Is baptism essential unto salvation?

[clgustaveson]

Ok, before I make any statements, I am sure this has been hashed out many times on this forum. I don't simply want to reread other discussions, so please humor me...

Is baptism essential to be saved? This isn't a question of whether baptism in Jesus name is essential, so lets not turn this into a massive debate on Jesus name or FSHG... I just want to know if baptism is essential...

[Sam]

There are several "bapstisms" mentioned in the Scriptures. Ref Hebrews 6:2. We can't even agree among ourselves how many baptisms there are and if any or all of them are essential unto salvation.

[clgustaveson]

There are several "bapstisms" mentioned in the Scriptures. Ref Hebrews 6:2. We can't even agree among ourselves how many baptisms there are and if any or all of them are essential unto salvation.

That was not the question... you can't say, well there are so many so we cant agree... I am simply asking if full water submersion with the invocation of some name is required for salvation.

This isn't a debate about OT baptisms -- not ritual washings or cleanings.

I think you know what I am asking, just answer what you believe and explain why.

[OnTheFritz]

That was not the question... you can't say, well there are so many so we cant agree... I am simply asking if full water submersion with the invocation of some name is required for salvation.

This isn't a debate about OT baptisms -- not ritual washings or cleanings.

I think you know what I am asking, just answer what you believe and explain why.

I think Sam's point is that just by asking for a simple answer doesn't mean there is one. Thus the rehashing. The long drawn out threads are long and drawn out for a reason.

For the record, I believe that I don't know. I certainly wouldn't want to risk not being baptized. How's that? ;)

[Timmy]

No.

[El Predicador]

Baptism is a commandment not a suggestion.

Reject it and you will go to hell.

Nothing to discuss.

[Light]

Baptism is a commandment not a suggestion.

Reject it and you will go to hell.

Nothing to discuss.

Yes Baptism is a commandment not a suggestion.


Those that reject it will go to hell.

Those that use the titles in baptism will go to hell.

Nothing to discuss.

[Theophil]

Ok, before I make any statements, I am sure this has been hashed out many times on this forum. I don't simply want to reread other discussions, so please humor me...

Is baptism essential to be saved? This isn't a question of whether baptism in Jesus name is essential, so lets not turn this into a massive debate on Jesus name or FSHG... I just want to know if baptism is essential...

Yes.

[Hoovie]

Water baptism is an essential part of initiation into the church for a new believer.

[Timmy]

Water baptism is an essential part of initiation into the church for a new believer.

Is that a yes or a no? :foottap

[MrMasterMind]

Baptism is a commandment not a suggestion.

Reject it and you will go to hell.

Nothing to discuss.

Yes Baptism is a commandment not a suggestion.


Those that reject it will go to hell.

Those that use the titles in baptism will go to hell.

Nothing to discuss.

Yes.


So the debate begins again on fatal heart attack on the way to the baptismal tank?

:chat

[mizpeh]

So the debate begins again on fatal heart attack on the way to the baptismal tank?

:chatAdd to that a sovereign God who is in control.

[Timmy]

Add to that a sovereign God who is in control.

In control of what? :hmmm

[Hoovie]

Water baptism is an essential part of initiation into the church for a new believer.

Is that a yes or a no? :foottap

YES. It is an essential part of initiation.

:)

[Timmy]

YES. It is an essential part of initiation.

:)

Oh, so it's like a hazing? :ursofunny

[Sam]

no comment

[deltaguitar]

Can someone please show any scripture that might hint that not being baptized will send a person to HELL? I don't want concrete proof I just want something to try to base this doctrine on.

[KWSS1976]

I just want to know how the water washes sins away thats given more power to the water then Jesus I think we should do it to be symbolic but other then that....but we already beat this horse to death..LOL

[Timmy]

I just want to know how the water washes sins away thats given more power to the water then Jesus I think we should do it to be symbolic but other then that....but we already beat this horse to dead..LOL

I wonder if it has to be water. Would, say, turpentine work too? Maybe even better? :lol

[clgustaveson]

Water baptism is an essential part of initiation into the church for a new believer.

So are you saying it is a requirement for salvation?

[clgustaveson]

Yes Baptism is a commandment not a suggestion.


Those that reject it will go to hell.

Those that use the titles in baptism will go to hell.

Nothing to discuss.

Why? Where is this commandment that we need to be baptized?

I only see a commandment that we should go forth and baptize people... where is there a commandment that we should be baptized to go to heaven?

Mind I am just seeking answers, not trying to choose a side here....

[clgustaveson]

I just want to know how the water washes sins away thats given more power to the water then Jesus I think we should do it to be symbolic but other then that....but we already beat this horse to death..LOL

Who said it has more power? I mean if it does provide a cleansing of sin then that is because of Jesus, not in spite of him.

[KWSS1976]

Thats what I am saying people that say you have to be baptised to be saved if that is the case they are saying the water phsically removes the sin and we all know that cannot be cause that is Gods job...

[Tell_Sackett]

Ok, before I make any statements, I am sure this has been hashed out many times on this forum. I don't simply want to reread other discussions, so please humor me...

Is baptism essential to be saved? This isn't a question of whether baptism in Jesus name is essential, so lets not turn this into a massive debate on Jesus name or FSHG... I just want to know if baptism is essential...

Colossians 2 compares water baptism for NT believers to OT circumcision. Abraham was justified by faith (i.e. his belief in God's word). Since God then commanded him to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant, however, his refusal to obey God's command would have resulted in loss of "salvation," or being cut off from the covenant (Gen 17).

If you follow this logic with baptism, we are saved through faith/belief alone, but failure to obey God's word and be baptized results in being cut off from the family.

Short answer - yes, baptism is essential for salvation (but salvation doesn't occur at baptism).

[Michael The Disciple]

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

I say yes its part of the full salvation plan.

[Jermyn Davidson]

One does not get baptized to get saved, but because you are saved.

However, it grieves me that there are folks who have been deceived into thinking that they don't have to be baptized.


I compare it to the guy who was in the highway and hedges who was beckoned to come to the wedding after the original invitees rejected their invitations.

The guy showed up-- but he didn't have the right clothes on. He was cast out of the wedding feast, if I'm not mistaken.



It's the attitude of the person getting baptized that I address when I say, "No, you don't get baptized to get saved", but indeed, as a person who is saved, we must obey the scriptures.

Water Baptism by full immersion, with the invocation of the Name of Jesus, is CLEARLY A BIBLICAL COMMAND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED UNTO SALVATION!

[missourimary]

It is the will and plan of God for us to be baptized. As to essential for salvation or not, I leave that in God's hands. If there is a time that someone has a heart attack on their way to getting baptized, I don't think they will be precluded from Heaven because they had a heart attack, but I also don't believe God would let someone be struck dead on their way to church to be baptized. Never heard of it, anyway. (thanks, but don't want to, either. Please let me continue in my ignorance on this one. :) )

For direction, Mark 16:18, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:44-45... and Peter commanded Cornelius to be baptized-no "if you want to" stuff. But they got baptized because they were sincere believers, not to "get saved" or to stay out of Hell.

[Hoovie]

Can someone please show any scripture that might hint that not being baptized will send a person to HELL? I don't want concrete proof I just want something to try to base this doctrine on.

All Christians get baptised. Jesus commanded it, the Apostles commanded it, and those who came to repentance were baptized. When one is in Christ he desires to do His will. It's that simple really.

I see no exceptions.

[Hoovie]

So are you saying it is a requirement for salvation?

I am saying all new believers WILL be baptised. It is the first action (or at least one of the first actions) that is manifest in a new believer's life.

Do I question the faith of a believer who rejects baptism in an ongoing fashion? Yes - the same as I would question his faith if he continued living in obvious sin without repentance or remorse.

[clgustaveson]

Colossians 2 compares water baptism for NT believers to OT circumcision. Abraham was justified by faith (i.e. his belief in God's word). Since God then commanded him to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant, however, his refusal to obey God's command would have resulted in loss of "salvation," or being cut off from the covenant (Gen 17).

If you follow this logic with baptism, we are saved through faith/belief alone, but failure to obey God's word and be baptized results in being cut off from the family.

Short answer - yes, baptism is essential for salvation (but salvation doesn't occur at baptism).

I see your logic, but I don't feel that it is valid enough... why would something so important be left to such an ideological comparison that it takes assumptions beyond what I am willing to make?

As I said, I am not trying to pick sides but to play the skeptic here and search for harder evidence I don't think this scripture is proof enough to assume that without an ideological circumcision or in a sense devoid of the common mark of baptism, I am not saved. Now, this scripture seems to make more sense than most I have seen but I still don't find it concrete enough to assume hell on millions of people...

Circumcision in itself is not creating a "cleaner" individual... God made man, and it was good... why would the cutting off of a foreskin make man any better in God's sight?

Was Moses family damned or "cut-off" because he didn't practice circumcision? (Joshua 5: 4-7) Then Moses passed this ancient custom to the people...

Jesus also compares circumcision to his own healing, so is it a requirement that every man receive physical healing from Jesus?

I mean, I need answers, I would prefer to see the facts, leave the opinions to the wayside...

[clgustaveson]

I am saying all new believers WILL be baptised. It is the first action (or at least one of the first actions) that is manifest in a new believer's life.

Do I question the faith of a believer who rejects baptism in an ongoing fashion? Yes - the same as I would question his faith if he continued living in obvious sin without repentance or remorse.

You would question a mans lifestyle even if he had no conviction about his actions?

In that sense do you think men should follow all traditions blindly without seeking a personal connection from God?

Don't take that as a personal attack, my question is not as rude as I think it looks... but should you ever judge a man's heart? Should we judge the intent of a man?

[clgustaveson]

All Christians get baptised. Jesus commanded it, the Apostles commanded it, and those who came to repentance were baptized. When one is in Christ he desires to do His will. It's that simple really.

I see no exceptions.

This is my favorite post thus far... but it still doesn't imply salvation, just a slight insinuation that it my be a good thing to do...

[clgustaveson]

One does not get baptized to get saved, but because you are saved.

However, it grieves me that there are folks who have been deceived into thinking that they don't have to be baptized.


I compare it to the guy who was in the highway and hedges who was beckoned to come to the wedding after the original invitees rejected their invitations.

The guy showed up-- but he didn't have the right clothes on. He was cast out of the wedding feast, if I'm not mistaken.



It's the attitude of the person getting baptized that I address when I say, "No, you don't get baptized to get saved", but indeed, as a person who is saved, we must obey the scriptures.

Water Baptism by full immersion, with the invocation of the Name of Jesus, is CLEARLY A BIBLICAL COMMAND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED UNTO SALVATION!

Your logic doesn't make sense (again don't take this as a personal attack) but you say it is something you do because you are saved, therefore you don't have to do it to be saved... but you change your stance and say people still have to do it... if you really believed what you said first you would have said "should" rather than "have"...

I just don't think ritualism is enough to make me feel compelled to get baptized... (while I have been) I just don't think ritualism or simply because everyone else did it is a good enough answer to imply it must be done...

[staysharp]

Ok, before I make any statements, I am sure this has been hashed out many times on this forum. I don't simply want to reread other discussions, so please humor me...

Is baptism essential to be saved? This isn't a question of whether baptism in Jesus name is essential, so lets not turn this into a massive debate on Jesus name or FSHG... I just want to know if baptism is essential...

If baptism could save u, u wouldn't need the cross. U aren't saved at baptism. U were saved 2k years ago when Christ gave his life for humanity.

A new believer is asked to be baptized as a physical response to a spiritual work. A public testimony of Christ's death, burial & resurrection.

If one refuses baptism, I would question his dedication and faith to Christ.

[clgustaveson]

If baptism could save u, u wouldn't need the cross. U aren't saved at baptism. U were saved 2k years ago when Christ gave his life for humanity.

A new believer is asked to be baptized as a physical response to a spiritual work. A public testimony of Christ's death, burial & resurrection.

If one refuses baptism, I would question his dedication and faith to Christ.

If baptism is the only act of faith a man shows is he then a good Christian?

Maybe our priorities are out of line if this is what people think expresses their faith... symbolism is not true faith. Any man can go under water and get wet, it's true acts of faith like love and charity that I find to be the real expression of my belief in God.

[staysharp]

If baptism is the only act of faith a man shows is he then a good Christian?

Maybe our priorities are out of line if this is what people think expresses their faith... symbolism is not true faith. Any man can go under water and get wet, it's true acts of faith like love and charity that I find to be the real expression of my belief in God.

Sure, baptism is one of many, however highly overrated...lol

[Hoovie]

You would question a mans lifestyle even if he had no conviction about his actions?

In that sense do you think men should follow all traditions blindly without seeking a personal connection from God?

Don't take that as a personal attack, my question is not as rude as I think it looks... but should you ever judge a man's heart? Should we judge the intent of a man?

I have thick skin. :)

I am saying the primary guide is not conscience but is what is already written in scripture. Convictions are nice, but are notoriously unreliable, IMHO.

So yes, things like adultery, homosexuality, murder, are to be "judged" without regard to convictions one may have to the contrary.

