SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : concerning baptism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: crossed wires remain

Stever,

I thank you for your comprehensive reply, which I believe I understand. I had not intended to intervene in this thread when philologos has been trying to communicate from so much greater a wealth of scriptural insight.

However, first I must point out again, that he did not say that water baptism was essential.

He said it was necessary but NOT essential. Is this a meaningful statement?

I'd be grateful if you would go back and look at the way you worded your question to him on this, to which he began his reply 'straightforward question, straightforward answer' and see that you have systematically retained your order of words in your reply to him and to me, even though I had pointed out you have switched 'essential' and 'necessary'.

I am not commenting on his or your order of words with regard to their meaning. Merely, I am pointing out that you have [b]misquoted[/b] him [i]twice[/i] now, despite my drawing it to your attention. I hope this is a point you will address and correct in your next post.

Quote:
If Christ gave the command to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and Paul thanks God that he hardly baptized in water anyone, then MAYBE Christ was referring to something other than water baptism?

My response to this may be up for revision by philologos or anyone else, but, it seems obvious to me, that the only Person who can baptise in the Holy Spirit, is God - the Father and the Son.

I'm not sure if you separate new birth and the baptism in the Spirit but I'd have a hard time with that if you do. Therefore, I'd quote John 1:13 and 3:5, to implicate the [i]will[/i] of God and His giving of His Spirit as being something man [i]cannot[/i] do.

But, baptism in water is something which Jesus commanded the disciples to do and it is clear that there will always be disciples of Jesus Christ to perform this function with new believers. That Paul didn't do much baptising, may be do to with the amount of time he spent in jail, travelling, writing and preaching, rather than an inability or disinclination to be the person to immerse new believers in water. To be fair, the disciples were all doing it before they had been baptised in the Spirit, so it was not something which has to be done by someone who is born again (Spirit-filled-immersed). The importance is the [i]believer's[/i] obedience. Also, there were 3000 converts on the day of Pentecost. By the time Paul came on the scene, there must have been many people other than the disciples baptising in water. It is not a special ministry - a gift of the Spirit. It is a simple act of compliance with a command of Christ.

What John the Baptist said, was before he had even baptised Jesus in water. Straight after he baptised Jesus in water, Jesus disciples starting baptising in water also. So both John's and Jesus's disciples are baptising for repentance, at the same time, in water, in the name of the one they follow. This is something to do with who the person being baptised is believing, but, since both are preaching the same message at this point, does it matter? The baptisers and the believers-unto-repentance are doing what God told them to.

In a short time, John the Baptist is dead. Now only Jesus disciples are baptising in water. Fast forward.

Now, at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is available to believers for the first time and the disciples had no control over the day He arrived. What was important, it seems, is that they were doing what the Lord had told them to do and He was ready to send the Spirit to their obedient hearts.

I don't [i]see[/i] how you can suggest that the baptism 'in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit' can be Holy Spirit baptism, when it is manifestly clear that the [i]obedience[/i] which Christ required from John the Baptist, was that of baptism in water.

In case it's not absolutely clear, I [i]do[/i] see that believers should be baptised in the Holy Spirit, [b]but[/b], I believe this to be of God's grace and according to His choice of timing alone.

Lastly, this very imperfect response is not intended to create any more confusion, Stever. I don't know how much you've discussed the baptism in the Holy Spirit with philologos, but my take is a combination of reading a KJV and personal experience. Most particularly with regard to the Holy Spirit, the New Testament delights in describing a variety of happenings which leave us far short of a rigid external formula. Praise God. If there is a pattern, it is based in the relationship between the believer and the Lord.

 2005/7/17 0:40









 Re:

DORCAS SAID:
I thank you for your comprehensive reply, which I believe I understand. I had not intended to intervene in this thread when philologos has been trying to communicate from so much greater a wealth of scriptural insight.

However, first I must point out again, that he did not say that water baptism was essential.

He said it was necessary but NOT essential. Is this a meaningful statement?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

STEVER’S REPLY:
I THOUGHT MY POST WAS VERY CLEAR WHEN I QUOTED MARK 16:15-16, WHICH STATES THAT IS IS NOT ONLY NECESSARY, BUT ESSENTIAL TO BE BAPTIZED TO BE SAVED!

Philologos is incorrect and my post specifically said that Christ is the one who said it was ESSENTIAL AND NECESSARY. THE VERSE I USED TO BACK THAT UP WAS MARK 16:15-16:
“15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16. He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I WILL STOP AT THIS POINT IN ORDER FOR YOU TO REPLY TO THIS POINT.

