Baptism

[ryarn]

Here's why Jesus needed to be baptized:

Then even you must admit that it is more than just a dunking. For myself Baptism is a profession of faith and a semblance of the death, burial, and resurrection, with Christ.
MB

Jesus' baptism was a sign to John that the prophesied Messiah to come, was here.

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost


See it was a part of obiedience (+John 1:33), a sign too. And for us a profession of faith and a semblance of the death, burial, and resurrection, with Christ.
:thumbs:

 

[percho]

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost


See it was a part of obiedience (+John 1:33), a sign too. And for us a profession of faith and a semblance of the death, burial, and resurrection, with Christ.
:thumbs:

If we are water baptized doesn't it show we believe Christ died for us therefore our desire is to walk in newness of life because our death penalty has been paid and we have the hope of being resurrected from our coming death unto everlasting life just as Jesus was resurrected to die no more.

Our coming death and resurrection is our being baptized with the baptism he was baptized with, as in Matt. 20:23 Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with:

We still have a death and resurrection in front of us if the Lord tarries. Baptism?

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom, that is a purely subjective statement. The word sacrament is the English translation of the Latin sacramentum, which in turn is the Latin translation of the Greek word μυστήριον (musterion), or mystery. Donald McKim defines sacrament as, "An outward sign instituted by God to convey an inward or spiritual grace" (Dictionary of Theological Terms, 1996, WJK Press). Besides being used by Roman Catholics, Presbyterians of the 17th Century also used the word in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Presbyterians did not believe that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper conveyed grace in themselves, but rather conveyed "inward or spiritual grace" already possessed by the believer. 17th Century Baptists did not differ from Presbyterians on that issue, but they separated over the use of sacrament. Sacrament was too closely identified with Roman Catholicism, so ordinance entered the vernacular.

Obviously, you're researched this well. It seems to me that the Presbyterians, while retaining the term sacrament, changed the definition to make it differ from the RCC view.

We Baptists use the term ordinance for a couple of reasons, I think. One, to make a wider separation from the RCC definition of sacrament; and two, to reflect I Corinthians 11, which Paul urged the congregation to "guard the ordinances."

A Presbyterian may very well know exactly what is meant when he hears the word sacrament. When I hear it, I think of the RCC definition.

Our goal should always be clarity, and I think the use of the term ordinance instead of sacrament meets that goal.

 

[Herald]

Obviously, you're researched this well. It seems to me that the Presbyterians, while retaining the term sacrament, changed the definition to make it differ from the RCC view.

We Baptists use the term ordinance for a couple of reasons, I think. One, to make a wider separation from the RCC definition of sacrament; and two, to reflect I Corinthians 11, which Paul urged the congregation to "guard the ordinances."

A Presbyterian may very well know exactly what is meant when he hears the word sacrament. When I hear it, I think of the RCC definition.

Our goal should always be clarity, and I think the use of the term ordinance instead of sacrament meets that goal.

Tom,

The word ordinance in 1 Corinthians 11:2 only appears in the KJV version. The Greek word for ordinance in that passage is παραδόσις (paradosis). It means tradition. In the ESV, NKJV, and NASB it is translated traditions. That said, I prefer the use of ordinance because of the distance it provides from Roman Catholicism.

 

[convicted1]

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost


See it was a part of obiedience (+John 1:33), a sign too. And for us a profession of faith and a semblance of the death, burial, and resurrection, with Christ.
:thumbs:

The thing that seems to get lost in the shuffle is that Jesus was just as much Christ pre-baptism as He was post-baptism. This was a sign to John that the Messiah prophesied for centuries was here to fulfill all things that were preordained for Him to do.

I am a BIG believer in baptism, don't get me wrong, but it seems like too much emphasis has been put on it by some....meaning, I know some baptists that believe if you die before you're baptized, then you weren't saved. They say the same God that saves, can make them get to the water before they die.....and that's pure baloney.....water never saved one soul, but Grace did, and does. So if it's a part of obedience, and one doesn't make it to the water, then how could they be saved?.....obedience is better than sacrifice, to hearken, better than the fat of rams......

 

[Herald]

The thing that seems to get lost in the shuffle is that Jesus was just as much Christ pre-baptism as He was post-baptism. This was a sign to John that the Messiah prophesied for centuries was here to fulfill all things that were preordained for Him to do.

