Baptism +

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What you say does apply today. But God at the time of Pentecost, and some time after did require His People to do a work with their hands. Those at THAT time did not have eternal security, as do we today. God's purpose for this specific cause had not yet come about.

Peter, James, John, and those others had been "water baptized" before Pentecost. Afterwards the men of Israel not before baptized, or believed, asked what they should do. They wanted the power of the HOLY GHOST. And if they did what Peter tells them in Acts 2:38, and that is to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins", then would acquire the Spirit.These people, in that time period did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as we today.

The 'great commission' was not yours or mine or anyone else's but the Apostles'! Water-baptism was given and commanded the Apostles as was the 'great commission'. The prerogative of baptism with the Baptism of Christ, Jesus reserved for Himself ONLY!

I think you may have completely misread my post. The baptism you weak of is His crucifixion, and that alone is His.

Jesus was baptized just as was HIS PEOPLE. Jesus was fulfilling prophecy while He was here, and to further implement the plan of God, He had to show the way to Pentecost.But tell me Gerhard, what are you going to do with Acts 8:36-37, "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. "

GE:

Just like at Pentecost when AFTER the people HAD been "pricked in their hearts ... when they had HEARD" through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit ALREADY and immediately ASKED: what they could do, JUST SO here, the eunuch ASKED, and Philip answered, If thou ALREADY believest with ALL thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I DO ALREADY believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

No DUTY ---_AS_--- a believer saves; repentance and desire to serve FOLLOW salvation; and are not conditional to salvation. All the GOOD deeds of obedience of the righteous are like filthy rags were it not for the merit of Jesus Christ RECKONED to them. The newly being born again receives the same reward or credit as the life-long follower of Christ --- which is the FORGIVENESS OF SIN the CROWN of their salvation. The only fitness of the redeemed 'for heaven' as the saying goes, is their FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SINS through and in Jesus Christ. They have NO other beauty or virtue or merit than the Author of their salvation .... NOTHING!

 

[luke1616]

There is a new church in the Salt City - A Brethren church.

Looking at their doctrine statement, they preform a triune baptism.

Would you say that is the correct way, the wrong way, an acceptable way? Other thoughts?


Salty

I think I'd be more concerned with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, than getting technical or legalistic with the water baptism.

 

[DHK]

Even if a cult?

Your original statement on this is:

Can a Christian an associate, and worship with anyone if that person believes on our Lord Jesus Christ?

Answer--Why not.
Now you say--Even if a cult?

Let me stress: Cult members are not believers!
Thus your question is moot.

True since water baptism of the great Commission is not for our time.

I agree, for today water baptism is not necessary, and should not keep one from becoming a member of a Ch ristian church.

This is a heretical statement. The baptism referred to in Mat.28:19,20, i.e., the Great Commission is none other than water baptism. Water baptism is absolutely necessary in our time--not for salvation, but for obedience. It is the first step of obedience for a Christian after salvation.
Repent and be baptized.
Believe and be baptized.
Great importance is placed on the doctrine of water baptism.
In almost every denomination--from the RCC, CoC, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc., Baptism (for different reasons) has been the door, the entrance into the church. Why should your opinion stand against all the denominations of all of history?

Just making the point baptism should not be a factor if one in Christ Jesus wants to join a church, and the church refuses unless they are re-baptized.

Your point is moot. You give an opinion without Scripture. It is given against historical evidence of all history. It is given against all Scriptural evidence. For all who were baptized became members of local churches, including the 3,000 who were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. Your opinion is just that--opinion, and it has no foundation in fact.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Acts 2:41
"They therefore indeed the ones WELCOMING THE WORD WERE BAPTIZED. And there were ADDED in that day about three thousand SOULS."

First observation through just reading what is written:

It doesn't mention water anywhere, any how.

It doesn't say "the 3,000 who were baptized".

It says 3000 "were ADDED" because "They indeed" were, "THEREFORE THE ONES WELCOMING THE WORD".