THEN, ONCE YOU DO THAT, I WILL RESPOND TO EACH OF YOUR OTHER POINTS. IT IS NO USE POSTING THINGS OVER AND OVER IF THE PERSON WE ARE POSTING TO MISSES A KEY ELEMENT OF OUR POST.

GOD BLESS,

STEVER

 2005/7/17 2:20









 Re: which baptism?

Stever,

In Mark 16, the choice is between believing and not believing. If a person does not believe, no one will expect them to be baptised.

Once a person is a believer, they are asked to be baptised.

Is it necessary to be baptised, before being counted as a believer? No.

 2005/7/17 3:51
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
If baptism is essential, but not necessary, why did Paul thank God that he had only baptized 2 people and the household of Stephanus only-in total?



firstly, I didn't say that baptism was essential but not necessary. I said that it was necessary but not essential. The exact opposite of what you have quoted here.

However, as to Paul's action, you will find the answer to this very plainly if you read the verses either side of the one that you quoted;“Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.” (1Cor. 1:13-15, KJV) Paul thanks God, not that he had not baptized, but that he had baptized 'none of you... lest any should say...' That is, he is grateful to God that he had not been the source of their baptism; in the current setting it would have been a further setting for party spirit.


Quote:
Also, if Water Baptism was so important, why then did Christ Baptize no man himself?

It had been declared already that Christ's baptism would be 'in the Holy Spirit' and not water. It could only have confused people into thinking that they were the same thing if He had performed the baptism. However, as you will see from your verses, the disciples continued to baptise as Christs's agents and the onlookers saw plainly that it was with Christ's authority. Hence, they attributed these 'baptisms' to Jesus though He did not perform the baptism.


Quote:
Was Christ talking about water baptism, or Spirit Baptism when he commanded:

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matt. 28:18-20)

As Nasher pointed out earlier in this thread (I think) This could never have been a commission for the apostles to 'baptize' people in the Holy Spirit; that is Christ's unique prerogative and one which He would never delegate. This has to be water baptism.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/17 3:56Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Also, Philologos has posted that it is essential, but not necessary to be water baptized (those are his words, and no one elses).



What I said, and it is there for all to see who will read it was
Quote:
Straightforward question, straightforward answer. It is necessary but not essential.



This is the exact opposite of what I said. Please retract your comments.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/17 4:03Profile









 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Quote:
Also, Philologos has posted that it is essential, but not necessary to be water baptized (those are his words, and no one elses).



What I said, and it is there for all to see who will read it was
Quote:
Straightforward question, straightforward answer. It is necessary but not essential.



This is the exact opposite of what I said. Please retract your comments.



***************************

Stever's response:

I have nothing to retract, sir,as your statement (any way you want to slice it) is incorrect.

MY POST WAS VERY CLEAR WHEN I QUOTED MARK 16:15-16, WHICH STATES THAT IS IS NOT ONLY NECESSARY, BUT ESSENTIAL TO BE BAPTIZED TO BE SAVED! WE MUST BELIEVE AND BE BAPTIZED!

Philologos, you are incorrect and my post specifically said that Christ is the one who said it was ESSENTIAL AND NECESSARY. THE VERSE USED TO BACK THAT UP WAS MARK 16:15-16:
“15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16. He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM HERE. WE MUST BELIEVE AND BE BAPTIZED TO BE SAVED.

God bless,

Stever

 2005/7/17 15:46









 Re:

Quote:

dorcas wrote:
Stever,

In Mark 16, the choice is between believing and not believing. If a person does not believe, no one will expect them to be baptised.

Once a person is a believer, they are asked to be baptised.

Is it necessary to be baptised, before being counted as a believer? No.



*********************
Stever's response:

God's word tells me/us the following:

Mark 16:16
16. He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Please note, that Christ does not say that it is essential but not necessary. Those are the words of Philologos, not my Lord Jesus Christ. Christ words tell me that those that believe and are baptized SHALL BE SAVED.

Now, for the million dollar question, what Baptism was Christ talking about? Was it the water baptism practiced by John the Baptist, and his own Disciples before his death and resurrection--all still in the Old Testament? The baptism in water that was nothing more than a picture, a type of his own Baptism that took place to fulfill all righteousness? All of the "purifications" that the Priests were involved in at the laver (washing their hands and feet)- first at Tabernacle and later at the Temple. Also, Solomon established water purifications at the Temple by instituting the "Sea of Glass" for the Priests. ALL OF THESE WERE FULFILLED BY CHRIST AT HIS OWN WATER BAPTISM.

OR, WAS IT THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER THAT CHRIST TALKS ABOUT--the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that empowers the believer.

If we read and study about the Gentile Church in the New Testament, we find the focus is on the Promise of the Father- the Baptism in the Holy Spirit that is accomplished by the laying on of hands from another brother or sister in the Lord that has already received this baptism.