I am a BIG believer in baptism, don't get me wrong, but it seems like too much emphasis has been put on it by some....meaning, I know some baptists that believe if you die before you're baptized, then you weren't saved. They say the same God that saves, can make them get to the water before they die.....and that's pure baloney.....water never saved one soul, but Grace did, and does. So if it's a part of obedience, and one doesn't make it to the water, then how could they be saved?.....obedience is better than sacrifice, to hearken, better than the fat of rams......

The Christian is to be obedient to the command to be baptized. Scripture is absolutely clear on that. However if the Christian is providentially hindered from being baptized it does not effect his salvation. But it is a different matter altogether if someone refuses to be baptized. It is not the refusal of being baptized that would be the problem per se, but the attitude of a disobedient heart. Willful disobedience to the Word of God is not the evidence of a changed life. To continue in disobedience, even after being confronted about it, is a sign of an recalcitrant attitude. This can lead to rebuke and a call to public repentance by the church, and as a worst case scenario ex-communication. It may seem like much is being made of a little, but that is really not the case. Disobedience to the Word is sin. Sin is never a trivial matter.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The Christian is to be obedient to the command to be baptized. Scripture is absolutely clear on that. However if the Christian is providentially hindered from being baptized it does not effect his salvation. But it is a different matter altogether if someone refuses to be baptized. It is not the refusal of being baptized that would be the problem per se, but the attitude of a disobedient heart. Willful disobedience to the Word of God is not the evidence of a changed life. To continue in disobedience, even after being confronted about it, is a sign of an recalcitrant attitude. This can lead to rebuke and a call to public repentance by the church, and as a worst case scenario ex-communication. It may seem like much is being made of a little, but that is really not the case. Disobedience to the Word is sin. Sin is never a trivial matter.

What about the Quakers, for instance, who believe the only necessary baptism is that of the Spirit into the body of Christ? The Salvation Army could also be included.

 

[convicted1]

The Christian is to be obedient to the command to be baptized. Scripture is absolutely clear on that. However if the Christian is providentially hindered from being baptized it does not effect his salvation. But it is a different matter altogether if someone refuses to be baptized. It is not the refusal of being baptized that would be the problem per se, but the attitude of a disobedient heart. Willful disobedience to the Word of God is not the evidence of a changed life. To continue in disobedience, even after being confronted about it, is a sign of an recalcitrant attitude. This can lead to rebuke and a call to public repentance by the church, and as a worst case scenario ex-communication. It may seem like much is being made of a little, but that is really not the case. Disobedience to the Word is sin. Sin is never a trivial matter.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I should have made myself clearer on what I posted. The ones I referred to don't believe in a deathbed repentance, except they are water baptized.

 

[Herald]

What about the Quakers, for instance, who believe the only necessary baptism is that of the Spirit into the body of Christ? The Salvation Army could also be included.

Well, those groups have some serious theological issues besides baptism. I would not consider Quakers orthodox. They deny central tenets of the Christian faith. The Quakers (to varying degrees) deny the necessity of believing the virgin birth. They also follow the practice of Montanism. The Salvation Army are self-admitted Anabaptists (a person can fall from grace). They are, strictly speaking, and organization, not a denomination.

 

[Herald]

What about the Quakers, for instance, who believe the only necessary baptism is that of the Spirit into the body of Christ? The Salvation Army could also be included.

Let me add a P.S.

Even if a local church tolerates disobedience (sin), and fails to confront it, does not change the fact that the disobedience is sin. In fact the leadership of the church compounds the problem through their own sin by failing to properly discharge the duties of their office. Willful refusal to submit to baptism is sin. A church that tolerates that sin increases the scope of that sin. We see this attitude among churches all the time. Churches (really the pastors and elders of the church) that fail to discipline members, in love, over public sin issues are themselves sinning (c.f. Revelation 2:4-5, 14-16, 20; 3:2-3, 15-19).

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Well, those groups have some serious theological issues besides baptism. I would not consider Quakers orthodox. They deny central tenets of the Christian faith. The Quakers (to varying degrees) deny the necessity of believing the virgin birth. They also follow the practice of Montanism. The Salvation Army are self-admitted Anabaptists (a person can fall from grace). They are, strictly speaking, and organization, not a denomination.

Kindly put, you know not of what you speak. What tenets of the Christian faith do Quakers deny? There are three main branches of Quakers; only one is liberal/modernist. The other two are moderate-evangelical, and conservative evangelical, these two being quite orthodox; they do not deny any of the central tenets of the Christian faith.