It says CLEARLY HOW, they were baptized: "WELCOMING THE WORD THEY WERE BAPTIZED".

Any thing else or anything more or anything different, is "opinion" --- "is just that--opinion, and it has no foundation in fact" or Scripture, but is the fiction and traditions of "almost every denomination--from the RCC, CoC, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.", that teach for Scripture-truth "Baptism has been the door" while Christ said He is the Door, "the entrance into the church" despite Christ said He is the Way.

Why should one's individual "opinion stand against all the denominations of all of history"? ---
BECAUSE IT STANDS ON SOLA SCRIPTURA, SOLUS CHRISTUS, SOLA FIDEI, SOLA GRATIA! ....
and is UNTO SOLI DEO GLORIA ...

which is good for and INCLUDES and APPLIES to
BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE: 'the baptism absolutely necessary for' and prerequisite of: "SALVATION" BY AND WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT;
and AFTER: the obedience of faith unto repentance and perseverance in faith and righteousness until the end.

 

[DHK]

Acts 2:41
"They therefore indeed the ones WELCOMING THE WORD WERE BAPTIZED. And there were ADDED in that day about three thousand SOULS."

First observation through just reading what is written:

It doesn't mention water anywhere, any how.

It doesn't say "the 3,000 who were baptized".

It says 3000 "were ADDED" because "They indeed" were, "THEREFORE THE ONES WELCOMING THE WORD".

It says CLEARLY HOW, they were baptized: "WELCOMING THE WORD THEY WERE BAPTIZED".

Any thing else or anything more or anything different, is "opinion" --- "is just that--opinion, and it has no foundation in fact" or Scripture, but is the fiction and traditions of "almost every denomination--from the RCC, CoC, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.", that teach for Scripture-truth "Baptism has been the door" while Christ said He is the Door, "the entrance into the church" despite Christ said He is the Way.

Why should one's individual "opinion stand against all the denominations of all of history"? ---
BECAUSE IT STANDS ON SOLA SCRIPTURA, SOLUS CHRISTUS, SOLA FIDEI, SOLA GRATIA! ....
and is UNTO SOLI DEO GLORIA ...

which is good for and INCLUDES and APPLIES to
BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE: 'the baptism absolutely necessary for' and prerequisite of: "SALVATION" BY AND WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT;
and AFTER: the obedience of faith unto repentance and perseverance in faith and righteousness until the end.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

They were baptized with water as every believer is, as the Ethiopian eunuch was in Acts chapter 8, as the Philippian jailer was in Acts chapter 16. The word means immersion. They were immersed into water. To deny water baptism is to deny the totality of Scripture on this subject.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

In Acts 2:41 "they WELCOMING-THE-WORD-WERE-BAPTIZED", 'apodeksamenoi ebaptisthehsan'. NO 'water' no matter how.

In Acts 8 Philip immersed the eunuch (Philip himself having been authorized directly by Apostles within the Apostolic Age) on REQUEST of the candidate and not by precept of Christ. (Philip, 'Okay, if you wish; it won't hurt anyone I guess...'. But long after the water-factor proved to have caused more harm than any could foresee.)

In Acts 16 the jailer was NOT commanded by either of Paul and Silas to be baptised, but to believe only.

Also the word for 'was baptised' may just as well apply to the jailer's treatment for his wounds, 'he', "himself", 'autos', being the subject of all Verbs and 'he', "himself" the object both "washed", 'elousen' and 'baptised', 'ebaptistheh'. "...And all of his there and then brought them (Paul and Silas) into his house". (Where the eunuch received washing and baptizing of his wounds remains an open question; but it was before any entered the house and the family members got involved.)

 

[ituttut]

Just like at Pentecost when AFTER the people HAD been "pricked in their hearts ... when they had HEARD" through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit ALREADY and immediately ASKED: what they could do, JUST SO here, the eunuch ASKED, and Philip answered, If thou ALREADY believest with ALL thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I DO ALREADY believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Verse 37 is lacking in the earliest manuscripts.
In any event both of these happenings were before Damascus Road, which means they were covered under that Old economy.