What does this Baptism do? It provides POWER, the one thing that is missing in much of the Church today. Look at the Churches of England. Effete, and empty. Many, many of them are either empty or almost empty. And so many of them have been sold to Muslims who have created Mosques out of them.


Go to China, to Africa. That is where you will see the harvest, that is where you will see power, & that is where you will see miracles- the sick are healed, the blind can see, and the dead are being resurrected.

What goes on in our Churches? We have Greek Scholars, Bible Scholars, & Textural Critics and what is the reward? No Power. Empty Churches because the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not on the agenda. Actually in most of our Churches The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is either not known about or purposefully placed in the trash can.

God bless,

Stever

 2005/7/17 16:15









 Re: a slight exaggeration

Quote:
[b]many[/b] of them have been sold to Muslims who have created Mosques out of them.

Where, please?

 2005/7/17 16:30









 Re: concerning baptism

Stever,

I have no idea how you have arrived at your conclusions, when the practising church all over the world continues to baptise new believers in water, finding no difficulty with the procedure.

Quote:
If we read and study about the Gentile Church in the New Testament, we find the focus is on the Promise of the Father- the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Neither is the baptism in the Spirit is non-essential.

Why are you bent on an either-or choice?

If it was important to stop baptising in water, it would be clearly stated in the New Testament and not left to the guesswork you imply, simply because it is no longer the focal point of the narrative.

 2005/7/17 16:36
Servus
Member



Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 17


 Re:

When I originally posted this discussion it was by mistake. I accidently posted it while trying to reply to another discussion about baptism. As I have watched this discussion progress I have become rather disgusted at the display we have seen here. I am grieved that this post was even started. To avoid any twisting of words I will merely quote what the Bible says on this sort of behaviour.
"2Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
2Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2Timothy 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

And again:
"Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations."

And still yet again:
"Philippians 2:14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world"
This has become an argument or "dispute" if you will. Concerning the Bible translations, I prefer to read the KJV, not because I believe it to be the only translation, but because it is written in classical English and I believe it to be a beautiful interperation. However, I do not believe it to be "The only true translation". I have 30 + translations of the Bible and when I compare translations they all (with exception to "The Message") say essentially the same thing.
The truth is that the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus which came into being around 1000 A.D. Since then (the last thousand years) there have been copies upon copies, translation upon translation which have been made from eachother. And this is only in the last thousand years, we still have another thousand years before that in which I am certain that copies were made from eachother. I am somewhat of a linguist with fair knowledge of four different languages. I am by no means an expert as I am still studying, but in my studies I have learned what is refered to as "transliteration" which is something that occurs while translating words from one language to another. When Translating it is nearly impossible to translate the words exactly as they are spoken in the other language, that is where transliteration comes into play. Transliteration is where you translate as closely to the word as what you can with your knowledge. You could take a phrase in another language and have two different people who know that language translate it into English and chances are that they won't both say exactly the same thing in English but the overall message will be the same. We as Christians have to believe that God preserves His word, not man. If therefore God preserves His word, then to say that only 1 out of several hundred translations of the Bible are correct, would be flat out wrong, and calling God a liar when He says that He will preserve His word. Many "TRUE BELIEVERS" read the NIV and many other translations of the Bible because they are easier to understand. The Important message isn't whether or not it should be translated "loosed" or "washed". What is important is the message that the Bible speaks and that is Repentance and Salvation, which is the message that you can find in almost all modern translations of the Bible (probably all though I cannot say for sure because I have not read all). This has become a pathetic argument and a pitiful display of Christian behaviour to argue back and forth, and is disgraceful to all involved. The fact of the matter is that both parties believe themselves to be right (one party has to be right) and neither will actually listen to the other or change their opinion. It is futile to shoot back and forth at eachother. This right here is exactly what Satan wants. "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand". We (the church) are supposed to belong to God's kingdom and we are so divided I cannot see how we could possibly stand. If we were to spend as much time and energy being examples of Jesus Christ and preaching repentance and salvation to the lost world that we live in as we do fighting and arguing amongst ourselves, atheism would be all but forgotten, and all other religions would be practically stomped out. While we "Christians" are busy fighting and arguing amongst ourselves there are upwards of 50,000 people dying and going to hell every day!!!! Am I the only person who is bothered by the notion that the church spends so much time bickering with eachother when that time could be used toward gathering the harvest before it's too late? Feel free to quote me and shoot arrows back at me for what I have just said in this post, but I will not be replying to them because I refuse to get drawn into this childish argument. My prayers are with you all.
Always in Christ Jesus ~Shaun.


_________________
Shaun

 2005/7/17 17:19Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy