

In the Jewish tradition (which Jesus came from) a ceremonial bath (Mikvah) that was used in OT times to cerimonially "wash" a Jew that desired repentance was done by that person. The person would dunk themselves 3 times in a row. This was also performed by a Gentile desiring to become a Jew (convert), part of the process of becoming a Jew was the cerimonial mikvah bath, that demonstrated the person dying to their old ways and gods, and being reborn and turning to the One True God. The Gentile was not immersed by the Rabbi they were studying under for their conversion, but he was a witness to the cerimony.

The cultural and historic evidence would indicate that Jesus baptised Himself with John the Baptist as a witness (which was customary to have a witness).

[Iollain]

Jesus was dead all the way, so we should be baptized all the way. :)

[GreenEyedLady]

I was trying to point out that we Baptists do not have as complete an understanding of baptism, as we think we do.






:)
You have a very RUDE way of stating that YOU think baptist don't have a complete understanding of Baptism. Are you kidding me? WE are called Baptist for a reason........HMMMMMMMMM it might be because of BAPTISM?!?
Bigoted and ignorant reasons why we don't believe in infant baptism? Are you for real? There is not one single scripture that talks about infants getting baptized OR anyone for that matter getting sprinkled.
I think YOU do not have a complete understanding of Baptism and to label all of us as "baptism police" is just plain discusting.:sick:
I could care less what you or any other man or church says, Baptism should be scriptural and there is a differance between scriptural and non scriptual baptism THAT is in the Bible and that is what "we" as Baptist use as our final authority. I also want to point out that your profile does not state that you are a baptist but that you attend an interdenominational church which is very far from being a Baptist. I ask nicely not to speak for Baptist, especially if you are NOT one!
GEL
GEL

[P_G]

Once again a tip of the kippot to Andyman!

IF we look at the Jewish heritage of what baptism started out as being ie the Mikveh or ritual bathing. We can see that a few points of Baptist and Anabaptist theology are 100% on the money and HAVE to be 100% on the money.

1 Full imersion: The Mikvah is preformed absolutely by fully imersing oneself 3 times. Not a splash of water not part way but all the way under. Remember the passage when Jesus was going to wash Peters feet?

Joh 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

Jesus was specifically talking about the Mikveh here as one who was washed.

2 Beleivers Baptism: A child does not require a mikveh in fact till they are 13 they are not seen as an adult and most ordinances are not partaken by them. The mikveh is one of them.

3 It is symbolic an after the fact event. One must repent BEFORE the mikveh the mikveh itself is a humbling moment a cleansing moment a time to wash away the vestage on the outside. The inside should already be in repentance.

So once again when we take the scriptures and place them in cultural context we get a much clearer understanding of what was being said. And what G-d would expect of us. It's not about baptism police nor the traditions of men its about doing it G-d's way.

And against that there is no law!

Blessings

Pastor George :wave:

[theseed]

Here is a booklet that you can read, it explains why beleivers baptism is prefered over infant baptism. It does not cover mode, and it assumes a Cavlinist postion--baptism does not save us.

So basically, it addresses presbyterian concerns, and maybe Methodists.

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

[theseed]

Pastor George, doesn't a Jew become a man after his bar mitzvah?

[P_G]

Pastor George, doesn't a Jew become a man after his bar mitzvah?
The girls do not

(Couldn't help myself)

yes spirtually yes. And that is typically at age 13


Blessings PG :wave:

[Crazy Liz]

The girls do not

(Couldn't help myself)

yes spirtually yes. And that is typically at age 13


Blessings PG :wave:


This comparison between Christian baptism and the Jewish mikveh is one I've been puzzling over lately, and your post highlights one of the reasons. It is treated by most Christians as a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event. This causes problems for Anabaptists and Baptists when they require a person to be re-baptized if their original baptism for some reason didn't meet all the requirements of their new church. It is confusing to say or imply that their first baptism wasn't their real baptism because some element was missing. If baptism is a one-time event, and that aspect of it is important, then re-baptizing someone is a big problem.

However, when you bring up the practice of the Jewish mikveh as a paradigm for baptism, you will find that it is not a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event. Jewish women have to do it every month.

How does this play inot our theology of baptism?

[Andyman_1970]

However, when you bring up the practice of the Jewish mikveh as a paradigm for baptism, you will find that it is not a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event. Jewish women have to do it every month.

How does this play inot our theology of baptism?

The Jewish women performing the mikvah and a Gentile performing a mikvah as part of their conversion to Judaism are two different issues, kind of apples and oranges.

What is the purpose of these two different mikvah's?

One was/is for cerimonial cleansing of a child of God, and one is a symbol of someone becoming a child of God.

[P_G]

The Jewish women performing the mikvah and a Gentile performing a mikvah as part of their conversion to Judaism are two different issues, kind of apples and oranges.

What is the purpose of these two different mikvah's?

One was/is for cerimonial cleansing of a child of God, and one is a symbol of someone becoming a child of God.
Well actually it is like compairing MacIntosh apples to Granny Smith apples.
Both look to a rending if the heart. An out ward expression of an inward change.

(Does that sound familiar to you?)

Maybe some of my MJ bretheren could shed a bit of light here on this I shall invite their participation. Most of them are smarter than me anyhow! ;)


Blessings PG :wave:

[BronxBriar]

Baptists are also against infant baptism for equally bigoted or ignorant reasons.

Our whole Baptist argumentation in this regard is silly bigotry and ignorant prejudice.

WOW! I just wanted to say that particular (and quite silly) expression of Baptist unity should be:banned: . I haven't picked a church yet, but after that diatribe I may join up just to fellowship with some of the BEST Christians I know!

Love you guys!

[GreenEyedLady]

This comparison between Christian baptism and the Jewish mikveh is one I've been puzzling over lately, and your post highlights one of the reasons. It is treated by most Christians as a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event. This causes problems for Anabaptists and Baptists when they require a person to be re-baptized if their original baptism for some reason didn't meet all the requirements of their new church. It is confusing to say or imply that their first baptism wasn't their real baptism because some element was missing. If baptism is a one-time event, and that aspect of it is important, then re-baptizing someone is a big problem.

However, when you bring up the practice of the Jewish mikveh as a paradigm for baptism, you will find that it is not a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event. Jewish women have to do it every month.

How does this play inot our theology of baptism?
Liz-
I think it is very important when a believer is unscriptually baptized that they understand WHY they need to be rebaptized. There are many many churchs that preach that salvation is through baptism. This is unscriptual.
There are "requirements" to be marrried to someone. If one of these requirements are not met, then the couple is not married according to the Law of that state or country. The same is with baptism. It should be scriptual and the person who is being baptized should fully understand what is scriptual from unscriptual baptism. I understand that there are also many many church that preach that you have to be a member of that church to get baptized. That is also unscriptual. Baptism should be open to any one any time as long as they are saved just like communion is. It should have nothing to do with membership or the Blood of Christ and everything to do with that person publically confessing that Christ is thier Lord and Saviour.
GEL

[P_G]

Here is some thought from a dear friend who feels due to the rules best not to post here:

Mikveh

I'm sorry, Pastor George, but I am not allowed to post in that forum.

Andyman_1970 comes close. When a person converts to Judaism and goes to the mikveh, it is not "a symbol of someone becoming a child of G-d". Because the Jews recognize that all people are children of G-d. It is a symbol of that person becoming a part of the Jewish people, taking on all of the history, rights, and obligations of the Jewish people.

A woman who goes to the mikveh every month (and this is mostly done among the Orthodox) after the period of niddah, does that to symbolize that she is once again tahor (clean).

Many men (again mainly among the Orthodox) go to the mikveh every Friday afternoon in preparation for the Sabbath.

Brides go to the mikveh right before the wedding day.

People may go to the mikveh after dealing with a long illness, a miscarriage, death, etc. It is very healing and spiritually cleansing.

I went kind of fast, but I hope this is a little coherent http://www.christian-forums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif If you have any questions, I can try to help http://www.christian-forums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif


Thank you My dear sweet sister!

Pastor George :wave:

[JewishHeart]

Here in Israel messianics do full immersion, but nobody "dunks" them like in the Baptist tradition. They do it "mikveh" style and dunk themselves three times with witnesses.

AN interesting study on the exodus from egypt, the red sea crossing, and the promised land, can be an interesting study on immersion as a believer.

[theseed]

The girls do not


^_^

[Crazy Liz]

Liz-
I think it is very important when a believer is unscriptually baptized that they understand WHY they need to be rebaptized. There are many many churchs that preach that salvation is through baptism. This is unscriptual.

My problem with this, GEL, is that many Christians, even many members of Baptist churches, do not necessarily see things as you do. The example of the brother whose parents wanted to join a Baptist church after being lifelong Methodists is not an unusual example. In their situation, they were being asked to be re-baptized in order to accommodate the requirements of people who believe the way you do. It probably was explained to them that yours is the traditional Baptist belief, and therefore their church requires you do all these things for membership, but you do not have to believe it is necessary. Often, it is simply an act of obedience to show your submission to the wishes of the congregation you are joining. This is why many Baptist churches (and Mennonite Brethren, and I don't know what other denominations) will accept for membership anyone who was baptized as a believer, no matter what the mode, but require their ministers to be re-baptized by immersion if their first baptism was as a believer but not by immersion.

For Mennonites, as I have said before, a large part of the significance of baptism is as a means of initiation into the full responsibilities of church membership. I think this is scriptural. Now, if a person was baptized as a believer with this understanding, to require them to be baptized again is like saying they didn't really make that commitment to God and to the Church when they did it the first time. This causes unnecessary confusion and distress for many people. Others, like ministers who are required to be rebaptized, simply think of it as going through the motions to assure others that they have met the requirements.

What I'm trying to say is that whether a person feels his or her previous baptism was a real baptism will greatly affect his/her attitude toward being required to do it a different way. Some, like George Blaurock and Michael Sattler, believed their infant baptism was no baptism because it was done to them without their consent. (BTW, they baptized each other by pouring, I believe. Definitely not by immersion. Baptism by immersion was introduced into the Anabaptist movement much later.) The individual's attitude toward their current church's requirements and their previous church's requirements, as well as many other factors will have a profound effect on that person's spirituality. I think to re-baptize a person who is reluctant for any reason can do a lot of spiritual harm.

There are "requirements" to be marrried to someone. If one of these requirements are not met, then the couple is not married according to the Law of that state or country. The same is with baptism.

This may be a good analogy, but it doesn't exactly work the way you are thinking. If I get married in one state and move to another, my marriage will be recognized, even though the requirements for marriage are different in the two states. For example, one state may require a blood test and a waiting period and another may not. If a couple marries in a state with less stringent requirements, they will not have to get a license and go through a new marriage ceremony in the new state. I realize this is a very small difference between requirements from one state to another, but there are bigger ones. Of course, right now we have a big political and legal controversy over just how far this recognition will stretch. (Please, lets not get into a discussion of gay marriage here. This is just an analogy.) Another example, though, that I have seen several people ask about here in CF and other Christian forums, has to do with whether God recognizes marriages by a justice of the peace, or only church weddings. Do you see where this analogy can lead?

It should be scriptual and the person who is being baptized should fully understand what is scriptual from unscriptual baptism. I understand that there are also many many church that preach that you have to be a member of that church to get baptized. That is also unscriptual. Baptism should be open to any one any time as long as they are saved just like communion is. It should have nothing to do with membership or the Blood of Christ and everything to do with that person publically confessing that Christ is thier Lord and Saviour.
GEL

Actually, I'm not aware of any church that requires someone to be a member of the church to be baptized. Most require one to be baptized before becoming a church member. However, it is true that most Mennonite churches will not baptize anyone who is not a candidate for church membership. They will immediately upon baptism become members of the church. Their point is that if someone is publicly confessing Christ as their Lord and Savior, the same obedience that leads them to be baptized also leads them to join a body of believers. The two are inseperable. It would be like delivering a baby and waiting for the baby to decide whether or not to be part of the family. This is not a requirement for baptism per se, but if a person claims to be a believer wanting to obey the Lord by being baptized, but does not want to obey the Lord by being part of the church, they still have more to learn about obedience before they are ready to be baptized.

[Koey]

You have a very RUDE way of stating that YOU think baptist don't have a complete understanding of Baptism. Are you kidding me? WE are called Baptist for a reason........HMMMMMMMMM it might be because of BAPTISM?!?
Bigoted and ignorant reasons why we don't believe in infant baptism? Are you for real? There is not one single scripture that talks about infants getting baptized OR anyone for that matter getting sprinkled.
I think YOU do not have a complete understanding of Baptism and to label all of us as "baptism police" is just plain discusting.:sick:
I could care less what you or any other man or church says, Baptism should be scriptural and there is a differance between scriptural and non scriptual baptism THAT is in the Bible and that is what "we" as Baptist use as our final authority. I also want to point out that your profile does not state that you are a baptist but that you attend an interdenominational church which is very far from being a Baptist. I ask nicely not to speak for Baptist, especially if you are NOT one!
GEL
GEL
Wow. I guess you proved my point about bigotry.

[FreeinChrist]

I was trying to point out that we Baptists do not have as complete an understanding of baptism, as we think we do.




Other than being rude and insulting, you didn't make your point.
You argued a strawman.

Baptists do not believe baptism saves. Baptism is not WHEN the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who regenerates us, occurs.
So GEL was not claiming we have the right to approve who receives the indwelling of the Spirit as you seemed to think.

Furthur rudesnes to GEL (shown in the last post you made) just shows a lack of Christian charity, Koey. Hopefully they covered that concept in your theology program.

[FreeinChrist]

GEL and all,

I found this article to be interesting in regards to Beleivers Baptism ( even if it is Reformed theology :D ):

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html


This is toward the end:
"I cannot build my doctrine on an empty string. Therefore, I accept the one priceless pearl of disciples' baptism and wear it upon my hand as a sign of my marriage to Christ. Baptism is the outward sign of entrance into the New Covenant by the inward circumcision of the heart, evidenced by one's confession of faith in Christ. Old Testament children entered the Abrahamic Covenant by the circumcision of the flesh. If they came to faith, it became a seal of the righteousness of faith, as it was to Abraham (Rom. 4). Now our New Covenant children enter the New Covenant by the circumcision of the heart, sealed by the Holy Spirit and signified by the sign of disciples' baptism."

[Carrye]

Baptism is not WHEN the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who regenerates us, occurs.
When does that happen, according to Baptist belief?

[FreeinChrist]

When we come to belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for our sins. There is belief, repentence of sin, asking forgiveness...and we receive forgiveness if it is a true belief in Christ. That is the time we receive the Holy Spirit, who regenerates us, making us new creatures.

[Carrye]

When we come to belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for our sins. There is belief, repentence of sin, asking forgiveness...and we receive forgiveness if it is a true belief in Christ. That is the time we receive the Holy Spirit, who regenerates us, making us new creatures.
Whoa, I had no idea! So you baptize then, because Jesus did it? What is the significance of baptism for you - what does baptism DO/accomplish? Do Baptists have a doctrine of original sin?