No DUTY ---_AS_--- a believer saves; repentance and desire to serve FOLLOW salvation; and are not conditional to salvation. All the GOOD deeds of obedience of the righteous are like filthy rags were it not for the merit of Jesus Christ RECKONED to them. The newly being born again receives the same reward or credit as the life-long follower of Christ --- which is the FORGIVENESS OF SIN the CROWN of their salvation. The only fitness of the redeemed 'for heaven' as the saying goes, is their FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SINS through and in Jesus Christ. They have NO other beauty or virtue or merit than the Author of their salvation .... NOTHING!

You speak of our salvation today; but not then. We today are not saved as those in the Apostolic church. Salvation is of God, and applied as we live, and as He directs.

Are we told today to live as the Israelite, being circumcised in the flesh, following the gospel Law of Moses, or necessary to be baptized in Repentance, and water Baptism for the Remission of Our Sins?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Gentleman,

No body can deny that John the Baptist administered water baptism. No one can deny that Jesus submitted to water baptism. No one can deny that water baptism was administered under Jesus through his disciples (Jn. 4:1; Lk. 7:29-30).

The Great Commission is a command not a request and the baptism in the Great commission is the kind that "ye" or that men administer to others (Mt. 28:29) and therefore cannot possibly be anything but water baptism. In addition, they are commanded in the Great Commission to simply administer to others what they themselves "have" submitted to and they submitted to water baptism.

Last but not least, this is a commission to administer water baptism until the "end of the age" and even if you have the warped idea that he means to the end of the Apostolic age (which he does not) that would include the whole book of Acts, the epistles and the book of Revelation and so arguing that it is not water baptism in Acts 2, 8, 16, 19, etc. is foolish.

The baptism in the Spirit was an historical act predicted in the gospels and pinpointed to occur on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5). It was not an individual application (Acts 11:15-16) but it was the common ordinary immersion in the shikinah glory that occurred AFTER the completion of every new house of God (Ex. 40; 2 Chron. 7:1-3; Acts 2:1-3) and repeated with the Gentiles (Acts 10) to accredit them as members of the new house of God. It was completed and finished and that is exactly why Ephesians 4:5 says there is now only "one baptism" and that is the baptism that is commissioned unto the end of the age (Mt. 28:19-20).

If you have an open mind, and will deal with immediate context honestly, it can be easily shown that 1 Cor. 12:13 refers to the building of the local visible congregation and water baptism as described in 1 Cor. 3:4-16 and is the immediate solution for division in the body at Corinth over spiritual gifts as well as over party divisions in 1 Cor. 1:12.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr Walter, if someone (Jew or Gentile who knew not the Christian Way) came to you and said, I want to join your Church because I have become a Christian, and here is my confession of Faith, and he confessed before you and your Congregation the Apostolicum, and recited by heart the Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 and John 3:16, and even John 1:33 and Ephesians 4:5 as the confession of his faith (as was required more or less of the catechist in the days of Luther) --- and you knew this person for having been as God-fearing and upright a man as any in your Church and even yourself --- would you welcome him and introduce him to your Congregation as a new member? Or would you tell him: On condition you do not confess John 1:33 or Ephesians 4:5 and get baptised with water instead?

 

[ituttut]

Your original statement on this is:

Answer--Why not.
Now you say--Even if a cult?

Let me stress: Cult members are not believers!
Thus your question is moot.

But when they believe, are they still "cult"?

This is a heretical statement. The baptism referred to in Mat.28:19,20, i.e., the Great Commission is none other than water baptism. Water baptism is absolutely necessary in our time--not for salvation, but for obedience. It is the first step of obedience for a Christian after salvation.
Repent and be baptized.
Believe and be baptized.
Great importance is placed on the doctrine of water baptism.

I Corinthians 17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

If baptism is of the utmost importance today, then why doesn't John include it in his gospel, or other writings? All we see in his gospel is before the crucifixion.

In almost every denomination--from the RCC, CoC, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc., Baptism (for different reasons) has been the door, the entrance into the church. Why should your opinion stand against all the denominations of all of history?

I had much rather believe scripture than man. Can you find in His Word baptism after the Old is put aside in order for New to be believed. For it is By Grace that we are Saved Through Faith (his baptism), a Gift from God, and we shouldn't try to attach anything else to our salvation

Why do the denominations, and the mother church water baptize? They do it because the mother church did, and the denominations also brought out Christmas and Easter frrom that church.

Is it not because they try to mix and match the Old with the New? Didn't certain signs, and gifts cease? Baptism drops out of sight from the only apostle to the Gentile, and the last apostles to the Jew.

Your point is moot. You give an opinion without Scripture. It is given against historical evidence of all history. It is given against all Scriptural evidence. For all who were baptized became members of local churches, including the 3,000 who were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. Your opinion is just that--opinion, and it has no foundation in fact.[/QUOTE]
Above is of scripture, but some think it opinion. God gives us the Facts, and it is up to us to believe His Word, and not mans.IBelieve on His Word, rightly divided. When we can see this we can allow the bible to interpret itself, with out our added input. Can you deny what I say above that John thought it not important enough to mention, or that Paul gives thanks to God that he didn't baptize any more. They all had to go through a learning period, and they did learn the NEW, and left the OLD behind.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dr Walter, if someone (Jew or Gentile who knew not the Christian Way) came to you and said, I want to join your Church because I have become a Christian, and here is my confession of Faith, and he confessed before you and your Congregation the Apostolicum, and recited by heart the Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 and John 3:16, and even John 1:33 and Ephesians 4:5 as the confession of his faith (as was required more or less of the catechist in the days of Luther) --- and you knew this person for having been as God-fearing and upright a man as any in your Church and even yourself --- would you welcome him and introduce him to your Congregation as a new member? Or would you tell him: On condition you do not confess John 1:33 or Ephesians 4:5 and get baptised with water instead?

GE, your line of reasoning is rediculous. You nor I have any right to rewrite the scriptures and make them fit your misled theology. Baptism is a command not an option and it is a command for believers (Mk. 16:16). If this man is a believer than demonstrate it by obedience to Christ's command and the first command to the new believer is to be baptized.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I Corinthians 17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

You are ignoring the fact that just before Paul said this (1 Cor. 1:17) he not only admitted but named members at Corinth he did administer baptism to. Hence, Paul is not denying the need for baptism but he is denying that baptism takes priority over preaching the gospel.

If baptism is of the utmost importance today, then why doesn't John include it in his gospel, or other writings? All we see in his gospel is before the crucifixion.

Each gospel has its own emphasis and all four are necessary to get the whole picture. John's emphasis is present Christ as more than a man, but God in the flesh. This emphasis does not deny baptism as most of the first chapter is about John the Baptist and Jesus identifying with the ministry of John the Baptist. John 3:21-36 is about John and his baptism. John 4:1-2 tells us explicitly that Jesus baptized more than John but through his disciples.

I had much rather believe scripture than man. Can you find in His Word baptism after the Old is put aside in order for New to be believed. For it is By Grace that we are Saved Through Faith (his baptism), a Gift from God, and we shouldn't try to attach anything else to our salvation

You miss the fact that the command to baptism is part of the age long commission in Matthew 28:19-20. The baptism in this commission is water baptism because it is a baptism that men administer to other men. It is not a suggestion or recommendation but a command and that command is to be followed "until the end of the world. Amen." Your argument is with Christ!

 

[ituttut]

Gentleman,

No body can deny that John the Baptist administered water baptism. No one can deny that Jesus submitted to water baptism. No one can deny that water baptism was administered under Jesus through his disciples (Jn. 4:1; Lk. 7:29-30).

Right on every count.

The Great Commission is a command not a request and the baptism in the Great commission is the kind that "ye" or that men administer to others (Mt. 28:29) and therefore cannot possibly be anything but water baptism. In addition, they are commanded in the Great Commission to simply administer to others what they themselves "have" submitted to and they submitted to water baptism.

Must again agree. And this is exactly what some other religions believe.. for the remission of sins.

Last but not least, this is a commission to administer water baptism until the "end of the age" and even if you have the warped idea that he means to the end of the Apostolic age (which he does not) that would include the whole book of Acts, the epistles and the book of Revelation and so arguing that it is not water baptism in Acts 2, 8, 16, 19, etc. is foolish.

Yes, again agree is water baptism that was necessary for Israel, in order to receive remission of sins.

The baptism in the Spirit was an historical act predicted in the gospels and pinpointed to occur on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5). It was not an individual application (Acts 11:15-16) but it was the common ordinary immersion in the shikinah glory that occurred AFTER the completion of every new house of God (Ex. 40; 2 Chron. 7:1-3; Acts 2:1-3) and repeated with the Gentiles (Acts 10) to accredit them as members of the new house of God. It was completed and finished and that is exactly why Ephesians 4:5 says there is now only "one baptism" and that is the baptism that is commissioned unto the end of the age (Mt. 28:19-20).

Areyou not mixing and matching here, blurring the meanings of Jesus on earth, and what He says to Paul from heaven? Jesus speaks to the end of the age (time). Paul speaks of eternity being spent with Christ Jesus in heaven.[qquote]

If you have an open mind, and will deal with immediate context honestly, it can be easily shown that 1 Cor. 12:13 refers to the building of the local visible congregation and water baptism as described in 1 Cor. 3:4-16 and is the immediate solution for division in the body at Corinth over spiritual gifts as well as over party divisions in 1 Cor. 1:12.[/quote][/quote]Can't see the point ou are tring to make here.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes, again agree is water baptism that was necessary for Israel, in order to receive remission of sins.

The Great Commission is given to baptized believers in Christ. Israel rejected Christ. The Great Commission is given to be administered "until the end of the world" and the book of Acts and the epistles are not written to Israel but to the congregations of Christ. The Great Commission was not given to Israel but "unto all the world" (Mt. 28:19).

Areyou not mixing and matching here, blurring the meanings of Jesus on earth, and what He says to Paul from heaven? Jesus speaks to the end of the age (time). Paul speaks of eternity being spent with Christ Jesus in heaven.[qquote]

Paul was not speaking to God in heaven in 1 Cor. 1:17 but to the congregation located in Corinth on earth. Jesus was not speaking to His Father in heaven in Acts 1:5 but to his appostles on earth.

If you have an open mind, and will deal with immediate context honestly, it can be easily shown that 1 Cor. 12:13 refers to the building of the local visible congregation and water baptism as described in 1 Cor. 3:4-16 and is the immediate solution for division in the body at Corinth over spiritual gifts as well as over party divisions in 1 Cor. 1:12.

[/quote]Can't see the point ou are tring to make here.[/QUOTE]

1 Corinthians 12:13 is a summary verse of 1 Corinthians 3:5-16. The first problem of division at Corinth was a denominational party division within the body over the administrators of their baptism (1 Cor. 1:11-13). Paul resolves this party division in the congregation by pointing out that all the Baptismal administrators they were divided over were working together as "one" UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SPIRIT (1 Cor. 3:5-8) in building the congregation at Corinth as a "temple" of God (1 Cor. 3:16). This is how God builds each and every one of his congregations on earth - through human instrumentality, preachers, who preach the gospel and baptize the believers and either constitute a congregation or add them to an existent congregation through baptism. The same problem existed in 1 Corinthians 12 over spiritual gifts and the relative value of members in the body at Corinth. Paul simply applies the same principle and reminds them that "under the leadership ("by") one Spirit we are all baptized in water into one kind of congregational body and made to partake of the Spiritual gifts within that body through its membership (1 Cor. 12:14-26) and the congregation at Corinth is such a body and was formed in such a way (I Cor. 12:27).

