What Scriptures support baptism by immersion?

Dan:
Words have meaning whether you realize that or not. Baptism is, by definiton in the bible, a burial, overwhelmimg, or covering. If one thinks otherwise, he can simply provide the evidence from the divine record. I have done so. Roms. 6:3-5, I Pet. 3:21, I Cor. 10:1,2.

Baptism for the remission of sin was and is just as it appears in the bible. I believe the evidence and have no inspired evidence to believe otherwise.

Moreover, pouring is not an overwhelming,burial or a covering. It is real simple. God said to cover, bury, overwhelm when he said baptize. He did not ask us to sprinkle or pour. Of course, this is just what the bible says.
Of course, one may disagree. However, he is in the same positon as the one who espouses sprinkling. The evidence for this does not exist.

 

Frank, I think I have already covered this in some of my previous posts on this thread. To the contrary you have not given a bible definition of baptism as being an immersion at all. You only imply that from some of your erroneous interpretations. As far as baptism being sprinkling or pouring, consider again that the examples of baptism in the book of Acts were of two kinds, one with water and one with the Spirit. Spirit baptism was always a pouring. Acts 2:17; Acts 8:15-16; Acts 11:15-16; This strikes down any argument that the word for baptize cannot mean anything else accept to immerse because the word baptize was used and it was a pouring! Baptism of the Spirit happened and it "fell" or was "poured out". You see, just because " rahntizo" was a word for sprinkling doesn't mean that it's required in all instances where an affussion was intended. Rhantizo had not developed religious overtowns like baptizo. Baptizo was the word chosen to mean "purification using water" regardless of how it was done, and as I can show, was surely done at times by sprinkling. The book of Hebrews reveals that baptism was not unique to the New Testament period, but also described certain "purification rites" laild out in the Old, and described them as sprinklings. They were baptisms for purification, using ashes and water, and they were sprinklings :

HEB 9:11 NRSV
"9 This is a symbol of the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, 10 but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms , regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right.
But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), 12 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!"

Notice in this context that the sprinklings of purification was also baptisms. You can look all of these sprinklings up by searching the books of the law in the Old Testament! These scriptures all go to show that when one spoke of "baptism", they knew what it ment, and they knew what the precedents were for it in the Old Testament. The same thing is true of John's baptism; there were precedents for it from Old Testament prophesy. Some even misstook John for the Messiah, since they expected the Messiah to come "sprinkling many nations" Isa. 52:15. This was the same chapter of prophesy read by the Ethiopian Eunuch when he asked Phillip for baptism! Such terms as "many nations" and "all flesh" was prophetic terminology. Acts 2:17.

Now, water baptism relates directly with Spirit bapism as you can plainly see at the baptism of the household of Cornelius in Acts: These were both baptisms having to do with God granting repentance and life!

Acts 11:15-18 (ESV)
As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. [16] And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' [17] If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" [18] When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."
Acts 10:46-47 (ESV)
Then Peter declared, [47] "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

So here, it's as plain as plain can be that the same "baptism" depicting the "falling" of the Spirit is the one depicting "baptism" using water as the agent. Incidentally, sprinkling and pouring are the same in meaning, each having the same implications.

Well, The people who had witnessed the falling of the Spirit on the apostles as a baptism, the kind likened unto John's baptism with water asked the apostles what they themselves were to do :

Acts 2:38 (ESV)
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

Smoky:
Water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism do not relate to one another as you have asserted. The Holy Spirit delivered the message by which men are saved.Acts 2:1-4,17-38. The Bible teaches sins are WASHED away. Rev. 1:5, Acts 22:16, Eph. 5:26. The bible does not teach the Holy Spirit washes away sin. There is one baptism that wahes away sin. It is the baptism that is an overwhelming, covering, or burial in water. You can search today,tomorrow and for a thousand years with the mind of einstein and not find any other way to receive the remission of sins by being immersed in water in accordance with the words of the new testament of Christ.

This is not the only condition needed for remission of sin but it is the one that addresses the question of this thread!

Again, name the person (s) in the new testament that were sprinkled,poured for the remission of sins.
Furthermore, if Cornelius was saved by the act of the falling of the Holy Spirit, he was saved without FAITH.
See the account in order Acts 11. Cornelius had not even heard the message of salvation when this took place. Are you now affirming men are saved without the word of the gospel, and therefore, without faith. Hebrews 11:6, Romans 10:17, James 1:18,21, Romans 1:16?

