Baptism - Sprinkled or Dunked?

[Charlie24]

You don't understand Colossians 2, where Paul shows us that Baptism is a spiritual baptism.

Remember Paul said "One Baptism?"

That One Baptism is a spiritual baptism, where the water baptism is a visible proof of the spiritual baptism that took place at the very moment of believing in Christ.

It's called the Circumcision Made Without Hands. It's the spiritual operation of God being spiritually baptized into Christ.

Col. 2:11-14

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

If you like I can go through the Scripture and give you a better undertaking of this. If you are willing to go there with me!

Remember when Jeremiah quoted God, "I will circumcise the heart?"

This is what Paul is explaining in Col. 2, the circumcision of the heart, the one baptism, whereby we enter into the New Covenant with God.

 

[Cathode]

You don't understand Colossians 2, where Paul shows us that Baptism is a spiritual baptism.

Remember Paul said "One Baptism?"

That One Baptism is a spiritual baptism, where the water baptism is a visible proof of the spiritual baptism that took place at the very moment of believing in Christ.

It's called the Circumcision Made Without Hands. It's the spiritual operation of God being spiritually baptized into Christ.

This is what Peter is talking about.

“In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. “ 1 Peter 3

Water Baptism is spiritual, it does save. That’s how the Church universally understood this for 2000 years.

 

[Charlie24]

This is what Peter is talking about.

“In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. “ 1 Peter 3

Water Baptism is spiritual, it does save. That’s how the Church universally understood this for 2000 years.

Even some of the Reformers got baptism wrong. They were not perfect, but they did see as Martin Luther made sure they seen, "the just shall live by faith."

Notice in 1 Peter 3:21, this is the 1611 KJV,

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

"The like figure" is a symbol of the baptism that saves us. Do you get it?

Water baptism is "the symbol" of the spiritual baptism that saves us.

"not the putting away of filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God."

the one who engages in water baptism has a clear conscience with God knowing he was made clean by faith in Christ, which took place in the spiritual baptism.

 

[Charlie24]

Even some of the Reformers got baptism wrong. They were not perfect, but they did see as Martin Luther made sure they seen, "the just shall live by faith."

Notice in 1 Peter 3:21, this is the 1611 KJV,

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

"The like figure" is a symbol of the baptism that saves us. Do you get it?

Water baptism is "the symbol" of the spiritual baptism that saves us.

"not the putting away of filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God."

the one who engages in water baptism has a clear conscience with God knowing he was made clean by faith in Christ, which took place in the spiritual baptism.

Surly you can see that "the washing away of filth (our sins) which is represented in water baptism, does not save us, as Peter is explaining.

 

[Cathode]

There lies the deep-imbedded lie of Catholicism. Contrary, Salvation is not a process.

This process the Catholics hold is the way of works to salvation, wherewith man will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Even some of the Reformers got baptism wrong. They were not perfect, but they did see as Martin Luther made sure they seen, "the just shall live by faith."

Notice in 1 Peter 3:21, this is the 1611 KJV,

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

"The like figure" is a symbol of the baptism that saves us. Do you get it?

Water baptism is "the symbol" of the spiritual baptism that saves us.

"not the putting away of filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God."

the one who engages in water baptism has a clear conscience with God knowing he was made clean by faith in Christ, which took place in the spiritual baptism.

Baptism has always been regeneration.

For you to be right, all of the first 1500 years of Christianity had to be wrong and the majority of Christianity today.
Symbolic baptism was founded on the arrogant misinterpretation of Zwingli in the 1500s. It was a small sect of heretics that had doctrines not found in scripture or in all Christianity.

 

[Charlie24]

Baptism has always been regeneration.

For you to be right, all of the first 1500 years of Christianity had to be wrong and the majority of Christianity today.
Symbolic baptism was founded on the arrogant misinterpretation of Zwingli in the 1500s. It was a small sect of heretics that had doctrines not found in scripture or in all Christianity.