[FreeinChrist]

Whoa, I had no idea! So you baptize then, because Jesus did it? What is the significance of baptism for you - what does baptism DO/accomplish? Do Baptists have a doctrine of original sin?
Yes, we baptize because Jesus did it. We are identifying with Christ. In the act of full immersion baptism, we are showing the death and burial and resurrection of Christ. Water baptism is the outward sign of an inner Baptism - the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, who regenerates us.
Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with {Him} in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be {in the likeness} of His resurrection,Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with {Him,} in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;Rom 6:7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

I don't beleive this is referring to water baptism but to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But water baptism symbolizes this.

And yes, we believe we are born in original sin. We are in original sin until our regeneration.

[GreenEyedLady]

Here in Israel messianics do full immersion, but nobody "dunks" them like in the Baptist tradition. They do it "mikveh" style and dunk themselves three times with witnesses.

AN interesting study on the exodus from egypt, the red sea crossing, and the promised land, can be an interesting study on immersion as a believer.

I just wanted to point out here that "dunking" is not a Baptist tradition, it is a Biblical tradition. Christ was dunked by John, not 3 times, but one time and Christ was fully immersed. I am wondering why not do it like Christ did? Why are they baptizing themselves? Christ "could have" done that, but he clearly made it a point to use someone to baptize us by using John to baptize him.
:scratch:

[Cary.Melvin]

Why do Baptists make such a huge deal of this? If it is not necessary for salvation, what difference does it make? If a person was baptised as a infant and accepts that baptism, why should any church think that they have the right to tell them that they need to be baptised again?

I don't see why either a pastor or board of elders based on their interpretation of the proper mode of baptism should coerse an individual believer who has a differing interpretation.

To do so wouldn't seem very Baptist to me. What happened to the individual rights of the believer to interpret the scriptures?

[theseed]

Why do Baptists make such a huge deal of this? If it is not necessary for salvation, what difference does it make? If a person was baptised as a infant and accepts that baptism, why should any church think that they have the right to tell them that they need to be baptised again?

I don't see why either a pastor or board of elders based on their interpretation of the proper mode of baptism should coerse an individual believer who has a differing interpretation.

To do so wouldn't seem very Baptist to me. What happened to the individual rights of the believer to interpret the scriptures?
The Bible also only teaches beleiver's baptism, as link I posted describes, in 47 pages (squeezed down to 20).

[FreeinChrist]

Why do Baptists make such a huge deal of this? If it is not necessary for salvation, what difference does it make? If a person was baptised as a infant and accepts that baptism, why should any church think that they have the right to tell them that they need to be baptised again?

The Baptist churches I attended (and the nondenom I attend now) did not require people to be baptized again. They accepted a confession of faith. The decision to be baptized as a beleiver was a personal decision.

[HackerCatcher]

Other than being rude and insulting, you didn't make your point.
You argued a strawman.

Baptists do not believe baptism saves. Baptism is not WHEN the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who regenerates us, occurs.
So GEL was not claiming we have the right to approve who receives the indwelling of the Spirit as you seemed to think.

Furthur rudesnes to GEL (shown in the last post you made) just shows a lack of Christian charity, Koey. Hopefully they covered that concept in your theology program. I really think YOU are the one being rude. Koey was merely stating his opinion, and you RUDELY shut him down. He made sense too.

[FreeinChrist]

I really think YOU are the one being rude. Koey was merely stating his opinion, and you RUDELY shut him down. He made sense too.
I disagee.

[God is Great]

...This is RUDE!!!

IF you had a concept of what most Baptists believe, you would understand that we do not equate water baptism with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that water baptism is an act of obedience. Saying how we believe baptism should be done is in no way trying to say who the Holy Spirit can indwell!!!

You need to learn before you write.I didn't think Koey was rude at all, just honest with her feelings. You must be from the south where people don't say what they really think and when people do they are deemed rude. I don't fine Koey's words offensive at all and I certainly would not want to accuse her of being rude. I may not agree with her but to call her rude for being honest would be rude of me.

God is Great.

[FreeinChrist]

So did you just join to to express your disagreement?

I disagree with you. That's my opinion. :)

[Frankie]

The Baptist church I attend recognizes all previous water baptisms as valid Christian baptisms except when they were Mormon, JW or Oneness Pentecostal baptisms... if they were baptism by one of these 3 churches, they do not view it as a "real" Christian water baptism and offer these people new baptism. Of course, since water baptism does not save, it is ultimately left up to the person who had the "un official" baptism as to what they want to do.

God bless,
Frankie

[Sephania]

I just wanted to point out here that "dunking" is not a Baptist tradition, it is a Biblical tradition. Christ was dunked by John, not 3 times, but one time and Christ was fully immersed. I am wondering why not do it like Christ did? Why are they baptizing themselves? Christ "could have" done that, but he clearly made it a point to use someone to baptize us by using John to baptize him.
:scratch:
Mark 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

john 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

NOte: the word "Straightaway" means immediately, which indicates that the person of the action is also performing the action.

It is hard to tell by the words we have what happened but when you compare them to the required immersions done by the laws of G-d then you understand verses like Mark 9:10 where it says that Y-shua came up out of the water. This is describing an action that one is performing themselves without any assistance. John was the one calling them to repentance to prepare the way of the L-RD this repentance would be followed by an immersion, and he stood by as a witness.
Today when one goes to a mikvah there is a witness to be sure that you complete this perscribed ritual in the proper manner, as we cannot fully view ourselves, especially when going under water, a witness is required.

In the above verses in John you can see that John was still witnessing immersions of repentance and Y-shua was also. It does not indicate the amount of times either, mostly because it was already understood during that time.

PG, I am glad that Talmidah cleared that up for you. ;) Also for those of you who don't know, a Bar Mitzvah is only for a boy, it means "son (Bar) of the commandment" a 13 year old girl has a Bat mitzvah, which means Daughter ( Bat - pronounced Baaht ) of the Commandment".

[GreenEyedLady]

Mark 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

john 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

NOte: the word "Straightaway" means immediately, which indicates that the person of the action is also performing the action.

It is hard to tell by the words we have what happened but when you compare them to the required immersions done by the laws of G-d then you understand verses like Mark 9:10 where it says that Y-shua came up out of the water. This is describing an action that one is performing themselves without any assistance. John was the one calling them to repentance to prepare the way of the L-RD this repentance would be followed by an immersion, and he stood by as a witness.
andment".
I am sorry but the statement I underlined is completley unscriptual. There is no supporting scripture for this. Don't you remember The pharisees were mad because they thought Jesus was the one baptizing people........BUt really it was the diciples?
John 4:1 ¶When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
Baptism is not something that one does for themselves......it is something that is being done to you.

As far as it being important, like Gary mentioned, Baptism is the first step or first commandment that one follows after becomming a child of God. I would definatly want to make my first step as biblical as possible.
My baptism as an infant was not biblical and I HAD to make my walk with GOD right in His eyes.
I am glad that I did it!
GEL

[eldermike]

Why do Baptists make such a huge deal of this? If it is not necessary for salvation, what difference does it make? If a person was baptised as a infant and accepts that baptism, why should any church think that they have the right to tell them that they need to be baptised again?

I don't see why either a pastor or board of elders based on their interpretation of the proper mode of baptism should coerse an individual believer who has a differing interpretation.

To do so wouldn't seem very Baptist to me. What happened to the individual rights of the believer to interpret the scriptures?