Furthermore,types and antitypes are not the same. The baptism of Noah was a prefigure of the baptism of today. This is not to say it was the exact likeness. Spo for you to equate them as such is a failure understand types and antitypes.

 

The only thing that "washes away sin" is the blood of Jesus, water just pictures that! 1 Peter 3:21 says that its not the removal of dirt but the appeal to God for a good conscience that saves. The Holy Spirit gives us a good conscience.

I don't have to search for a thousand years and you don't have to have the mind of einstein!

I've showed you that when John baptized with water, he did the same thing with water that the Lord did when he baptizes with the Holy Spirit, he poured it out! The apostles did the same thing. And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 (ESV) "For the forgiveness of sins" implies that they were to demonstrate by water baptism the sins that were already forgiven, not as a means to achieve forgiveness. That it was by pouring is obvious, because they had just witnessed the Holy Spirit fall on the apostles referred to as a pouring in Peter's sermon, and they were commanded to do the same thing with water.

That's nonsense, because it says that Peter had already began preaching the gospel when the spirit fell. Acts 11:15 (ESV)
As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.
Furthermore it says in the following verses that God had given the household of Cornelius the same gift that he gave the apostles when they believed! If water baptism and Spirit baptism are not connected then why would Peter remember what the Lord had told them when he said:
Acts 11:16 (ESV)
And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

 

Smoky:
The Greek text uses the word ARCO meaning at the beginning or commencement of an event. The Holy Spirit fell as he BEGAN TO SPEAK. The nonsense is the failure to examine the text and the language employed. Peter was interrupted at the beginning or ARCO. NO Nonsense. Just truth from the original language.

 

Frank,

You said, 'My exegetical understanding has considered the totality of the evidence.'

Ray is saying, 'I offered to you a couple of verses about household baptism and you blew them off by saying because you did not have any infants in your family that Lydia did not either. An argument from silence about Lydia and a poor example from your 21st century take on, in this case, your family.'

Frank said, 1. You ASSERT infants, babies and young children are sinners. PROVE IT! I
Thes. 5:21.'

Ray is saying, 'Did you take time to see that your I Thess. Scripture has nothing to do about sinners, infants or young children?

Ray is saying, 'Everyone on this board knows that everyone is a sinner including infants and children, otherwise, Romans 3:23 is a false statement. There is your proof. Catholics and Protestants alike believe in Original Sin or the Adamic nature. I don't even believe I have to explain this to a Christian.

Frank--2. You ASSERT these individuals were baptized. PROVE IT FROM THE TEXT!

Ray is saying, 'Acts 16:14-15a is your answer. If they were all adults or older children Paul and Silas would have asked them to accept Christ and be baptized, but they did not ask them because very young children or infants were without doubt involved. I have noticed that you danced around the tulips as to my explanation from Acts 16 and I Cor. 1:15, because you have no air tight, Baptistic explanation for these verses.
3. Households may or may not have young children or infants in them. You
have ASSUMED this without textual support.

Ray is saying, About your no. 3 check above.

My household has five
members. The youngest of which is 11 years old. There are no infants or
young children who do not have the ability to discern right and wrong. So,
your contention about households and infants and young children is ,well,
unsupported assertion to be kind.

Ray is saying, 'Infant baptism does not require human cognition. This is something that Christian families do as a sign of the covenant, that they are not the offspring of a pagan religion or that they have been left behind as children of sinners.

I presented evidence that identifies both sin and the sinner.

Ray is saying, 'And by your statement above which starts out by saying, 'I presented . . . ' I guess you mean just adult sinners since you were objecting early on about me proving that that infants were sinners.'

The evidence will
not allow for an infant or young child incapable of cognitive abiltiy to be
subject to baptism for the remission of sins.

Ray is saying, that baptism is a promise from our Lord not merely to adults but the rest of the household. I'll would guess that your pastor never preached about "Household Baptism." Anyway, the promises of Jesus are not only to adults but ' to your children, and all who are afar off.' [Acts 2:39]


I would like to know how a one month old child confesses Christ as the Son
of the Living God ( Acts 8:37). 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.

Ray is saying, 'You are right Philip was speaking to adult sinners.'

I would like to know what fruits of repentence an infant must bear and can
bear ( Mat. 3:8). Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Ray is saying, Jesus said, 'Suffer the little children to come unto Me and forbid them not . . . ' In your case you would turn them away from the covenant of baptism.

Frank said, 'I Would like to know how an infant has the ability to know and do such
things as murder, steal or any such work of the flesh. ( Gal. 5:19- 21 ).
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions,
heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I
tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Which one of these sins does a
baby commit?

Sin is the missing of the mark. I John 3:4. It requires one to do something.
James 4;17, Gal. 6:10. It requires cognitive abitlity and discernment. ( Acts
2:36-38). Paul by inspiration said in Romans 7:7-9, Romans 7:7 What
shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but
by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not
covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner
of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came,
sin revived, and I died.
When was Paul alive once without sin? Was it before he had the ability to
comprehend coveteousness or after? Was he alive once when he was an
adult. If this is so, then he understood coveteousness as an infant but
became mentally ill and did not know it as an adult, as this would be the time
he was alive once without the law.

Ray is saying, 'Your shopping list of sins are the kinds of things that adult sinners commit. Infants are too small to commit these sins, but they are still born into sin and have an Adamic nature. I would have thought, if you are a fundamentalist, that they would have taught you this by now. The Roman Catholic Church also believes in Original Sin, but you must have missed that S.S. class.

Frank said, 'Your argument is like taking candy from a baby. No pun intended!'

Ray is saying, 'I find lot of verbiage with little substance, except your clear understanding of adult sinners, receiving Christ and adult baptism, which I too believe.

If you have covered all the bases then exegete I Corinthians 1:16; I Corinthians 7:14; Acts 16:14-15, for your all inclusive understanding of the Christian family and baptism. My guess is you will either fail in this endeavor totally, twist the Scripture and probably not give many scholarly explanations of these three passages.

Some Lutherans, Evangelical and Reformed, Episcopalians, and Roman Catholics believe in baptismal regeneration. At this point in time, I do not believe this, but infant baptism is the Christian sign of the covenant, a proof that these little ones are not children of sinners.'

You said, 'My exegetical understanding has considered the totality of the evidence.'

Ray is saying, 'Your on. Let's see how good you are at keeping Biblical. Here is your chance in front of everyone.' If not you fail.

 

Ray does not understand sin. Sin is the trangression of Law. I John 3:4. It requires cognition and action. James 4:17, Gal. 6:10. Infants are incapable of these things.

According to the Bible,which sin does an infant commit? By the way, the sins of others are not imputed to sons or daughters. Ezekiel 18:4,20.

Adam brought the knowledge of evil into the world by his choice to rebel against God. Sin is the rebellion against God. All men do rebel against God ( Romans 3:23). But, according to the bible, WHEN? Is it at birth? If so, Jesus was a sinner. Surely, one is not so lucid as to accept that proposition. How does an infant rebel against God. The doctrine of original sin is simply unsustainable by the divine record.

 

Well, then fit this into the context: Acts 11:17 (ESV)
If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" Cornelius had heard enough of the message to believe the same as the apostles had. It might have been at the begining of the speech but there is nothing in the language that prevents Cornelius from hearing enough to believe. Notice: Acts 10:44 (ESV)
While Peter was still saying these things , the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. There is nothing in the greek word that implies Peter had not yet said anything! Notice strong's definition: archomai, ar'-khom-ahee; middle of Greek 757 (archo) (through the implication of precedence); to commence (in order of time) :- (rehearse from the) begin (-ning). God had already began the process of saving Cornelius anyway as a man seeking after the living God:

Acts 10:22 (ESV)
And they said, "Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say."
Acts 10:30-32 (ESV)
And Cornelius said, "Four days ago, about this hour, I was praying in my house at the ninth hour, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing
[31] and said, 'Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God. [32] Send therefore to Joppa and ask for Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea.'

By the way, notice what Peter said after the houshold of Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit:
Acts 10:47 (KJV)
Can any man forbid water , that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Now how earth can one "forbid water" if the baptism was going to be an immersion? They would have to have a pretty big wagon and some pretty strong mules to forbid an immersion tank from being brought in there! The language implies water being brought in. Forbidding water would make no sense at all if it referred to a trip to a pool!

 

Smoky:
It is unsubstantiated assumption to claim when one is interrupted at the beginning the hearer has heard " enough to believe." The word ARCO means an interruption at the commencement of an event. Peter says it was as he began to speak, not after he had heard enough to believe. This is wishful conjecture on your part and is not supported by the account of this conversion in order of sequence. Acts 11:1-5. If someone makes a noise as a rushing mighty wind, interrupting me at the beginning of my speech, how would one be able to hear the gospel that saves? This is inane reasoning. If one is interrupted at the beginning, his message is incomplete, not finished and not understood. The text indicates Cornelius was to hear ALL THE WORDS. Acts 10:33.

 

Pay very careful attention to this passage Frank:
Acts 10:44 (ESV)
While Peter was still saying these things , the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. It says Peter was in the process of preaching and the Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. What could be plainer than that? Your reasoning doesn't hold water. Why would the Lord give the Spirit to anyone even before they had a chance to believe? Talk about people making wishful conjectures!!

Of course the Lord wanted them to hear all, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't hear enough to be saved during the sermon!

[ September 29, 2003, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Smoky ]

 

Frank,

Frank said, 'The doctrine of original sin is simply unsustainable by the divine record.'

Ray is saying, 'You still have not explained one of the passages on 'household baptism.' Oh, and add Acts 16:31 and 34 to your list. Dr. Matthew Henry, "Matthew Henry's Commentary" said on page 214 this. 'The jailer and his family were immediately baptized, and thereby took upon them the profession of Christianity. . . . Neither he nor any of his family desired time to consider whether they should come into baptismal bonds or no; no did Paul and Silas desire time to try their sincerity and to consider whether they should be baptize them or no. The Spirit of grace worked such a strong faith in them . . . '

Reading material: Basic Theology, Moody Press, p. 252-255, chapter on, The Inheritance of Sin.

The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press, pgs. 310-11;436;494-96;552;556. The subject 'Original Sin' . . .

And thirdly, Pat Robertson "ANSWERS" Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 26-27;55;57-58;88 The subject "Original Sin"

The key to all of this is personal study.

No hurt intended, but if you don't know basic theology which teaches Original Sin, how am I to expect that you could understand all the passages on baptism.

 

This from a man who has, to this point, made it quite clear that words mean only what Frank thinks they mean. You didn't even acknowledge a difference between affusion and aspersion until it was pointed out to you, and then you continue to pass it off as irrelevant. It's not a case of the pot calling the kettle black; it's a case of you implying ignorance or indifference (or worse) on my part, because I do not "bow" to your stubborn oppinions, and they are just that - oppinions.

Many have done so, yet you will not listen. You, however, have yet to prove anything concerning your oppinion.

Paul advises us:

I'll leave this dispute; Paul's advice is good, yet I'm not leaving in a huff. You are entitled to your oppinions.

 

Dan:
The evidence teaches baptism is an overwhelming, burial, covering. You can argue from what he said or she said but you CANNOT DO SO BY THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE. I am representing the new testament, not some theologians " Possibilities."

A burial in reference to Christ ( Romans 6:3-5) required him to be overwhelmed covered in a tomb. He was not visible while in the tomb. He was covered. Sprinkling or pouring do not by any stretch of the rational mind cover or overwhelm in this manner. Therefore, they are not baptsim as depicted in the new testament, your contention not withstanding.

Furthermore, the baptism of I Pet. 3:21 was an overwhelming by water. The whole world was surrounded or overwhelmed by water. God did not sprinkle the earth he immersed it.

The baptism of Moses as described in I Cor. 10:1,2 was an overwhelming, covering or immersion by the sea and clouds.

I asked for BIBLICAL EXAMPLES in the NEW TESTAMENT OF CHRIST FOR your position. I have been presented with BOOK 000, CHAPTER 000, VERSE 000. The scripture that has been employed is not germane to the baptism for unto the remission of sin as depicted in the new testament for conversions.

I have made a simple request. Provide the new testament example that demonstrates your position as iot pertains to the remission of sin. Again, I ahve done so for baptism as it appears in the new testament examples of conversion.

 

Frank,

You said, 'A burial in reference to Christ ( Romans 6:3-5) required him to be
overwhelmed covered in a tomb.

Ray is saying, Romans chapter six deals with ' . . . baptism into Jesus Christ,' not baptism as in being submerged in water. Find some water in Romans six. We will all wait to be enlightened.

You said, 'He was not visible while in the tomb.'

Ray is saying, 'Why bring in the tomb; it has nothing to do with this passage.

You said, 'He was covered.'

Ray is saying, 'Jesus walked into the Temple many times and yet we do not use this as a kind of mystery as to water baptism. Give us a big break!

You said, 'Sprinkling or pouring do not by any stretch of the rational mind cover or overwhelm in this manner. Therefore, they are not baptsim as depicted in the new testament, your contention not withstanding.'

I graduated from a Bible College and two seminaries and never heard in class or in a theological book the words, 'overwhelmed in water.' You infer that one is bapitzed better if he is surrounded by much water.

There were not baptismal pools especially away from the Jordan River. Water was a shortage; immersion is a misnomer. Gentile Christians would have been forbidden to immerse people in a public pool, because the Jews would have forbid them to do this. It is not the amount of water but the ministration of the ordinance that is most important.

 

Ray:

Romans 6:3-5 defines baptism. The agent is identified in several places. I Pet. 3:21, Acts 8:38, John 3:3-5, Eph. 5:26. Moreover, there is only one baptism that saves. (Eph. 4:4,5). It had human administrators ( Mt. 28:19). It was to last until the end of time ( Mt. 28:20). Holy Spirit baptism was done by Christ. ( MT. 3:11, Lk. 24:44-51). It was not for all men. ( Joel 2:28, Acts 2:1-4,17;10:44-48). It was for a limited dispensation (I Cor. 10:8-11, Eph. 4:11-16). The text by implication and the harmony of the totality of evidence requires water baptism.
Furthermore, one must use all the scriptures pertaining to an issue to make rational conclusions.
By your reasoning, I can prove confession is all that is needed to be saved. I John 4:1. Confess
ion is all that is mentioned. I guess you exclude all other conditions because this passage does not mention them. Acts 11:18 mentions only repentance. I suppose you would now exclude confession as it is not mentioned in this verse. Jesus said one must believe in John 8:32. Howwever, confession and repentance are omitted. I guess now you exclude them because they are not mentioned in this passage. Peter says baptism doth also now save us. He does not mention belief, confession,or repentance. I suppose now you would exclude these elements of salvation as Peter does not say they save us in passage. Did your seminaries teach you the meaning of the word synecdoche? If not, you were denied a proper education as it pertains to the scriptures.
I do not know if the two seminaries you atended taught a class in hemeneutics. However, if they did, you were either absent that semester, or you attended and were not taught the basics of interpretation. In the later case, you should ask for a refund or sue for negligence.
Romans 6 says nothing of faith. Do you exclude it? Romans 6 says nothing of repentance. Do you exclude it? Romans 6 says noything of the blood of Christ. Do you exclude it?

 

Ray:

Romans 6:3-5 defines baptism. The agent is identified in several places. I Pet. 3:21, Acts 8:38, John 3:3-5, Eph. 5:26. Moreover, there is only one baptism that saves. (Eph. 4:4,5). It had human administrators ( Mt. 28:19). It was to last until the end of time ( Mt. 28:20).

Holy Spirit baptism was done by Christ. ( MT. 3:11, Lk. 24:44-51). It was not for all men. ( Joel 2:28, Acts 2:1-4,17;10:44-48). It was for a limited dispensation (I Cor. 10:8-11, Eph. 4:11-16). The text by implication and the harmony of the totality of evidence requires water baptism.
Furthermore, one must use all the scriptures pertaining to an issue to make rational conclusions.
By your reasoning, I can prove confession is all that is needed to be saved. I John 4:1. Confession is all that is mentioned. I guess you exclude all other conditions because this passage does not mention them. Acts 11:18 mentions only repentance. I suppose you would now exclude confession as it is not mentioned in this verse. Jesus said one must believe in John 8:32. However, confession and repentance are omitted. I guess now you exclude them because they are not mentioned in this passage. Peter says baptism doth also now save us. He does not mention belief, confession,or repentance. I suppose now you would exclude these elements of salvation as Peter does not say they save us in passage.

Did your seminaries teach you the meaning of the word synecdoche? If not, you were denied a proper education as it pertains to the scriptures.
I do not know if the two seminaries you atended taught a class in hemeneutics. However, if they did, you were either absent that semester, or you attended and were not taught the basics of interpretation. In the later case, you should ask for a refund or sue for negligence.
Romans 6: 3-5, says nothing of faith. Do you exclude it? Romans 6: 3-5, says nothing of repentance. Do you exclude it? Romans 6: 3-5, says nothing of the blood of Christ. Do you exclude it?
Frank says, get all the evidence before you make your conclusions. Then, and only then, will you interpret the Bible rightly ( Luke 10:28).

 

Frank,

You said, 'Romans 6:3-5 defines baptism.'

Ray is saying, 'In your mind it defines baptism but in reality it does not explain baptism. I attended First Baptist in Allentown while in Bible College and they teach much which is correct. A person could hardly go to church but they stated what you said above, plus II Corinthians 5:21 which says, 'For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.' I agree with this passage and the interpretation that the pastors offered. But, to say that Romans chapter six deals with baptism is utterly wrong. You have heard this so much that you have been brainwashed.

Like I said find one drop of water in Romans six so we can all see it.

When we were baptized into Jesus Christ we were baptized into His death. Understand, that to be baptized into Jesus Christ is to be baptized also into the Father and the precious Holy Spirit. Our baptism into death with Christ assured our 'newness of life' from the Spirit as we live the Christian life.

Then in verse five Paul says, because we have been planted together with Him in the likeness of His death, one day we will also be like Him in our physical resurrection from the dead--to eternal life.

In verse seven we learn that we are freed from sin, not because of our water baptism, but because as Paul said early on--we were baptized into Jesus Christ, which was our start in the Christian life.

In verse nine Paul says because Christ was raised from the dead and is alive forevermore, and because of our union with Him, the second death has no more dominion over us.

In verse fourteen Paul says that those who are saved are saved from the dominion of sin; by this he meant that sin will not rule in the life of a Christian, because we are under the canopy of His grace. Why? Because we were baptized into Jesus Christ. [vs.3]

No water in Romans chapter six. For your sake and others I wish it were true but it is not there.

 

There is a vast difference between being baptized in water and that of being baptized into Jesus Christ. [Romans 6:3] How is a person baptized into Jesus Christ? The answer is found in the previous passage in Romans 5:1. 'Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.' It is our faith in Christ that gives the right for Almighty God to baptize sinners into the Triune Godhead.

Christ is the Head of the church and were baptized into one body, not by water but via the Holy Spirit. This proof is found in I Corinthians 12:13. Check it out!

 

Ray:
I understand english. I have preached many funerals where men are buried. Romans 6:3-5. Your accusations are foolish.
Furthermore, You have failed to present sany evidence for someone being converted by waht you claim a man must do. Having failed to sustaiin your argument with evidence from biblical examples of conversion, you use I Cor. 12:13 to attempt to justify baptism by the Holy Spirit. You, by falsely asserting this, place the Bible in conflict with Mt. 3:11, Lk. 24;44-51, Acts 2;1-4,17;8:17,18, Eph. 4:11-16, I Cor. 13:8-11. Note Eph. 4:4,5. The one spirit is that of truth which saves. Jmaes 1:18. It is the truth. James 1:21. A truth that purifies us through obedience. I Pet. 1:20-22.
The conversions found in Acts 8:11-18 illustrate the baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The converts in verse 13 were baptized. However, they did not have the HOLY SPIRIT. The apostles had to come to where Philip was preaching to impart the Holy Spirit ( verse 17,18).
Your argument cannot be sustaiined by the totality of the harmonious evidence from scripture. In Short, Simon was baptized for the remisssion of sins in water. Then, the apostles came done to where Philip was preaching and imparted the HOLY SPIRIT. If the converts had been baptized by the Spirit, verse 17,18 are illogical and are nonsense as they would have already received him by their previous baptism. However, the real nonsense is your argument.

 

Frank,

'The verb {baptizo} is used eighty times in the N.T. but Paul uses it only sixteen times and only eleven of those refer to water baptism (three of them in Acts). Furthermore, he uses the verb six times in his explanation that Christ did not send him to baptize (I Cor. 1:13-17); thus, apart from that reference, Paul refers to water baptism only twice in the epsitles (I Cor. 15:29). In his explanation to the Corinthians Paul makes it clear that baptism is not a part of the Gospel (I Cor. 1:17-18). Paul seems to emphasize the baptism of the Spirit more than water baptism (cf. *Romans 6:3; I Cor. 10:2-4; 12:13; Galatians 3:27).' from Dr. Enns, "Moody's Handbook of Theology" p. 112.

Ray is saying, 'It seems that the Apostle Paul elevates preaching the Gospel while it appears that he did not emphasize his active role in baptizing people. I don't go as far as Dr. Enns where he says that baptism is not a part of the Gospel. I believe it is a very important aspect of Christian ministry. But, my point with you is that Enns is right where he says that Romans six is dealing with baptism into the Holy Spirit, rather than baptism into water by immersion.