I've just shown you the Scripture. If you want to believe those so-called "Holy Fathers" over the last 2000 years and risk your salvation on those working for their salvation, be my guest! I only have the ability to point, the rest is in God's hand.

 

[Cathode]

Surly you can see that "the washing away of filth (our sins) which is represented in water baptism, does not save us, as Peter is explaining.

That’s exactly what he is saying, Baptism saves, that’s the context.

“In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. “ 1 Peter 3

Baptism has spiritual effects not just washing dirt from the body. This is Regeneration.

Read all the Early Christians east and west north and south, Baptism is Regeneration everywhere universally understood from scripture.

You have Scripture clearly telling you and 95% of Christians that have ever lived telling, you.

You didn’t answer my question if you believed baptism saves.

Catholics believe baptism saves which is in line with scripture, Baptist’s don’t believe it saves, they believe it’s merely symbolic and does nothing.
Which is against scripture.

 

[Charlie24]

That’s exactly what he is saying, Baptism saves, that’s the context.

“In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. “ 1 Peter 3

Baptism has spiritual effects not just washing dirt from the body. This is Regeneration.

Read all the Early Christians east and west north and south, Baptism is Regeneration everywhere universally understood from scripture.

You have Scripture clearly telling you and 95% of Christians that have ever lived telling, you.

You didn’t answer my question if you believed baptism saves.

Catholics believe baptism saves which is in line with scripture, Baptist’s don’t believe it saves, they believe it’s merely symbolic and does nothing.
Which is against scripture.

Thank God I'm a Baptist up and down, forward and backwards! Not perfect, but empowered by the Holy Spirit to overcome this world!

If you choose to be dependent on another man to make your regeneration in Christ possible, then I refer you to the great Apostle.

Romans 11:6

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

Your works have made the Grace of God void, and salvation has passed you by.

 

[Cathode]

I've just shown you the Scripture. If you want to believe those so-called "Holy Fathers" over the last 2000 years and risk your salvation on those working for their salvation, be my guest! I only have the ability to point, the rest is in God's hand.

So you want me to reject all the guys that preserved the Scriptures and assembled and authenticated the bible and all Christians for the first 1500 years and believe you and Zwingli who was the first to invent symbolic baptism.

Zwingli had no authority to suddenly declare after 1500 years that Baptism was now symbolic.

Your doctrine doesn’t originate from the Bible, it originates from Zwingli, do you know that. Human doctrine.

After 1500 years of Christianity and even the other reformers, Zwingli invented the doctrine that baptism was symbolic.

Zwingli had no authority to invent his doctrine, why are you following human doctrine.

 

[Charlie24]

So you want me to reject all the guys that preserved the Scriptures and assembled and authenticated the bible and all Christians for the first 1500 years and believe you and Zwingli who was the first to invent symbolic baptism.

Zwingli had no authority to suddenly declare after 1500 years that Baptism was now symbolic.

Your doctrine doesn’t originate from the Bible, it originates from Zwingli, do you know that. Human doctrine.

After 1500 years of Christianity and even the other reformers, Zwingli invented the doctrine that baptism was symbolic.

Zwingli had no authority to invent his doctrine, why are you following human doctrine.

I'm following what the Lord has shown me, from those in Scripture who God gave the authority to speak on His behalf.

You can ignore what I've said on the subject of works, or you can plead with the Lord to show you the way.

Not with a predetermined mindset, but with the will to know God's truth.

 

[Charlie24]

I'm following what the Lord has shown me, from those in Scripture who God gave the authority to speak on His behalf.

You can ignore what I've said on the subject of works, or you can plead with the Lord to show you the way.

Not with a predetermined mindset, but with the will to know God's truth.

This brings me to another conclusion on 1 Peter 3:21, unrelated to our conversation, but interesting I think.

Why did Peter say, "whereunto even baptism does also NOW save us?" referring to the spiritual baptism saving us.

My thoughts are that the OT saints were forgiven and saved by the PROMISE of the Messiah coming and carrying out this act of grace for us to be spiritually baptized into the New Covenant.

We are saved by the fact of Christ fulfilling this act of Grace, it's for them looking forward for the promise and us looking back on the fact of the promise.

This is why I believe the OT saints were held in Paradise, unable to enter into heaven, because the promise was not yet fulfilled.

This leads me to believe they were not "circumcised in the heart" as we are after the fact. But they were saved by faith not actually being born-again until after the fulfillment. But nevertheless just as much saved as us being that God counted the fulfillment in Christ as a sure thing.

It's for sure the "circumcision of the heart" came after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, Jeremiah said from God "I will circumcise the heart" said in future tense. So it stands to reason the OT saints were not born-again as receiving the "circumcision of the heart," but it came later after the fulfillment by Christ. But yet they were still just as much saved then as we are now.

I also believe that when Christ told Nicodemus, "you must be born-again," it couldn't happen at that time until the fulfillment by Christ, but faith in Christ would naturally lead to the promise of being born again, which I think took place at Pentecost in Acts 2. The Holy Spirit came and performed that circumcision of the heart in all believers and has since, based on the fulfillment of Christ.

 

[Cathode]

Thank God I'm a Baptist up and down, forward and backwards! Not perfect, but empowered by the Holy Spirit to overcome this world!

If you choose to be dependent on another man to make your regeneration in Christ possible, then I refer you to the great Apostle.

Romans 11:6

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

Your works have made the Grace of God void, and salvation has passed you by.

Listen, you are in a small insular sect of Christianity and have been indoctrinated in erroneous breakaway understandings of Scripture.

Christianity is much larger, older and deeper than your limited exposure has allowed you to see.

Not meaning anything personal by it, but you don’t have the deep rich broad exposure and understanding of traditional Christianity.

I'm following what the Lord has shown me, from those in Scripture who God gave the authority to speak on His behalf.

You can ignore what I've said on the subject of works, or you can plead with the Lord to show you the way.

Not with a predetermined mindset, but with the will to know God's truth.

You are following Zwingli’s interpretation of scripture, human tradition, not the ancient interpretation of scripture of the Apostles.

Read all the Early Christians interpretation of Scripture, they all hold that scripture teaches Baptismal regeneration, they all know and use scripture in its original interpretation.

 

[Charlie24]

Listen, you are in a small insular sect of Christianity and have been indoctrinated in erroneous breakaway understandings of Scripture.

Christianity is much larger, older and deeper than your limited exposure has allowed you to see.

Not meaning anything personal by it, but you don’t have the deep rich broad exposure and understanding of traditional Christianity.



You are following Zwingli’s interpretation of scripture, human tradition, not the ancient interpretation of scripture of the Apostles.

Read all the Early Christians interpretation of Scripture, they all hold that scripture teaches Baptismal regeneration, they all know and use scripture in its original interpretation.

Awe, I know you don't mean anything personal by it, that goes without being said!

I have studied all about Church history from a-z, I have studied the Reformers to great detail. I just don't discuss it here as it's not that important to me. I'm concerned with the here and now, getting our salvation right, understanding God as we should, continuously reading to understand more.

But i understand the tradition that has such an impact in your belief. I'm just asking you to consider the points I've made, confirm in your heart with God what is Truth. That's all, my friend!

 

[Cathode]

Why are all the Early Church Fathers and Christian scholars quoting scripture as meaning baptism is Regeneration?

“And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

“When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water..., he hath not life.'” Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).

All of them call Baptism being “ Born again “.

Notice they all quoted and interpreted the Scripture the same way.

No Christian believed Baptism was just symbolic for over 1500 years until Zwingli invented it.

Zwingli was the origin of this human doctrine and tradition of men. Not the Bible.

 

[Charlie24]

Why are all the Early Church Fathers and Christian scholars quoting scripture as meaning baptism is Regeneration?

“And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

“When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water..., he hath not life.'” Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).

All of them call Baptism being “ Born again “.

Notice they all quoted and interpreted the Scripture the same way.

