Originally posted by WPutnam:
One who practices his/her faith.
---I get the impression that you don't feel that the person that approached you was a Christian. Am I wrong in assuming this from your post?
But the Crucifix constantly reminds me of Him, the second person of the Trinity, and who is God, just like the cross reminds you on the steeple of your church (which I presume you have).
--No, we don't have a steeple on top of our church. Also, I don't believe in a second person in a Trinity.....three manifestations of One God, but only one person....but then I think you already knew that..right?
MEE
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptist Commentator
- Thread starter trying2understand
- Start date
I agree with Bro. Curtis on the subject. All the apostles had John the Baptist's baptism. You identify yourself by what authority you are baptized by, right.
If a Catholic baptizes you what does that make you ? Catholic right. No, it might be something else. No way. Jesus had Baptist Baptism and that made him a Baptist. You can't disprove this it is bible.
If a Catholic baptizes you what does that make you ? Catholic right. No, it might be something else. No way. Jesus had Baptist Baptism and that made him a Baptist. You can't disprove this it is bible.
I certainly consider him a Christian. Perhaps even a better one then I am!
I previously said:
But the Crucifix constantly reminds me of Him, the second person of the Trinity, and who is God, just like the cross reminds you on the steeple of your church (which I presume you have).
I do now!--No, we don't have a steeple on top of our church. Also, I don't believe in a second person in a Trinity.....three manifestations of One God, but only one person....but then I think you already knew that..right?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
[ October 15, 2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]
Therefore, since John the Baptist is no longer with us, can you now say you have "Baptist baptism"? Also, describe for me exactly how John baptized Jesus. I see pictures of him standing knee-deep in the Jordan with John pouring the water over his head!Originally posted by Mrs, KJV:
If a Catholic baptizes you what does that make you ? Catholic right. No, it might be something else. No way. Jesus had Baptist Baptism and that made him a Baptist. You can't disprove this it is bible.
Just curious.........
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
Jesus' baptism has nothing to do with NT salvation. After the NT Church was born (Acts 2:4) John's water baptism was changed..Acts 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The Significance of the Name of Jesus in Water Baptism. by David K.
Bernard The Book of Acts establishes that the apostles and the ...
www.altupc.com/articles/nojsig.htm
Excerpt:
3. Baptism is part of our salvation experience (Mark
16:16; 1 Peter 3:21), and the name of Jesus is the only
name given for salvation. "Neither is there salvation in
any other: for there is none other name under heaven
given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
(See also Acts 2:21; Romans 10:9, 13.) Thus the proper
way to integrate water baptism with the New Testament
salvation is to invoke the name of Jesus.
4. Baptism is a burial with Jesus Christ (Romans 6:4;
Colossians 2:12). The Spirit of God did not die for us;
only Jesus the man died for us and was buried in the
tomb. To be buried with Jesus Christ, we should be
baptized in His name.
5. Baptism is part of our personal identification with
Jesus Christ. "So many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death" (Romans 6:3). "For
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ" (Gal 3:27). If we seek to be identified with
Him. we should take on his name.
Love this KJV!
MEE
The Significance of the Name of Jesus in Water Baptism. by David K.
Bernard The Book of Acts establishes that the apostles and the ...
www.altupc.com/articles/nojsig.htm
Excerpt:
3. Baptism is part of our salvation experience (Mark
16:16; 1 Peter 3:21), and the name of Jesus is the only
name given for salvation. "Neither is there salvation in
any other: for there is none other name under heaven
given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
(See also Acts 2:21; Romans 10:9, 13.) Thus the proper
way to integrate water baptism with the New Testament
salvation is to invoke the name of Jesus.
4. Baptism is a burial with Jesus Christ (Romans 6:4;
Colossians 2:12). The Spirit of God did not die for us;
only Jesus the man died for us and was buried in the
tomb. To be buried with Jesus Christ, we should be
baptized in His name.
5. Baptism is part of our personal identification with
Jesus Christ. "So many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death" (Romans 6:3). "For
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ" (Gal 3:27). If we seek to be identified with
Him. we should take on his name.
Love this KJV!
MEE
trying2understand
New Member
Jesus is God. The Bible tells me so.Originally posted by Mrs, KJV:
Jesus had Baptist Baptism and that made him a Baptist. You can't disprove this it is bible.
