Does it matter who baptized you?

[billwald]

If a Mormon (deceived Christian) baptizes in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, God is going to ignore the intent of the baptized person? I think not.

 

[xdisciplex]

Your struggles are a wonderful example of you being a sinful man trusting in Gods grace.

But many christians also put pressure on people and say that as a christian you may "struggle" with sin but you will also get more and more victory and this basically means that sooner or later you overcome and then you will be sinless, it's only a matter of time. But how realistic is this? They just stand on Romans 8 and say that when you walk in the spirit you don't sin anymore and they say that the carnal christian theology is a lie and so on, which means that Romans 7 is not the final state and that you must not stay in Romans 7 where you struggle with sin.
After all the bible also says that we are no longer slaves to sin and that we shall consider us dead to sin. If I'm dead then why am I still tempted? With all these statements from the bible you never know how to interpret them wether to take them literally or not. Taking them too literal can be wrong but not taking them literal can also be wrong. Some christians read these verses and then think that they don't sin anymore and maybe they can even convince themselves of this but then they are also not objective because I don't think that there is anybody who doesn't sin anymore. Maybe they only do "small" sins which they think are no big deal and then think that they can no go around preaching about the "big sins" like drinking,adultery,porn and such things.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Didn't seem to to Paul!

In fact, he was glad that he did not baptize most of one onery bunch, so that they could not be identifed with him baptizing them. INcidentally, I agree with one poster who used the example of Philip and the Ethopian eunuch. Philip had no 'authority' other than that from God.

Ed

GE
No man ever since the Apostolic age and or after their mission by Jesus Christ in person, has had the authority to baptise. Baptism in or with water was their Mission or Commandment and nobody else's. To assume it for itself is the sin of the Church ever since. No one is baptised into Christ or into the Body of Christ's Own but he baptised with and in the baptism of Jesus Christ, which is no baptism with or in water, but with fire and power: The fire of co-suffering with Christ in His baptism of suffering and death and the power of his resurrection from death and grave and corruptibility. The only Christian movement that has had the courage to stand by this truth has been the Quakers.

All churches love the love of the churches more than the doctrine of Jesus Christ unadulterated.

 

[EdSutton]

GE
No man ever since the Apostolic age and or after their mission by Jesus Christ in person, has had the authority to baptise. Baptism in or with water was their Mission or Commandment and nobody else's. To assume it for itself is the sin of the Church ever since. No one is baptised into Christ or into the Body of Christ's Own but he baptised with and in the baptism of Jesus Christ, which is no baptism with or in water, but with fire and power: The fire of co-suffering with Christ in His baptism of suffering and death and the power of his resurrection from death and grave and corruptibility. The only Christian movement that has had the courage to stand by this truth has been the Quakers.

All churches love the love of the churches more than the doctrine of Jesus Christ unadulterated.

Philip was not an apostle, nor was he very likely present at the giving of "the Great Commission". (Nor was Paul, at that instance, but he was an apostle.) Scripture simply does not say that 'baptism' was limited to this 'age', as you claim. Paul did speak to those, elsewhere, being baptised, in Acts 19.

I do not follow (or agree with) your reasoning, here. (No surprise.) Likewise, I do not confute 'water baptism', which is one of the 'symbolic' baptisms found, with the varied 'real baptisms' found in Scripture, either. Unfortunately, I do not have any more time to play, this AM.

Ed

 

[Rubato 1]

Those that hope that their baptism stems through the ages back to Jesus/John the Baptist (aka 'Baptist Bride-ers', I think) have a serious problem when we consider that there is no direct translation of authority from John's baptism to Jesus'.

The baptism of Jesus was different than the baptism of John, as told in Acts. However, the Jesus' disciples which he 'proselityzed' from John were not re-baptized! Further, Jesus did not personally baptize anyone.

Therefore, all baptism is traced back to John the Baptist, whose baptism was not the same as ours, the baptism of Jesus.