I've heard all kinds of false charges against the Quakers, but the Montanist one is a new one to me, and quite ridiculous.

The Salvation Army, strictly speaking, is a church (denomination) first and foremost and a Christian service organization second.

Seriously, you need to study this more. Everything you said is incorrect.

 

[MB]

IMHO It was a teaching aid of prophesy of how the righteousness of God is fulfilled.

That is through death of the Son and being made alive again, receiving the Holy Spiritt, and declared to be the Son.

The washing of water of the word.

A word of prophesy by the Prophet.

Receiving of the Holy Spirit I have mentioned this before because it involves the laying on of hands in baptism. I've read in scripture where a disciple asked a person if they had received the Holy Spirit they said they hadn't even heard of the Holy Spirit and the disciple laid hands on him and he received the Spirit right then.

Many disagreed from both sides of the doctrines discussed here.

For my self my baptism and this receiving the Spirit I believe is true. Others argue that we receive Him at Salvation though I do not deny that some may. I do not believe we are saved in Baptism.
MB

 

[percho]

Receiving of the Holy Spirit I have mentioned this before because it involves the laying on of hands in baptism. I've read in scripture where a disciple asked a person if they had received the Holy Spirit they said they hadn't even heard of the Holy Spirit and the disciple laid hands on him and he received the Spirit right then.

Many disagreed from both sides of the doctrines discussed here.

For my self my baptism and this receiving the Spirit I believe is true. Others argue that we receive Him at Salvation though I do not deny that some may. I do not believe we are saved in Baptism.
MB

My thought wasn't so much with us but to the water baptism of Jesus being prophetic of: his obedience unto the death of the cross, Phil 2:7 The Father raising him from the dead Gal 1:1 Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit from the Father Acts 2:33 The Father declaring Jesus the Son of God on that day Acts 13:33 and this being the fulfilling of all righteousness.

Was not all of that shown in Matt. 3:15-17

Did not Jesus say, "Ye shall indeed drink of the cup and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with"?

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom,

The word ordinance in 1 Corinthians 11:2 only appears in the KJV version. The Greek word for ordinance in that passage is παραδόσις (paradosis). It means tradition. In the ESV, NKJV, and NASB it is translated traditions. That said, I prefer the use of ordinance because of the distance it provides from Roman Catholicism.

Thanks, Herald. I, too, have read in my NASB the word translated traditions.

The use of ordinances in KJV does raise a question in my mind. Why did the KJV translators use ordinance instead of sacrament? Just wondering.

 

[saturneptune]

So it follows, if one uses the word ordinance, then one is a KJVO person.

 

[convicted1]

So it follows, if one uses the word ordinance, then one is a KJVO person.

And if someone uses the NIV, ESV, NLT, ASV, and/or NASB, they use the word "pffffft"....

 

[convicted1]

Receiving of the Holy Spirit I have mentioned this before because it involves the laying on of hands in baptism. I've read in scripture where a disciple asked a person if they had received the Holy Spirit they said they hadn't even heard of the Holy Spirit and the disciple laid hands on him and he received the Spirit right then.

Many disagreed from both sides of the doctrines discussed here.

For my self my baptism and this receiving the Spirit I believe is true. Others argue that we receive Him at Salvation though I do not deny that some may. I do not believe we are saved in Baptism.
MB

The Disciples had the ability to do many things we can not. They could cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead, even give them the Holy Ghost, per Apostle Paul in Acts 19. No one can lay hands on anyone and give them the Holy Ghost.

 

[Iconoclast]

The reason Jesus was baptized by John was he was already functioning as our mediator.

 

[Aaron]

The reason Jesus was baptized by John was he was already functioning as our mediator.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

He was baptized in my place.

 

[MB]

The Disciples had the ability to do many things we can not. They could cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead, even give them the Holy Ghost, per Apostle Paul in Acts 19. No one can lay hands on anyone and give them the Holy Ghost.

I've been told that before the part about we don't have any powers. Yet if this is true how is it Christ said;

Joh_14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

I admit there are things none of us do nor attempt to do. To say we can't do them is defeating ones self with out trying. I've prayed for some people to be healed and they were. I've prayed for there finances and they received. I've prayed for the salvation of people and they were saved. Don't get me wrong I'm not taking credit for anything but if you believe there is no power in prayer you do not have any faith.
MB