Have you talked with your husband this?
Ron
Was this for me? If so, please attempt to answer the questions I posed to "Mrs. KJV." And then later, we can discuss your points...Originally posted by MEE:
Jesus' baptism has nothing to do with NT salvation.
.........(abridged).........
Love this KJV!
MEE
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"
1 Peter 3:20-21
You are sooo right, John's baptism has nothing to do with NT salvation. But look at the reference that you compared it to. This sounds an awful lot like John's baptism. It is in the rest of the book of Acts, when you hear the preaching after this day, when you hear the preaching to those who are not jews that you can see the difference.
Where else in the book of Acts, besides this one verse that was speaking to a group of Jews, do you find a baptism of repentance. John said he was the one voice crying in the wilderness, make straight the way for the Lord. This was prophesied for a reason, and this prophecy was for the Jewish nation. The baptism of repentance is something that the Jewish nation was called to do, but they failed to do so, and because they refused to repent as a nation we now have the gift of salvation as gentiles. It is no longer the Old Covenant which was between a Jewish people and thier God, we now have a NEW one that is offered to all men.
This is clearly seen in Acts chapter 10 when the Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit (something that can not be done before the remission of sins) without having been baptized in any name.
As a Baptist, I don't equate my baptism with John's baptism, for it was a baptism that was preformed before the Spirit was sent to indwell us. I equate my baptism to those that were preformed by the apostles, which they were commanded by Christ to preform in Matthew chapter 28. We as baptists, realize, like Paul did, that baptism, though a command, was not part of the gospel.
Now surely, if baptism were part of salvation, then baptism would be part of the gospel, but Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach that gospel, a gospel that did not include baptism as a necessary function in order to receive salvation.
As for any pictures you may have seen, those are irrelevant. The word baptize, means to immerse, we should believe what the Bible teaches about baptism, not how some artist interpreted it in a painting.
So in conclusion, it is clear that Paul and the other apostles were indeed great baptist commentators.
~Lorelei
Hi L, Great post!! Not many people use that verse from 1 cor. to show that baptism is not part of salvation. It is a great verse and I have quoted it often. LOts of folks want salvation and baptism to be the "gospel" but that certainly is not what Paul said. Thanks again for the time and effort you put ino that last post.
Bill, What do you think of Mark 1:
[10] And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Are you impling that this may mean that when Jesus stepped onto the shore that then the Spirit of God decended and God's voice sounded?
Read the verse again and think of it logically and only one conclusion seems reasonable, that Jesus was all the way under the water and when he came up, broke the surface of the water, is when the Spirit descended and God's voice was heard declaring Jesus to be His son. You can't say he was stepping to shore when the Spirit came because there is nothing significant to that action. To try to make Jesus have a Baptism like is done now in the Catholic Church seems to defy what was customary at the time and what the Bible says.
Bill, I just wnated you to know I appreciate the kindness you show in your posts.
In Love and Truth,
Brian
Bill, What do you think of Mark 1:
[10] And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Are you impling that this may mean that when Jesus stepped onto the shore that then the Spirit of God decended and God's voice sounded?
Read the verse again and think of it logically and only one conclusion seems reasonable, that Jesus was all the way under the water and when he came up, broke the surface of the water, is when the Spirit descended and God's voice was heard declaring Jesus to be His son. You can't say he was stepping to shore when the Spirit came because there is nothing significant to that action. To try to make Jesus have a Baptism like is done now in the Catholic Church seems to defy what was customary at the time and what the Bible says.
Bill, I just wnated you to know I appreciate the kindness you show in your posts.
In Love and Truth,
Brian
ATTENTION TO THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR OVER MY CONTINUED PROBLEM HERE.
Brian,
Thank you for your kind post, but I cannot post any message much longer then this one here. I have been having severe problems posting messages of moderate size.
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
[ October 15, 2002, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]
Brian,
Thank you for your kind post, but I cannot post any message much longer then this one here. I have been having severe problems posting messages of moderate size.
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
[ October 15, 2002, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]
You are sooo right, John's baptism has nothing to do with NT salvation.
--I'm so glad that we agree on something!
</font>[/QUOTE]As a Baptist, I don't equate my baptism with John's baptism, for it was a baptism that was preformed before the Spirit was sent to indwell us. I equate my baptism to those that were preformed by the apostles, which they were commanded by Christ to preform in Matthew chapter 28. We as baptists, realize, like Paul did, that baptism, though a command, was not part of the gospel.