Anyway, all of this thinking leads me to the question, what is the true significance of Baptism? Why wasn't Jesus baptized at age 12, if baptism is the 'first step of obedience?' What is the significance of Jesus' baptism?

Don't answer my questions here; I'll start a new thread...Oops, already did !

 

[Cutter]

I guess you could say I received "John's Baptism."
I was baptized before I was saved and do not even remember who by. All I know is, is that I was attending VBS and told the Pastor I wanted to be baptized. A few years later I was saved and baptized with the Holy Ghost. And no, I am not pentecostal. That is not a pentecostal term, but a Biblical one. Acts 11:16
Anyway I have not felt led or thought that I needed to be rebaptized. I was dipped once in the water and I was baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire a couple of years later. :thumbs:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton:
"Philip was not an apostle, nor was he very likely present at the giving of "the Great Commission". (Nor was Paul, at that instance, but he was an apostle.) Scripture simply does not say that 'baptism' was limited to this 'age', as you claim. Paul did speak to those, elsewhere, being baptised, in Acts 19."

GE
Said I anything to the contrary? You didn't read me. I don't confine baptism as an Apostolic sign to the Apostles; I confine it to their age and their laying on of hands; But even before that I confine baptism with water as an Apostolic sign to all disciples who lived under the personal directive of Christ and the Holy Spirit as those who, for example, heard the commission from the mouth of Jesus - who could have been any number more than the eleven 'special' Apostles, and, secondly, who were Pentecost-missionaries from all nations to all nations and who counted thousands of; and thirdly, any sent of God through sanction of the Church of those very first generations. That leaves many first missionaries under the first and only and last Apostolate of Jesus Christ in Person either of Himself or of the 'special' Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit. What qualifies these and no other single individual ever, is that their Commission was exclusively "according to the Scriptures" - Scriptures like the prophecies of Joel and David. When the Church after the Apostles claimed for itself the prerogatives of the Apostolic age, heresy began and flourished, so that today the Church at large is a body of deceitful egoists.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I do not deny the baptism of Jesus Christ; I confess and believe, and try to live it. I reject the baptism of wilful men; I know it, I am one so baptised; I count it loss for Christ, no gain to Christ-ward. Like Paul's Roman citizenship earned him no heavenly citizenship, being a baptised of the will of men, cannot help in the obtaining of Christ or redemption. All that resulted from baptism ever was strife and pride and hate. I can scarcely think of something more unchristian.

 

[D28guy]

xdisciplex,

"But it has to change something otherwise it would just be a symbol."

It IS just a symbol, xdisciplex. Thats what everyone has been saying all along.

The *change* occures when a person is born of the Spirit. Water has nothing to do with that.

Afterwords...AFTER the new birth is when one is water baptised.

In the immersion form, going down into the water represents the death that the new believer experienced. The death of the "old man".

Coming up out of the water represents the new man that has already come into existance at the moment of regeneration.



I'm not as familiar with the "sprinkling" or "pouring" method, but I would think it could be a reference to the passage of scripture in Hebrews that says...

"let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience..."

Mike

 

[EdSutton]

Ed Sutton:
"Philip was not an apostle, nor was he very likely present at the giving of "the Great Commission". (Nor was Paul, at that instance, but he was an apostle.) Scripture simply does not say that 'baptism' was limited to this 'age', as you claim. Paul did speak to those, elsewhere, being baptised, in Acts 19."

GE
Said I anything to the contrary? You didn't read me. I don't confine baptism as an Apostolic sign to the Apostles; I confine it to their age and their laying on of hands; But even before that I confine baptism with water as an Apostolic sign to all disciples who lived under the personal directive of Christ and the Holy Spirit as those who, for example, heard the commission from the mouth of Jesus - who could have been any number more than the eleven 'special' Apostles, and, secondly, who were Pentecost-missionaries from all nations to all nations and who counted thousands of; and thirdly, any sent of God through sanction of the Church of those very first generations. That leaves many first missionaries under the first and only and last Apostolate of Jesus Christ in Person either of Himself or of the 'special' Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit. What qualifies these and no other single individual ever, is that their Commission was exclusively "according to the Scriptures" - Scriptures like the prophecies of Joel and David. When the Church after the Apostles claimed for itself the prerogatives of the Apostolic age, heresy began and flourished, so that today the Church at large is a body of deceitful egoists.

The problem is that your 'eisegesis' is inconsistent, here. Paul was certainly an Apostle; Philip (a deacon) clearly baptised. [BTW, Matthias is every bit as much an Apostle, as was Paul, James the Just, John or Peter, for there is later mentioning of "the twelve" (Ac.6:2), after Matthias was "numbered with the eleven apostles" (Ac. 1:26).]

Neither Paul nor Philip were subject to the 'Great Commission' (or "the first and only and last 'Apostolate of Jesus Christ in Person either of Himself or of the 'special' Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit"), not having been around, at that time.

Yet they did these, and I definitely suggest, Biblically.

You are "reading into" Scripture, here, not "exegeting from" Scripture, in this.

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Again you pick out exceptions as if I made them exceptions. I say again, you haven't nor cared to read me.

And as for the Baptism of Christ just being a symbol, makes it a works-righteousness, legalism, idolatry, because it makes of baptism just another icon or whatever like the statutes of a bleeding christ and sinless mary. Only female horses are sinless merries in Afrikaans. It applies in English or any language as well with or without word-play. Baptism with water is man's work and man's contribution to his salvation, and therefore is sinful. Last thing a man will part of is his own holiness; it shows best in the case of man's baptism. Baptism is not in the least vital for, to, or of redemption or Christian life or Christian existence as the Fellowship of believers. Baptism with water at one time in history only fulfilled a sensible purpose. That time and age are past and gone. We are disciples in Christianity; there are no longer any Apostles of Christianity. Let's drop our pride and arrogance.

 

[Darron Steele]

Again you pick out exceptions as if I made them exceptions. I say again, you haven't nor cared to read me.

And as for the Baptism of Christ just being a symbol, makes it a works-righteousness, legalism, idolatry, because it makes of baptism just another icon or whatever like the statutes of a bleeding christ and sinless mary. Only female horses are sinless merries in Afrikaans. It applies in English or any language as well with or without word-play. Baptism with water is man's work and man's contribution to his salvation, and therefore is sinful. Last thing a man will part of is his own holiness; it shows best in the case of man's baptism. Baptism is not in the least vital for, to, or of redemption or Christian life or Christian existence as the Fellowship of believers. Baptism with water at one time in history only fulfilled a sensible purpose. That time and age are past and gone. We are disciples in Christianity; there are no longer any Apostles of Christianity. Let's drop our pride and arrogance.

Gerhard: "Baptism with water is man's work and man's contribution to his salvation, and therefore is sinful."

Gerhard: it is going to be very difficult for you to convince Christians that what Christ ordained that His followers do at Matthew 28:19-20 is actually something we devised and should not be doing.

In Scripture, water baptism does not cause salvation. Christ told us to do it anyway. HE ordained it for us to do. We would be sinning by not doing it.

I know you feel like no one listens to you on this. It is hard to take what you say on this seriously because you are telling us not to do what Jesus Christ expressly commanded done. You list all these opinions about why you think water baptism is a bad idea and why you think it should not be done. The problem is: it does not matter what you or we think -- what Christ said goes if we are Christians. We can no sooner cease obeying the Lord with water baptism than we can cease to obey His teachings.

You have tried to do this before. Matthew 28:19-20 says "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations|. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything I have taught you,| and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (NASB|NCV|NASB).

Holy Spirit baptism is not something mortals do -- the Lord does that. Mortals baptize in water. Philip at Acts 8 was not an apostle, and he baptized in water. The fact is, we are no sooner to stop baptizing in water than we are to cease "obey everything I have taught you."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This is an untruth: "it is going to be very difficult for you to convince Christians that what Christ ordained that His followers do at Matthew 28:19-20 is actually something we devised and should not be doing." Christ never convinced by command or example or implication you and I today's Christians should baptise. In fact to baptise with the baptism of Christ is the prerogative of Christ. Not even the Apostles baptised with the baptism of Jesus Christ; neither John the baptist. And they all boasted they did not, as confessed John the baptist and even Paul. Where are we from to claim we are Christ's delegates to baptise , and that, with a baptism not even His?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You show me where I can read this: "It is hard to take what you say on this seriously because you are telling us not to do what Jesus Christ expressly commanded done."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Do you, a disciple of Jesus Christ, baptise with the baptism of the prophet John the baptizer? Are you, a disciple of Jesus Christ, baptise with the baptism of the Apostles of Jesus Christ? With whose baptism then do you baptise? With the baptism of the Church? In fact yes! The Church's.

 

[Darron Steele]

Do you, a disciple of Jesus Christ, baptise with the baptism of the prophet John the baptizer? Are you, a disciple of Jesus Christ, baptise with the baptism of the Apostles of Jesus Christ? With whose baptism then do you baptise? ....

As a new Christian I was baptized with the baptism that Jesus Christ appointed for us at Matthew 28:19-20. This was to OBEY HIM in HIS express words at Matthew 28:19-20.

As I have opportunity, as a disciple of Jesus Christ I will OBEY HIM by baptizing in His Name as He appointed in HIS express words at Matthew 28:19-20.

I can no sooner choose not to than I can choose to cease the "Teach them to obey everything I have taught you" clause of this passage.

I cannot stop you from choosing to based upon your opinions, and even if I could, I would do so only to the extent that it would prevent your hampering others' obedience. You seemed to express some about surprise why no one seems to give much heed to you on this, and I told you. You have shown on prior threads that your disdain for water baptism is very deep and very strong, and I suspect blindingly so. You have shown on prior threads that in this regard, you will do as your opinions hold, regardless of what Scripture directly states and examples. There is no point in arguing with you, and as probably everyone here but you will go with the Bible on this, I am not going to waste a lot of time with it.

However, I would not want to do as you are doing and then have to explain to Christ. No matter how you enunciate your opinions, rage and ramble, He will not be impressed. I also bet He will not entertain an argument then.

 

[Rubato 1]

Do you, a disciple of Jesus Christ, baptise with the baptism of the prophet John the baptizer? Are you, a disciple of Jesus Christ, baptise with the baptism of the Apostles of Jesus Christ? With whose baptism then do you baptise? With the baptism of the Church? In fact yes! The Church's.

But Romans 6 gives us the picture and purpose of the baptism we practice, does it not? Isn't this the 'baptism of Christ'?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darron Steele:
"As a new Christian I was baptized with the baptism that Jesus Christ appointed for us at Matthew 28:19-20. This was to OBEY HIM in HIS express words at Matthew 28:19-20."

GE
And you say this "As a new Christian"? You are a 'new' Christian, a 'disciple' of Christ. God loves you and rewards you. You are not a 'first' Christian, not an Apostle. Does Christ love you for being one of his Apostles? Does He command you as for being one of his Apostles? Jesus did not command 'you' in Mt28:19-20. He commanded his Apostles, the first-generation Christian disciples. Not, you.

Then not even the Apostles did Jesus command: "Baptise in or with water"; Baptise by sprinkling or immersion; Baptise with holy or natural water; Baptise infants or adults; You only baptise priests, or anyone baptise, Infidels baptise, whoremongers baptise or saints and holy men only (Who will know); Baptise to forgive sins or baptise become members, ad infinitum Babylon!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

If Jesus didn't command any of these, neither commanded He ... You!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"I can no sooner choose not to than I can choose to cease the "Teach them to obey everything I have taught you" clause of this passage."

GE
It follows like day, night, and night, day; you cannot. What can I or you or anyone teach another so as to make of him a disciple of Jesus Christ. You cannot; because you never were commanded to. The sooner you forget this a syour personal command, the sooner you wil become free of the the Law, and will know how to serve Christ, and not a command.