 

[ituttut]

You are ignoring the fact that just before Paul said this (1 Cor. 1:17) he not only admitted but named members at Corinth he did administer baptism to. Hence, Paul is not denying the need for baptism but he is denying that baptism takes priority over preaching the gospel.

well said for baptism (water) has nothing to do with our salvation. If it does, then there are other churches thatare Right, and we are Wrong.

Each gospel has its own emphasis and all four are necessary to get the whole picture. John's emphasis is present Christ as more than a man, but God in the flesh. This emphasis does not deny baptism as most of the first chapter is about John the Baptist and Jesus identifying with the ministry of John the Baptist. John 3:21-36 is about John and his baptism. John 4:1-2 tells us explicitly that Jesus baptized more than John but through his disciples.

There can be no denial of this fact. But if we have not noticed before, should we not study some more? For whom did Jesus say He came for the first time? It was only for His sheep, i.e. His own people. Should we on our own volition dare say I am His chosen people also? Being we are all considered Gentiles today renders that baptism ineffective today.

You miss the fact that the command to baptism is part of the age long commission in Matthew 28:19-20. The baptism in this commission is water baptism because it is a baptism that men administer to other men. It is not a suggestion or recommendation but a command and that command is to be followed "until the end of the world. Amen." Your argument is with Christ!

[/qipte]You are right it is a command to those He said He came far, and it is to those He preached to, as did John the Baptist, and all the earthly Apostles. They did not associate or preach to, or directly at any Gentile. We should know this for He tells us so.

 

[Dr. Walter]

They did not associate or preach to, or directly at any Gentile. We should know this for He tells us so. [/SIZE]

The Great Commission is to the Gentiles not the Jews "teach ALL NATIONS" and therefore baptism in this commission is for GENTILES.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE, your line of reasoning is rediculous. You nor I have any right to rewrite the scriptures and make them fit your misled theology. Baptism is a command not an option and it is a command for believers (Mk. 16:16). If this man is a believer than demonstrate it by obedience to Christ's command and the first command to the new believer is to be baptized.

GE:


I believe Mark 16:16; I believe 'what is written' in Mk16:16. He who believes and is baptised is saved and sealed and shall never be lost. Because he is "batised IN THE NAME" Matthew 28:19 of the ONE God with the ONE baptism the ONLY baptism of the Christian Faith whereby any who shall be saved IS SAVED and is brought INTO THE COMMUNION OF THE SAINTS the Church the Spiritual "Body of Christ's Own".

He who does not in the Spirit worship does not worship in Truth; he who does not worship God in the Holy Spirit under the baptism of the Holy Spirit, knows not the Truth which is Jesus Christ --- he does not worship at all but puts up a show in the works of man-made laws of ceremonies and rituals.

Men can laugh at my faith that I believe and obey Mark 16:16 if they will, but they cannot break the Seal by which the Word of God declared the Elect of God are sealed and eternally secure in their redemption.

I nor any believer needs water to believe; but no believer can or will believe without the Holy Spirit of God WHO WITHOUT FAIL SHALL BAPTISE and shall have baptised all believers in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. No, not ONE! No! NOT WITH THE HELP OF WATER other than the WATER OF LIFE which is Christ Jesus.

The devil saw this coming when he saw the Christ approaching John the Baptist … ‘to be baptised by him’ … and quickly got his strategies right to confuse and destroy the Divine Order of True and Saving Baptism. He simply fixed the eyes and THOUGHTS of men on the earthly works of mere man: water and going down into and under and coming up out of water at the hand of a baptiser and baptising Church— therewith BLINDING THEIR EYES FOR READING Jesus' true baptism: John 1:32.

John the Baptist TWICE TOOK OATH JESUS WAS BAPTISED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT— he John not having as much as touched Jesus, nor any of the two of them as much as looked in the direction of water! And John TWICE UNDER OATH DENIED he baptised the Christ and Son of God or was able to BECAUSE HE BAPTISED WITH WATER!! So, that which John SAW, he TWICE SWORE was how GOD WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISED THE SON. The Son of God "SHOULD BE MANIFESTED" never ever, through him, John the Baptist, or, through ‘holy’ water: "BUT THOU SHALT SEE THE SPIRIT DESCENDING _AND REMAINING_ ON HIM".

Now carefully and clearly SEE: that "He" who WAS thus "baptised" with the Holy Spirit, also "_IS THE SAME WHICH _BAPTIZETH_ WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT".

No! arrogates haughty man; we improve on the baptism OF AND BY the Son of God, and WE THE CHURCH your authority henceforth, o Reborn child of God --- WE DEMAND YOU SHALL BE BAPTISED WITH AND / OR IN WATER or you SHALL HAVE NO PART IN THE BODY OF CHRIST HIS CHURCH.

Water-baptism is become the most arrogant and taunting diminishing of the All-Sufficiency of Christ.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The Church --- yes, of Jesus Christ, is which Church I believe! --- the Church, has devised two barriers wherewith to bring division and dispute between true believers and true believers: 1) Water-baptism, and 2) Sunday observance.

I believe an ever-reforming Church; it must reform on these two evils.

 

[DHK]

The Church --- yes, of Jesus Christ, is which Church I believe! --- the Church, has devised two barriers wherewith to bring division and dispute between true believers and true believers: 1) Water-baptism, and 2) Sunday observance.

I believe an ever-reforming Church; it must reform on these two evils.

To call one of the two ordinances that Christ commanded the local church to carry out until he comes again (i.e. the Lord's Supper and water baptism) "an evil" is abhorrent!!

Does Christ command us to do evil things??

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

To call one of the two ordinances that Christ commanded the local church to carry out until he comes again (i.e. the Lord's Supper and water baptism) "an evil" is abhorrent!!

Does Christ command us to do evil things??
[/SIZE]

GE:


Christ did not 'command US' on baptism; He commanded those He addressed, in person on baptism: they were the eleven disciples the Risen Christ thus commissioned and made Apostles --- THE ONLY Apostles of Christianity and Paul with them.

Christ did not command 'us' either to baptise, or to preach the Gospel. He commanded US THROUGH HIS APOSTLES to BELIEVE the Gospel which his Apostles preached, because they were to “baptise IN / WITH THE NAME" (and ‘we’ thus are to be “baptised-receiving-the-Word”) THROUGH THEIR TEACHING.

If Jesus commanded 'with water', He would have SAID: "with in water". HE DID NOT.

And of course a false accusation like that I called "one of the two ordinances that Christ commanded the local church to carry out until he comes again (i.e. the Lord's Supper and water baptism) "an evil"", is abhorrent!! I never viewed or called or implied whatsoever "water baptism", "one of the two ordinances that Christ commanded". Simple fact of the facts black on white.

"The Lord's Supper", 'Kuriakos Deipnon' is the one 'ordinance' 'ordained' by Christ himself; "The Lord's Day" Kuriakeh Hehmera' is the other of the only TWO Christian 'ordinances' Christ 'ordained' and they GO TOGETHER and cannot be divided from one another. His NAME joins and perpetuates them together for ever.

The only other REQUIREMENT of true believers as "the Body of Christ's Own", is the Baptism of the Lord which HE ministers HIMSELF "with the Holy Spirit" AS IT IS WRITTEN and no man true believers or not true believers can or may minister.

I believe the Christian Church; I believe the Christian Faith of the Christian Church; I believe the Christian Ordinances of the Christian Faith of the Christian Church. I esteem this Faith precious and gloriously beautiful and enjoyable. All else I for the sake of Jesus Christ, esteem abhorrent!