--Paul never said that baptism was not a part of salvation.
Now surely, if baptism were part of salvation, then baptism would be part of the gospel, but Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach that gospel, a gospel that did not include baptism as a necessary function in order to receive salvation.
--Back up to 1 Cor. 14-17)
14) I think God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and gaius;
15) Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16) And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
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.
--It's not that Paul didn't believe in water baptism, as a must, it's just that he didn't want anyone to believe that he did it in his own name. Water baptism has to be done in the "NAME" of Jesus Christ! Titles, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, just "ain't" what it's all about.
--Paul was very much aware of what was preached, by Peter, on the Day of Pentecost.
So in conclusion, it is clear that Paul and the other apostles were indeed great baptist commentators.
--Paul and the other apostles were Pentecostal commentators. When you hear the word "Pentecostal" what do you usually think of?...speaking in tongues..right? Now tell me which one of the apostles 'didn't' speak in tongues?
MEE
[ October 15, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: MEE ]
Originally posted by WPutnam:
Was this for me? If so, please attempt to answer the questions I posed to "Mrs. KJV." And then later, we can discuss your points...Originally posted by MEE:
[qb]Jesus' baptism has nothing to do with NT salvation.
.........(abridged).........
Love this KJV!
MEE
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
No, I had Mrs. KJV's post in mind.
MEE
Paul clearly made a distinction in this statement, if you refuse to see that I am sorry, but Paul said it and I believe what he said. Whatever his reason for speaking on the subject, he clearly differentiated between the gospel and baptism.
This would also be why when asked by those in the jail "What must I do to be saved," Paul simply stated, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ".
If baptism is required, please explain how the gentiles in Acts 10 received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water.
The closest thing in the NT to what we call Pentecostals today is the Corinthian church, and rather than being a commentator on such a theology, Paul was sent to correct their abuses and misuses of spiritual gifts, specifically tongues. Indeed, Paul spoke in Biblical tongues, this has nothing to do with what is going on in some churches today.Originally posted by MEE:
--Paul and the other apostles were Pentecostal commentators. When you hear the word "Pentecostal" what do you usually think of?...speaking in tongues..right? Now tell me which one of the apostles 'didn't' speak in tongues?
MEE
~Lorelei
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit didn't exist until Pentecost ?
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit didn't exist until Pentecost ?</font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Curtis, the above was part of a quote by Lorelei. Since you asked and thought it was me, yes I know that the Spirit of God existed before Pentecost. It's just that He didn't reside in each individual until Pentecost.
People of the OT were led by leaders, by the Spirit, but we of the NT Church didn't have the Spirit separately to be led.
MEE
Originally posted by Lorelei:
Paul clearly made a distinction in this statement, if you refuse to see that I am sorry, but Paul said it and I believe what he said. Whatever his reason for speaking on the subject, he clearly differentiated between the gospel and baptism.
--You need to read vs 14-17 to get the meaning of what Paul was saying. He did baptize some, but didn't want them to say (vs 15) Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
This would also be why when asked by those in the jail "What must I do to be saved," Paul simply stated, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ".
--When one believes on the Lord, there are a lot of things to believe in, not just to believe that He exists. If that was the case we wouldn't need the entire Bible.
If baptism is required, please explain how the gentiles in Acts 10 received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water.
--This is a good example of having to be born of water and of the Spirit. (John 3:5) The Gentiles received the HS first, but Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. That name was Jesus Christ. You have to have the water baptism and the Spirit to be born again.
The closest thing in the NT to what we call Pentecostals today is the Corinthian church, and rather than being a commentator on such a theology, Paul was sent to correct their abuses and misuses of spiritual gifts, specifically tongues. Indeed, Paul spoke in Biblical tongues, this has nothing to do with what is going on in some churches today.Originally posted by MEE:
--Paul and the other apostles were Pentecostal commentators. When you hear the word "Pentecostal" what do you usually think of?...speaking in tongues..right? Now tell me which one of the apostles 'didn't' speak in tongues?
MEE
--According to you Lorelei, but you just don't understand or you don't want to for some reason or other. That is OK, no one is trying to make you believe anything against your will.