I am ordained, SB, we do not make a big deal out of infant baptism, it never comes up as a subject.

And, we do not interpret scripture, the Holy Spirit (God) is the interpreter of scripture. We simple read it and humbly pray that God illuminate it as He promised to do for all who believe.

,Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

[Bulldog]

Do Baptists view baptisms not by immersion (pouring, sprinkling) as not valid?

[eldermike]

Baptism is required for salvation. That is the plain Biblical truth.

This is wrong.
You can't post in this forum with that view.
Mike

[Polycarp1]

A thread on "Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?" in the Soteriology Forum over in Theology: http://www.christianforums.com/t690183

Explanation of Baptist thought there would be most helpful; as an Anglican, I gave my best understanding of it, compared and contrasted with the sacramental way of thinking, but I'm sure someone can explain it far better than I could.

[Frankie]

1 Peter 3:19-22



In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

What Bible version did you use for this scripture quote, please?

[Frankie]

This is wrong.
You can't post in this forum with that view.
Mike Can one of you direct me to the post where the person said that Baptism was nessessary for salvation. I know it must be somewhere on this thread but I can seem to find it.

Thanks,
Frankie

[Cary.Melvin]

What Bible version did you use for this scripture quote, please?
That is from the New American Bible translation. It is a Catholic Bible, but was translated ecumenicaly with protestants.

[Cary.Melvin]

Can one of you direct me to the post where the person said that Baptism was nessessary for salvation. I know it must be somewhere on this thread but I can seem to find it.

Thanks,
Frankie
That was me. I removed the text in question because it violated forum rules.

[GreenEyedLady]

1 Peter 3:19-22



In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

I am sure you have been warned repeatly for breaking the rules.
Why do you continue to debate here in our forum? :scratch: That verse is not even TALKING about salvation is IN baptim! :doh: I am not going to fall for your little debate traps. This verse and the doctrine behind it was answered in another thread on this fourm in complete detail.
GEL

[FreeinChrist]

1 Peter 3:19-22



In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

The New American Bible was translated mostl;y by Catholics and a few Protestants. It has interpretation in it...meaning it is not a word for word translation of the Greek. The NASB is a word for word translation.
1Pe 3:19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits {now} in prison,1Pe 3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through {the} water.1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,1Pe 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Not the removal of dirt from the flesh - ie - not the water
The baptism that 'saves' is the washing of regeneration done by the Holy spirit that removes our sin and makes us new creatures.

[GreenEyedLady]

Thank you Free in Christ.
I also wanted to post up this thread that Cary had read before.
http://www.christianforums.com/t671133&page=3
Cary, I don't think you are honest in your motives and intentions on this thread.
GEL

[Crazy Liz]

I am sorry but the statement I underlined is completley unscriptual. There is no supporting scripture for this. Don't you remember The pharisees were mad because they thought Jesus was the one baptizing people........BUt really it was the diciples?
John 4:1 ¶When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
Baptism is not something that one does for themselves......it is something that is being done to you.

The grammatical construction we see used most often in the NT indicates that one person baptized another person. However, we have no description of how this is done. The Christians with the oldest continuous tradition of baptism by immersion (EO) baptize my immersing 3 times - even when they baptize babies.

I also wonder whether the idea of baptism being something someone does to another person might have originated because of infant baptism, since an infant can't do it for him/herelf. If so, it would be rather ironic that Baptists would pick this up as a requirement.

There really is no conclusive evidence in scripture about the mode of baptism. BTW, I believe a number of the Brethren denominations (a Baptist/Anabaptist tradition) immerse 3 times, also.

[Crazy Liz]

Do Baptists view baptisms not by immersion (pouring, sprinkling) as not valid?

Some do, some don't.

However, Baptists and Christians with a more sacramental viewpoint would, I think, mean different things by the word "valid."

[theseed]

That is from the New American Bible translation. It is a Catholic Bible, but was translated ecumenicaly with protestants.
Was it "saved through water" or "brought through water safely" Hmmm :sracth:

[theseed]

1 Peter 3:19-22


In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

It says that the water does not save, but "the apeal of a good conscience"

[Propadeutic]

The original post is excellent. On the question of re-baptism, I'd like to share this from a previous article on my website. (I'd be more specific, but I'm not allowed to post links yet.)

The biblical precedent for "re-baptizing"–or more properly, baptizing biblically for the first time–is in Acts 19. Paul encounters some Ephesians who had been baptized, but who had not embraced the gospel of Christ or heard of the Holy Spirit. They knew only the "baptism of John." After Paul set them straight, he baptized them again. The Holy Spirit endorsed this move by filling the Ephesians at that moment. It is evident from this passage that people who were baptized before having a genuine conversion experience–whether they were infants or adults at the time–need to be baptized biblically after their true conversion.

How does this apply to the mode and meaning? Baptists also insist on baptizing those who were baptized with an understanding of baptismal regeneration, or who were sprinkled or poured. Since these problems were not present when the Bible was written, we have no examples to help us.... I believe that a principle is at stake: the preservation of the biblical mode and meaning of baptism. Churches ought not be unnecessarily divisive, but the only way that Baptists [and earlier, Anabaptists] could revive and maintain this declining biblical practice was to make it a requirement for membership. As important as baptism was for the church in the New Testament, the members of any particular church ought to be as united in it as they are in other basic doctrines.

An analogy might help to understand the importance of mode. Imagine that a church is observing the Lord's supper. The people take the bread and the cup, and the event in the upper room is recounted from the Bible. Then, instead of eating the bread and drinking the fruit of the vine, the people put it in their navels, or step on it, or set it on fire. They argue that this is simply their traditional method of observing the Lord's supper, and the difference doesn't really matter. But we would answer that they are not merely practicing the ordinance differently; they are not practicing it at all. They are doing something else and calling it the Lord's supper. Just as consuming the bread and the cup is essential to the significance of the Lord's supper, immersion is essential to the significance of baptism.

I also recommend Beasley-Murray's article on baptizo and Beckwith's article on Infant Baptism in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. It covers in the original-language words, questions of mode and candidacy, and connection to Jewish customs in greater detail than can be posted here.

[FreeinChrist]

Great post, Propadeutic!


I 'll have to check out that book - the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Is the other article online somewhere?

[Bulldog]

Another question..

According to Baptist theology, if one was baptised as an infant, would they need to be baptised again as an adult?

[theseed]

Another question..

According to Baptist theology, if one was baptised as an infant, would they eed to be baptised again as an adult?
Because the Apostles praticed beleivers baptism.

[kayanne]

Another question..

According to Baptist theology, if one was baptised as an infant, would they eed to be baptised again as an adult?

If one was baptized as an infant, the baptism occurred before saving faith was present. If this infant, at some point when he is old enough to understand, comes to Christ in repentance and is saved, he does not NEED to be baptized to "complete his salvation" or "add to his salvation" or anything like that. He OUGHT to be baptized to obey the Scriptures. And if he wants to become a member of a Baptist church, most (possibly all?) Baptist churches would require believer's baptism for membership. ("believer's baptism" meaning simply that the baptism occurred to a "believer" not to an infant incapable of believing, or anyone else who was baptized before genuine salvation. Generally immersion is required). This requirement to participate in "believer's baptism", as taught by Baptists, is because a true Christian should obey God's Word to the best of their ability, and there is generally no reason or excuse to refuse believer's baptism. (except maybe extreme illness, being bed-ridden, etc could make immersion impossible). Other than these rare and extreme situations, if a person will not even obey this easy-to-obey commandment, they cannot become a member of the church or be entrusted with responsibilities given only to members (ie teachers, elders, deacons).