No Christian believed Baptism was just symbolic for over 1500 years until Zwingli invented it.

Zwingli was the origin of this human doctrine and tradition of men. Not the Bible.

I can tell you exactly why, because Peter has said so in Acts 2:38, but is that what Peter actually said?

I can tell you no, it's not! Peter had a huge influence on the early Church, and it still continues to be so, and rightfully so.

Irenaeus was hugely influenced by Peter, and so anything that involved water regeneration was automatically associated with Acts 2:38.

 

[Cathode]

“[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” Cyprian, To Stephen, 71:72 (A.D. 253).

“And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit…Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.” Council of Carthage VII (A.D. 258).

From what is now France to Africa and all the Middle East, the entire Christian Church universally interpreted scripture to mean Baptism was born again regeneration for more than one thousand five hundred years, think about that.

They all baptised infants as well.

These are all heads of their churches, Bishops, overseers and scholars, and many martyrs quoting the same scriptures with the same understanding.

Are they all stupid?

 

[Cathode]

I can tell you exactly why, because Peter has said so in Acts 2:38, but is that what Peter actually said?

I can tell you no, it's not! Peter had a huge influence on the early Church, and it still continues to be so, and rightfully so.

Irenaeus was hugely influenced by Peter, and so anything that involved water regeneration was automatically associated with Acts 2:38.

It’s not just Irenaeus.

The incredible thing is, ALL of Christianity taught that Baptism was Regeneration and quoted and interpreted the Scripture to mean that.

Why are they ALL quoting scripture and interpreting Baptismal Regeneration from it.

Why are ALL the ancient Churches universally in agreement that Baptism is Regeneration and ALL baptise infants.

They ALL interpret Baptismal Regeneration from Scripture universally.

Disagreeing with universal Christian interpretation of scripture means your interpretation of scripture is wrong. It’s the best guide to the truth of scripture.

 

[Charlie24]

“[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” Cyprian, To Stephen, 71:72 (A.D. 253).

“And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit…Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.” Council of Carthage VII (A.D. 258).

From what is now France to Africa and all the Middle East, the entire Christian Church universally interpreted scripture to mean Baptism was born again regeneration for more than one thousand five hundred years, think about that.

They all baptised infants as well.

These are all heads of their churches, Bishops, overseers and scholars, and many martyrs quoting the same scriptures with the same understanding.

Are they all stupid?

When Jesus said that, He was referring to the physical birth of man, through the water that he is surrounded by in the womb.

Being born-again is of the spirit world, this goes back to our conversation of the spiritual baptism.

Man is physically born through water into life, and spiritually born into the Kingdom of God by the Spirit.

 

[Charlie24]

It’s not just Irenaeus.

The incredible thing is, ALL of Christianity taught that Baptism was Regeneration and quoted and interpreted the Scripture to mean that.

Why are they ALL quoting scripture and interpreting Baptismal Regeneration from it.

Why are ALL the ancient Churches universally in agreement that Baptism is Regeneration and ALL baptise infants.

They ALL interpret Baptismal Regeneration from Scripture universally.

Disagreeing with universal Christian interpretation of scripture means your interpretation of scripture is wrong. It’s the best guide to the truth of scripture.

I can tell you that the problem with the early scholars without going any further.

They misunderstood Acts 2:38 believing it was faith and water baptism that forgives sin and saves the soul.

That's just a fact! then they began piling on the works you see in Catholicism.

 

[Cathode]

When Jesus said that, He was referring to the physical birth of man, through the water that he is surrounded by in the womb.

Being born-again is of the spirit world, this goes back to our conversation of the spiritual baptism.

Man is physically born through water into life, and spiritually born into the Kingdom of God by the Spirit.

Did you know that Ulrich Zwingli was the founder of the human doctrine of symbolic baptism? 1520s

Before him, ALL CHRISTIANS, ALL CHURCHES EVERYWHERE BACK TO THE APOSTLES BELIEVED IN BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.

How is it possible that all Christianity was universally deceived for the first 1500 years?

Do you find that strange?