--Act 2:4 is the evidence of the infilling of the HS. Acts 2:37 is the question, as what you have to do to be saved. Acts 2:38 is the answer. "..Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39) For the promise is unto YOU, and to YOUR CHILDREN, and to ALL that are AFAR OFF, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. If I'm not mistaken...He is still calling and the promise is still the same.
-- To sum it all up..the question is the same and so is the answer! It's just a matter of who wants to know.
MEE
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit didn't exist until Pentecost ?</font>[/QUOTE]This was my statement originally and I didn't mean that the Holy Spirit wasn't here until that time. I apologize for wording it inapporpriately.
Until Christ died, was ressurected and returned to heaven, we could not receive the Spirit that he promised us. Yes, the Holy Spirit existed, but it worked differently.
Hope that clarifies it a little.
~Lorelei
Which is an excellent example as to why baptism would not be considered essential and could be classified as a work. Because humans equate the importance of baptism on how it's done, or who preformed it and take the significance off of what it represented, and that is the death, burial and ressurection of Christ.
Paul was indeed upset that they were taking the significance off of Christ and putting it upon the person who preformed the baptism, but he still said what he said. He came to preach the gospel, he did NOT come to baptize. This separates the two.
Paul clearly states that the gospel is what saves them.
No where does he mention the necessity of baptism in order to receive the forgiveness of sins. Baptism is not a part of salvation.
If you disagree with me fine, there is no reason for us to keep repeating ourselves. I will let the words of Paul speak for themselves. Those who want to see the truth can read it plainly enough.
There is a difference between believing that he exists and believing the gospel, but there are not a lot of things you have to believe in. You have to believe (with your heart, not your head) the gospel that I quoted above. That is all that is required. Anyone who adds to that gospel is teaching a lie.
This makes absolutely no sense. How can one NOT be born again and HAVE the Spirit of God dwelling within them?
~Lorelei
Originally posted by Lorelei:
If you disagree with me fine, there is no reason for us to keep repeating ourselves. I will let the words of Paul speak for themselves. Those who want to see the truth can read it plainly enough.
--I agree!
There is a difference between believing that he exists and believing the gospel, but there are not a lot of things you have to believe in. You have to believe (with your heart, not your head) the gospel that I quoted above. That is all that is required. Anyone who adds to that gospel is teaching a lie.
--You are right! One should never add or to take away from the Word of God.
This makes absolutely no sense. How can one NOT be born again and HAVE the Spirit of God dwelling within them?
--Maybe you should consult Peter, in Acts 10:48, and ask him why he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, after they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Paul's teachings were no different. One just has to know how to interpret the scriptures and link them together.
Case closed,
MEE
Case re-opened
Posted by Lorelei...
This makes absolutely no sense. How can one NOT be born again and HAVE the Spirit of God dwelling within them?
Posted by mee...
Maybe you should consult Peter, in Acts 10:48, and ask him why he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, after they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Paul's teachings were no different. One just has to know how to interpret the scriptures and link them together
OK, I consulted said verse, and it doesn't answer the question. The Holy Spirit was present before baptism.
Let's look ahead to the next chapter. Cornelius's household was saved when they HEARD the gospel(Acts 11:13-15) The baptism of the Holy Spirit came at the moment of their belief, no laying on of hands were needed(15-17). Just like the apostle Paul told us in Romans 8:9, we recieve the Holy Spirit as soon as we are saved. The recieving of the Holy Spirit preceeds water baptism, so ipso facto, salvation preceeds water baptism.
Posted by Lorelei...
This makes absolutely no sense. How can one NOT be born again and HAVE the Spirit of God dwelling within them?
Posted by mee...
Maybe you should consult Peter, in Acts 10:48, and ask him why he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, after they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Paul's teachings were no different. One just has to know how to interpret the scriptures and link them together
OK, I consulted said verse, and it doesn't answer the question. The Holy Spirit was present before baptism.
Let's look ahead to the next chapter. Cornelius's household was saved when they HEARD the gospel(Acts 11:13-15) The baptism of the Holy Spirit came at the moment of their belief, no laying on of hands were needed(15-17). Just like the apostle Paul told us in Romans 8:9, we recieve the Holy Spirit as soon as we are saved. The recieving of the Holy Spirit preceeds water baptism, so ipso facto, salvation preceeds water baptism.