[Filia Mariae]

If Baptism does not save, why does it matter whether or not its full immersion?

[Propadeutic]

Is the other article online somewhere?

It's on my website (check my profile). The specific file is baptism.html . It contains answers to questions about the Baptist understanding of baptism, excerpts from major Baptist confessions, and a list of all the baptisms in the New Testament.

On the translation of 1 Peter 3:21, the Greek is ho kai hymas antitypon nun sózei baptisma, ou sarkos apothesis rhypou alla suneidéseós agathés eperótéma eis theon di' anastaseós Iésou Christou.

I offer this: "Also [its] antitype, baptism, now saves you, not the taking away of dirt from the flesh, but the appeal to God proceeding from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The two best interpretations of this that I've heard are (1) that Peter is talking about spiritual baptism and specifies that by saying he's not talking about physical washing (which, like Noah's flood, is a type pointing to a greater reality), or (2) that the "appeal" is the pledge or profession of faith made by the convert at baptism, and it is the content of that pledge (i.e., the convert's embracing of the gospel) to which God responds by applying salvation to that person.

In any case, throughout the letter Peter consistently roots salvation in faith/belief (1:7, 9, 21; 2:6-7) and repentance (1:22; 2:24; 4:2-6; 4:17).

[Propadeutic]

If Baptism does not save, why does it matter whether or not its full immersion?


It matters for the same reason it matters how we pray, how we treat other people, how we worship, and how we raise our children. It is a matter of obedience. God has told us how we are to act and what kind of worship He delights in. He doesn't like it when we change the rules (see Levitcus 10:1-3 and Mark 7:6-13 for examples.)

We should obey God, even though it is not our obedience that puts us in right standing before Him.

[ShirChadash]

If Baptism does not save, why does it matter whether or not its full immersion?
Question from an onlooker, in light of above question...

Was Yeshua immersed or sprinkled?

[Bulldog]

If Baptism does not save, why does it matter whether or not its full immersion?

The Lord's Supper doesn't save either, but it's good to use bread instead of lasagna, no? ;)

[GreenEyedLady]

Question from an onlooker, in light of above question...

Was Yeshua immersed or sprinkled?
He was dunked!
GEL

[ShirChadash]

He was dunked!
GEL Thankie GEL :)

And the reason I asked is probably obvious -- it seems perfectly reasonable to me that people who are mainly concerned with following the example of Yeshua in all things possible (in every situation in which His behavior was example to us, as HIS followers), those people would immerse... as He Himself immersed.

Just as another poster stated above,

This requirement to participate in "believer's baptism", as taught by Baptists, is because a true Christian should obey God's Word to the best of their ability, and there is generally no reason or excuse to refuse believer's baptism. this seems to me also to be the reasoning behind immersion rather than sprinkling -- and when remotely able to do so, one does well to imitate the Messiah's example as closely as possible... no?

ps, I of course knew He immersed, but was quietly trying to make a point. :)

[GreenEyedLady]

Not only doing the example of what HE did but it symbolizes his death burial and ressurection. That is why it is unscriptual to sprinkle. It doesn't symbolize anything biblical. I am curious to how and when the sprinking thing came into some churches.
HMMMMMMMMMMMM
GEL.

[Crazy Liz]

The biblical precedent for "re-baptizing"–or more properly, baptizing biblically for the first time–is in Acts 19. Paul encounters some Ephesians who had been baptized, but who had not embraced the gospel of Christ or heard of the Holy Spirit. They knew only the "baptism of John." After Paul set them straight, he baptized them again. The Holy Spirit endorsed this move by filling the Ephesians at that moment. It is evident from this passage that people who were baptized before having a genuine conversion experience–whether they were infants or adults at the time–need to be baptized biblically after their true conversion.

Does that mean that those who believe but are not properly baptized do not receive the Holy Spirit?

[Crazy Liz]

The Lord's Supper doesn't save either, but it's good to use bread instead of lasagna, no? ;)

But what if one or the other is fermented or not fermented?

[Koey]

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus was immersed. Mat 3:16 gives a hint, but does not "prove" that he was immersed. As one scholar pointed out, that phrase "went up immediately from [or out of] the water" could also equally describe someone who stood in the water to be sprinkled or poured upon, but never actually went under.

[Andyman_1970]

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus was immersed.

The historical and cultural evidence would suggest He was immersed, but He immersed Himself.

[Iollain]

The New American Bible was translated mostl;y by Catholics and a few Protestants. It has interpretation in it...meaning it is not a word for word translation of the Greek. The NASB is a word for word translation.
1Pe 3:19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits {now} in prison,1Pe 3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through {the} water.1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,1Pe 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Not the removal of dirt from the flesh - ie - not the water
The baptism that 'saves' is the washing of regeneration done by the Holy spirit that removes our sin and makes us new creatures.
I don't know if this verse was mentioned, but it supports the verse that was posted here:

Ephesians 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish

[FreeinChrist]

Mat 3:5

Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan;
Mat 3:6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.Mat 3:11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Mat 3:13 Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan {coming} to John, to be baptized by him.Mat 3:14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?"Mat 3:15 But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit {it} at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he *permitted Him.Mat 3:16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove {and} lighting on Him,Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

Jhn 1:25 They asked him, and said to him, "Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"Jhn 1:26 John answered them saying, "I baptize in water, {but} among you stands One whom you do not know.

I added the bold. I believe the text shows that Jesus was baptized by John, a prophet of God.

[FreeinChrist]

I don't know if this verse was mentioned, but it supports the verse that was posted here:

Ephesians 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish
:) Yes, it does. Paul is using 'washing of water' metaphorically to show spiritual cleansing.

[Andyman_1970]

I added the bold. I believe the text shows that Jesus was baptized by John, a prophet of God.

What is that word "by" in the Greek, and the definitions for it. I would argue that the historical and cultural evidence we have for the Jewish mikvah would indicate Jesus immersed Himself and John the Baptist was witness to it, which was the Jewish tradition for mikvah.

If John was preaching a mikvah of repentance, why did Jesus partake in it? He had nothing to repent of? (Hint Ex 29:4, and Heb 8:6)

[FreeinChrist]

What is that word "by" in the Greek, and the definitions for it. I would argue that the historical and cultural evidence we have for the Jewish mikvah would indicate Jesus immersed Himself and John the Baptist was witness to it, which was the Jewish tradition for mikvah.

If John was preaching a mikvah of repentance, why did Jesus partake in it? He had nothing to repent of? (Hint Ex 29:4, and Heb 8:6)
KJV has it:
Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

The Greek word for the 'of' in that verse is en and can be translated as in, on, or by.

John 'baptized'...so if people baptized themselves, how did John baptize?

KJV
Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
The Greek word for 'of' in this verse is hupo - a propostion meaning 'under'. Is used in Kione Greek to show subjection under a person. In being baptized by John, Jesus willing subjected Himself to John.

Why? Jesus said " it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness".
I believe Jesus was setting an example for us to follow.
He had nothing to repent of, but we do.
Why did Jesus do this?

[GreenEyedLady]

I agree with you Free.
I wanted point out that John did not feel worthy to Baptism Jesus.
Matthew 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
He was like....Jesus.........I cannot baptize YOU, you need to baptize me!
Then Jesus said
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

[Andyman_1970]

In being baptized by John, Jesus willing subjected Himself to John.

I would disagree that Jesus was immersed by John, John was witness to it.

John the Baptist was a Rabbi with authority (or in the Hebrew S'mikah), we know this because John had disciples and not students (there is a difference).

Jesus had disciples which confirms that he was a Rabbi (and had S'mikah). In the 1st century there were two kinds of Rabbi’s. One was a Torah teacher, they got their authority to teach from the community and their teaching had to be in “agreement” with that of the community, they couldn’t come up with new interpretations of the Text. A Torah Teacher is kind of like a pastor at a major denomination today, they can’t (without major problems) teach anything that is outside that denominations “statement of faith”.

The other kind of Rabbi was a Rabbi with S’mikah. S’mikah meant authority, and as such this kind of Rabbi had the authority to teach new interpretations of the Scriptures (like Jesus teaching what are the most important commandments). A Rabbi with S’mikah had the entire OT (Genesis to Malichi) memorized. In the 1st century there are only about 10-12 Rabbi’s with S’mikah. Typically out of about 10,000 Rabbi students and disciples, only about 1 would go on to become a Rabbi with S’mikah, in instruction and training was that difficult. Rabbi's with S'mikah in the 1st century would also preform miracles, this is why we see people not being "too impressed" when Jesus would heal people and such.

So, how did a Rabbi get his S'mikah? Two Rabbi's that had S'mikah had to lay hands upon you for you to get it per Jewish Law. Who "gave" Jesus His S'mikah? First, John the Baptist as he had S'mikah, and second (but not least of all) God. What happened when Jesus came up out of the water?

How old was Jesus when He got baptized? In the 1st century a student/disciple would from the age of 15-30 train under that Rabbi (which I believe Jesus did). At the age of 30 the student / disciple would then (if they had their Rabbi's blessing) start their own ministry so to speak, they would go be a Rabbi. Age 30, does that sound familiar?

I believe Jesus was setting an example for us to follow.

What was/is Jesus according to the passage in Hebrews (Hebrews 8:6) I referenced? A preist, our High Preist. According to Jewish tradition, what was one of the cerimonies a preist had to go through before accepting his preistly duties??? Exodus 29:4. See the connection?

We tend to insert our own Greek thinking meanings for why Jesus did certain things. When I believe we have the answers for them all in the Scriptures if we will just look for them. I also believe that the cultural and historical evidence can be used to give us insight as to the background of the things Jesus did.

[FreeinChrist]

I would disagree that Jesus was immersed by John, John was witness to it.
Guess we agree to disagree.

John the Baptist was a Rabbi with authority (or in the Hebrew S'mikah), we know this because John had disciples and not students (there is a difference).

Jesus had disciples which confirms that he was a Rabbi (and had S'mikah). In the 1st century there were two kinds of Rabbi’s. One was a Torah teacher, they got their authority to teach from the community and their teaching had to be in “agreement” with that of the community, they couldn’t come up with new interpretations of the Text. A Torah Teacher is kind of like a pastor at a major denomination today, they can’t (without major problems) teach anything that is outside that denominations “statement of faith”.

The other kind of Rabbi was a Rabbi with S’mikah. S’mikah meant authority, and as such this kind of Rabbi had the authority to teach new interpretations of the Scriptures (like Jesus teaching what are the most important commandments). A Rabbi with S’mikah had the entire OT (Genesis to Malichi) memorized.
Not the apocrypha? I ask because there are those who claim it is scripture because ti was included in the Septuagint



In the 1st century there are only about 10-12 Rabbi’s with S’mikah. Typically out of about 10,000 Rabbi students and disciples, only about 1 would go on to become a Rabbi with S’mikah, in instruction and training was that difficult. Rabbi's with S'mikah in the 1st century would also preform miracles, this is why we see people not being "too impressed" when Jesus would heal people and such.

Where did you get this?
Yes, people were impressed with Christ - crowds followed Him around.


So, how did a Rabbi get his S'mikah? Two Rabbi's that had S'mikah had to lay hands upon you for you to get it per Jewish Law. Who "gave" Jesus His S'mikah? First, John the Baptist as he had S'mikah, and second (but not least of all) God. What happened when Jesus came up out of the water?
Where did John lay hands on Jesus if he did not baptize Him?

What was/is Jesus according to the passage in Hebrews (Hebrews 8:6) I referenced? A preist, our High Preist. According to Jewish tradition, what was one of the cerimonies a preist had to go through before accepting his preistly duties??? Exodus 29:4. See the connection?
There was no sacrifice associated with the Baptism of Jesus Christ. His sacrifice was 3 years later.
There were many washings under the OT Law.


We tend to insert our own Greek thinking meanings for why Jesus did certain things. When I believe we have the answers for them all in the Scriptures if we will just look for them. I also believe that the cultural and historical evidence can be used to give us insight as to the background of the things Jesus did.
I don't know that I can agree with your interpretations here. Seems you are adding extrabibilical ideas.

[GreenEyedLady]

Andyman-
Are you a Baptist?
Just wondering, I could not tell by your profile and your responses.
GEL

[Andyman_1970]

Was Jesus a Jew?

One of the things I think we need to keep in mind is that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi in the 1st century and did the things a Jew and a Rabbi would do in the 1st century. Are there things Jesus did that were not included in the Scriptures? Based on historical and cultural evidence we can get an idea (notice I said and idea) of some of the things Jesus would have done.

Not the apocrypha? I ask because there are those who claim it is scripture because ti was included in the Septuagint


I never mentioned the apocrypha.

Where did you get this?
Yes, people were impressed with Christ - crowds followed Him around.

Read some Flavius Joesephus, a 1st century Jewish historian. He wrote alot about John the Baptist, and Jesus' followers. Now granted it's not Scripture, and I don't hold it as such, but it does give us some insight as to how things were done in the 1st century and thus insight into the Scriptures.

Do a google search on the word "mikvah", or go to the messianic board on here, those folks have a wealth of information regarding Jewish culture.

Where did John lay hands on Jesus if he did not baptize Him?

The Jewish tradition to "baptize" (mikvah) was to immerse yourself 3 times, if Jesus was a Jew why would he deviate from that? It's my opionion based on the historical and cultural evidence that He immersed Himself.

There was no sacrifice associated with the Baptism of Jesus Christ. His sacrifice was 3 years later.
There were many washings under the OT Law.

Sometimes a sacrafice was fasting, what did Jesus do right after He was baptized?

I don't know that I can agree with your interpretations here. Seems you are adding extrabibilical ideas.

You don't have to that's fine. So they are extrabiblical, however they do not contradict the Scriptures, only some long held "ideas" people have about the Scriptures but not the Text itself. This information is no more "extra biblical" than say using a commentary to help explain a certain subject in the Text.

[Andyman_1970]

Andyman-
Are you a Baptist?
Just wondering, I could not tell by your profile and your responses.
GEL

You bet I am, SBC.

You can't tell by my responses, how so? I'm not sure how to take that.

An SBC pastor shared the Gospel with me when I was 26 (8 years ago) and immediatly after I asked my then girlfriend (now wife) how to ask Jesus into my life. I have gone to SBC churches ever since. I teach a college and young adult Sunday School class and a men's discipleship class.

I don't have "baptist" on my profile because first and foremost I am a follower of Jesus.

[Sephania]

Then Jesus said
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.


Dr. Merrill Tenney, the editor of the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible said, "Baptism as a rite of immersion was not begun by Christians but was taken by them from Jewish and pagan forms...." Since early Christianity was a part of the Judaism of Jesus' day, it is without question that baptism in today's church was originally Jewish. Further evidence comes from Scholars like William Lasor and David Daube who tell us of the early church's practice of baptism by self immersion after the custom of the Jews.

Read the rest here, very enlightening http://www.bebaptized.org/Jewishroots.htm

“The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.” (Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989)


I believe that we are "baptised" in the living water and the H2O is in preparation of that.

[Crazy Liz]

I don't know that I can agree with your interpretations here. Seems you are adding extrabibilical ideas.

Since the Bible does not describe the procedure in detail, it would seem you are adding extrabiblical ideas, too. That seems to be the point of this thread. We all have to fill in some gaps from scripture. How do we do that? There are several ways:

1) Tradition. Unless we can find evidence the procedure was changed at some point, we assume it has always been done the way we have always seen it done.

2) History. Look at other historical sources to see what they describe. Find out if any Jewish literature of the Second Temple period or early rabbinic period describes a procedure for baptism. Research the ancient literature for other uses of the same word.

3) Just read scripture and use your own imagination to fill in the details.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with any of the above. However, I couldn't justify using any of the above methods to resolve a conflict over what procedure is scriptural, which is the claim of the OP. ISTM the OP accepts only #1 and #3, but not #2. No procedure posted here comes purely from scripture.

Actually, that is one of the issues I have with "Bible only" theology in general. It seems prone to throw out history, tradition and any other information that could help us fill in scriptural gaps as accurately as possible, and substitute the individual's own imagination. One can easily deceive oneself into thinking one is insisting on what is biblical simply by rejecting other sources of information, without recognizing the part that must then be filled in by one's own imagination.

[GreenEyedLady]

Andy, I was just wondering. I meant I could not tell by your posts, what kinda church you attended. I might have overlooked some posts that you made about your church.
I think its great that you are saved and in God's perfect will!
Praise the Lord!

[theseed]

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus was immersed. Mat 3:16 gives a hint, but does not "prove" that he was immersed. As one scholar pointed out, that phrase "went up immediately from [or out of] the water" could also equally describe someone who stood in the water to be sprinkled or poured upon, but never actually went under.
The word baptize cromes from baptizmos, which means immersed. Also, "comming out of the water" is not possible with sprinkling or pouring.

[theseed]

The historical and cultural evidence would suggest He was immersed, but He immersed Himself.
Doesn't it say that John the Baptist did it?

[FreeinChrist]

Was Jesus a Jew?

One of the things I think we need to keep in mind is that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi in the 1st century and did the things a Jew and a Rabbi would do in the 1st century. Are there things Jesus did that were not included in the Scriptures? Based on historical and cultural evidence we can get an idea (notice I said and idea) of some of the things Jesus would have done.

Not the apocrypha? I ask because there are those who claim it is scripture because it was included in the Septuagint


I never mentioned the apocrypha.
I know you didn't mention it. :) I don't believe the apocrypha should be a part of the Bible like others beleive. I was just interested in the comment that they memorized Genesis through Malachi, though my understanding is that the order of the Tanakh has Zechariah as last.




Where did you get this?
Yes, people were impressed with Christ - crowds followed Him around.

Read some Flavius Joesephus, a 1st century Jewish historian. He wrote alot about John the Baptist, and Jesus' followers. Now granted it's not Scripture, and I don't hold it as such, but it does give us some insight as to how things were done in the 1st century and thus insight into the Scriptures.
I have read Josephus's works - or parts, I should say. I have concerns about his work. One, he is not a Christian. Two,, he was not so appreciated by the Jews either because...three, he worked for the family of General Titus who destroyed Jersusalem and wrote from a proRoman view. Four, he exaggerated - alot! Five, there seems to be some alterations that occurred later, particularly in regards to Jesus. His works need to be taken with more than a few grains of salt.


So I don't think other Rabbi's, who were truly obeying the Law, were doing miracles. I really question that.
And I do beleive that scripture supports that people were impressed with Jesus Christ.



Where did John lay hands on Jesus if he did not baptize Him?

The Jewish tradition to "baptize" (mikvah) was to immerse yourself 3 times, if Jesus was a Jew why would he deviate from that? It's my opionion based on the historical and cultural evidence that He immersed Himself.
That doesn't answer the question.

There was no sacrifice associated with the Baptism of Jesus Christ. His sacrifice was 3 years later.
There were many washings under the OT Law.

Sometimes a sacrafice was fasting, what did Jesus do right after He was baptized?
But you referred to Exodus 29:4 and the procedure was different and there was an animal sacrifice involved.

[Propadeutic]

Doesn't it say that John the Baptist did it?

Yes. The verbs used are all aorist passive, and John is specified as the agent. He was baptized by John (hyp' Ióannou). See Matt. 3:13-14, 16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21. It is not valid to rewrite the text based on our partial knowledge of Jewish customs of the time. Most of our sources for Jewish customs post-date the NT anyway, and baptism is not identical to any existing Jewish practice.

It also bears mention that John was acting as a prophet, an office separate from that of priests and rabbis. His authority came not from his knowledge of the Scriptures alone, but from the fact that he received revelation directly from God.

[Propadeutic]

I was just interested in the comment that they memorized Genesis through, though my understaning is that the order of the Tanakh has Zechariah as last.

The Hebrew order is:
Law
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

Prophets
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings (=former prophets)
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve (=latter prophets)

Writings
Psalms, Job, Proverbs
Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther (=the five; no set order)
Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles

The apocrypha appeared in the Greek Septuagint, from which we got our English order. (Some were originally written in Greek.) The Jews in Judea did not treat the apocrypha as Scripture, did not schedule them for reading in the synagogue, and did not require their memorization.

[Andyman_1970]

So I don't think other Rabbi's, who were truly obeying the Law, were doing miracles. I really question that.

That's fine, do some research on Jewish history, or not it makes no difference to me. My point in the whole Rabbi background is the Teachers of the Law did not do miracls, but Rabbi's with S'mikah did. Some were impressed with Jesus the Text tells us, the Text also tells us some weren't.

Matthew 7:28-29 also give us an indication and makes the distinction between Jesus (with S'mikah, authority) and the Torah Teachers (teachers of the Law).

[Andyman_1970]

Most of our sources for Jewish customs post-date the NT anyway,

They do, which ones and what dates?

and baptism is not identical to any existing Jewish practice.

I disagree, why would John the Baptist a Jew initiate a different act of repentance than one that was already in place? The mikvah was used by Jews as sign of repentance, isn't that what John was teaching to the Jews?

It also bears mention that John was acting as a prophet, an office separate from that of priests and rabbis. His authority came not from his knowledge of the Scriptures alone, but from the fact that he received revelation directly from God.

I agree, but the Text tells us he had disciples, did prophets have disciples? I'm not aware that they did, only Rabbi's with S'mikah did. I didn't assert that the memorization of Scripture somehow confered authority, it didn't. In the Jewish rabbinic tradition one had to get S'mikah from two others that had it (ref Moses and Aaron laying hands on the preists).

[Propadeutic]

Again, I point to the NIDNTT's article on Baptism, which spends several pages on exactly this question. "The earliest references to proselyte baptism belong to the latter half of the 1t cent. A.D. While they indicate the probability of its being a pre-Christian institution, the uncertainty they manifest as to the significance of the rite...suggest[s] that its adoption was gradual and that its interpretation was still evolving during the 1st cent. A.D." (Beasley-Murray, "Baptism," NIDNTT).

The sources cited include the fourth book of the Sibylline Oracles (1st cent.), the Mishnah (spec. Tohoroth and Zabim, late 2nd cent.), and the Talmud (A.D. 500). The Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are Christian reworkings of writings discovered at Qumran, but the Qumran texts don't indicate proselyte baptism. (The Qumran texts also do not use the word baptizo for their practice.)

There were Jewish rituals similar to baptism. Gentile proselytes to Judaism underwent a baptism (again, possibly post-NT), but to require Jews to do this would be an innovation. Any rituals in which Jews washed were repeated, whereas Christian baptism is a one-time ordinance. The Jewish purifications are attested by Josephus by not with the word baptizo, and are more properly called lustrations.

There are indications that Elijah and Elisha had disciples ("the sons of the prophets"), and John mimiced Elijah in several ways. Remember also that John was the first prophet in 400 years. There was no existing category for him to fit into. He also introduced an entirely different phenomenon and taught directly against the common Jewish understanding of the law (e.g., no confidence in being children of Abraham). Additionally, "disciples" is not exclusively a technical term, and the disciples of John and of Jesus had different roles that those of normal rabbinic disciples.

[Andyman_1970]

A quick post before I head to bed..............

I was thinking about this as I was cleaning the garage tonight:

John's baptizm was a baptism of repentance right? But Jesus didn't need to be baptized for repentance, He was being washed/mikvah/baptized to annoint Him for the preisthood. So if the traditional Jewish method for a mikvah of repentance was self-immersion, this would not have been the case for Jesus. So when someone is washed/mivkah'd/baptized into the preisthood, does someone else perform/help in the cerimony? So contrary to my earlier post that Jesus "self-immersed", He may not have.............hhhhhhhhmmmmm we learn something new everyday, or at least confirm something every day (that history/culture backup the Scriptures).

Anyway, have a good evening everyone, talk to you tomorrow.

[Andyman_1970]

Again, I point to the NIDNTT's article on Baptism, which spends several pages on exactly this question. "The earliest references to proselyte baptism belong to the latter half of the 1t cent. A.D. While they indicate the probability of its being a pre-Christian institution, the uncertainty they manifest as to the significance of the rite...suggest[s] that its adoption was gradual and that its interpretation was still evolving during the 1st cent. A.D." (Beasley-Murray, "Baptism," NIDNTT).

Interesting, cool info.

There were Jewish rituals similar to baptism. Gentile proselytes to Judaism underwent a baptism (again, possibly post-NT), but to require Jews to do this would be an innovation.)

I'm not certain of the source (Midrash I think), but there is a text that gives a story of Adam bathing in the stream that orginated in the Garden after his exile from it as a way of repenting for what he had done. I'll have to find that souce.

Any rituals in which Jews washed were repeated, whereas Christian baptism is a one-time ordinance.

Kinda like Jesus is our "once and for all" Sacrafice, our mikvah is a "once and for all". As Christians we are not under the Law (duh, I know), so just like we dont have to make sacrafices at the temple, we don't need to wash constantly for the repentance of sins.

Additionally, "disciples" is not exclusively a technical term, and the disciples of John and of Jesus had different roles that those of normal rabbinic disciples.

The Hebrew term Talmid, I disagree with you, is a technical term and does differentiate between "students" (Torah Teachers) and "disciples" (Rabbi's with S'mikah).

Thanks for the info Propadeutic, I'll put that to good use.

[Koey]

The word baptize cromes from baptizmos, which means immersed. Also, "comming out of the water" is not possible with sprinkling or pouring.
My arrogant and vain comment to this would be that certainly when my children are playing in the river, I tell them to come out of the water. That is not to say they were immersed in the water at all, but merely playing up to their ankles. Again may I point out in my rudeness that although baptizo means literally "immerse" it is not always used literally, often being used to mean simply wash. The literal immersion argument is for this reason fallacious.

Let me also point out that I believe in immersion, but if we are going to argue for it, let's use good arguments, not bad ones.

Koey the Rude one

[Andyman_1970]

It also bears mention that John was acting as a prophet, an office separate from that of priests and rabbis.

I found this tonight during my study.

John 1:21 John tells the preists and Levites that were questioning his if he was a prophet, and he says "no".

Anyway, the Text supports that John was a Rabbi and had S'mikah (authority).

[FreeinChrist]

Jhn 1:19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"Jhn 1:20 And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."Jhn 1:21 They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he *said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No."Jhn 1:22 Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?"Jhn 1:23 He said, "I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said." NASB

The Prophet is referenced here:

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; KJV
So John was still a prophet...just not the Prophet of Deuteronomy.

[TwistrAndy]

I have a question. I'm not going to be rude, because that's not my nature, so I hope you all will let me post here. I don't mean to cause any debates, or hard feelings.

OK, I'm Pentecostal (We aren't "Oneness") But, when you talk about Baptism in the Holy Ghost , isn't that where you receive the "Speaking In Tongues" because every time (that I know of, and that's several) in the Bible, the people baptized in the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues. Can you give me your opinion. Just Wondering.

[FreeinChrist]

I have a question. I'm not going to be rude, because that's not my nature, so I hope you all will let me post here. I don't mean to cause any debates, or hard feelings.

OK, I'm Pentecostal (We aren't "Oneness") But, when you talk about Baptism in the Holy Ghost , isn't that where you receive the "Speaking In Tongues" because every time (that I know of, and that's several) in the Bible, the people baptized in the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues. Can you give me your opinion. Just Wondering.
I used the phrase Baptism of the Holy Spirit in this thread, and used it to refer to the spiritual cleansing and circumcism of the beliver by the Holy Spirit that occurs when one is born again. I believe we receive the Holy Spirit when we are born again...and that it is not a separate event. It was seen as a separate event in the very beginning of the church, but that doesn't appear to have continued.
Also, not everyone who received the Holy Spirit spoke in tongues.

[Koey]

...because every time (that I know of, and that's several) in the Bible, the people baptized in the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues. Can you give me your opinion. Just Wondering.Actually, there are a few times in the Bible where a tongues experience was given by the Holy Spirit when people were described as "full" of the Holy Spirit. However, at other times, other experiences were given. I think we overemphasize tongues, almost to the point of idolatry. Jesus said that an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, so what do we do? We seek a sign. How silly we are! Notice:

Exodus 31:3 ...filled him with the Spirit of God in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship
Exodus 35:31 ...wisdom, in understanding and in knowledge and in all craftsmanship

Luke 1:15 ...filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb.

Luke 1:41-42 ...Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed among women are you, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

Luke 1:67-68 ...Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied…

Luke 4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness

Acts 2:4 ...began to speak with other tongues...

Acts 4:31 ...filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak the word of God with boldness.

Acts 9:17-18 ...so that you may regain your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit." And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he arose and was baptized;

Acts 13:52 ...continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 5:18-19 ...filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord

[Andyman_1970]

So John was still a prophet...just not the Prophet of Deuteronomy.

So even though John himself denies he is a prophet he still was one?

I agree he had a prophetic message, that is for sure. Now correct me if I'm wrong but didn't all/most of the OT prophets perfrom miracles? I don't think John did. Anyway, I'm not trying to be arguementative.

[FreeinChrist]

So even though John himself denies he is a prophet he still was one? John denied that he was THE Prophet, not that he was a prophet. The OT prophecy about the Prophet in Deuteronomy was in regards to the Messiah himself as the Prophet.



I agree he had a prophetic message, that is for sure. Now correct me if I'm wrong but didn't all/most of the OT prophets perfrom miracles? I don't think John did. Anyway, I'm not trying to be arguementative.
Some OT prophets did when directed to by God, but some did not. Jonah didn't perform a miracle that I know of, or Hosea, or Isaiah.