[clyattvillan]

Hello, I know I'm new here and nobody knows me. I found this forum on Google and this was the newest thread, so I figured I'd jump in.

Have y'all considered this text?

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Couldn't we ask your question this way;

Was the ark essential to Noah's salvation?

Anyway, hope it was OK to chime in. :)

[Aquila]

I believe that water baptism is an essential part of God's plan. God judges the heart, so there may be exceptions. However, the exceptions appear to make the rule. If one can be baptized and isn't... I think they are playing with fire.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Your logic doesn't make sense (again don't take this as a personal attack) but you say it is something you do because you are saved, therefore you don't have to do it to be saved... but you change your stance and say people still have to do it... if you really believed what you said first you would have said "should" rather than "have"...

I just don't think ritualism is enough to make me feel compelled to get baptized... (while I have been) I just don't think ritualism or simply because everyone else did it is a good enough answer to imply it must be done...



Not offended.


But it's like this.

You don't "clean yourself up" and then come to Jesus.

He calls and you come to Him because He's calling you to repentance.

You don't continue in sin. You strive to live a life pleasing to the Lord.

These are things that a Christian MUST DO.

It doesn't save you, but you do it because as a Christian, this is what you are instructed to do.

Just as the new believer MUST DEPART FROM SIN, that same new believer MUST BE BAPTIZED.

If for no other reason than obedience.

This is why the scripture in Peter about baptism saving us is important:

IF YOU HAVE A GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARDS YOUR NEW LORD AND SAVIOR, YOU WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT BY OBEYING THE SCRIPTURES.


But you don't get baptized to get saved. I'm speaking to the intent of one's heart and the way the Gospel should be presented-- a way that does not encourage "performance pentecost" or legalism or anything that would suggest that somehow our actions saved us.



How do you look at Communion?
In your mind, does taking Communion save you?

[clgustaveson]

I have thick skin. :)

I am saying the primary guide is not conscience but is what is already written in scripture. Convictions are nice, but are notoriously unreliable, IMHO.

So yes, things like adultery, homosexuality, murder, are to be "judged" without regard to convictions one may have to the contrary.

So you would regard a preconceived relationship over a newly birthed one?

Does the couple that wed in a traditional wedding love eachother more?

[Hoovie]

So you would regard a preconceived relationship over a newly birthed one?

Does the couple that wed in a traditional wedding love eachother more?

I guess I'm not sure what the analogy is.

I don't know that love is even a prerequisite for marriage...

But the scriptures should define and measure our convictions - not be at odds with them.

[bishoph]

If baptism could save u, u wouldn't need the cross. U aren't saved at baptism. U were saved 2k years ago when Christ gave his life for humanity.

A new believer is asked to be baptized as a physical response to a spiritual work. A public testimony of Christ's death, burial & resurrection.

If one refuses baptism, I would question his dedication and faith to Christ.

Staysharp are you a Baptist now? You sure gave a great BAPTIST response.....an outward sign of an inward grace!


Since Elder Epley has not made it to this thread as yet....let me make his usual statement ....with which I agree! There is not one person since the day of Pentecost that has been saved without obedience to Acts 2:38. Repent, be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.....won't make it to heaven without it!

[Aquila]

Since Elder Epley has not made it to this thread as yet....let me make his usual statement ....with which I agree! There is not one person since the day of Pentecost that has been saved without obedience to Acts 2:38. Repent, be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.....won't make it to heaven without it!

There have been many who were bound by religious traditions down through the ages who experienced the Holy Ghost baptism. Catholics often called this "ecstasy". It wasn't uncommon for individuals who experienced this to speak with tongues, see visions, have angelic visitations, etc. Most had a very limited or a traditionalized view of Scripture. (I assure you that you also have a very traditioanlized and Catholic practice in your own faith where the light of full Apostolic truth hasn't shown.) However, their hearts were seeking God through Christ Jesus the only way they knew. Perhaps most of them were baptized in titles, but in most cases they were baptized as a result of their desire to be obedient to Scripture.

I would agree that the Apostolic formula for water baptism is in the singular name of Jesus Christ. However, baptism ISN'T a magic ritual where the words have to be just right. It is more the disposition of the individual's heart than the words uttered that makes baptism effectual.

So one has to ask...

Does God judge the heart or the Sacrament?

[staysharp]

Staysharp are you a Baptist now? You sure gave a great BAPTIST response.....an outward sign of an inward grace!


Since Elder Epley has not made it to this thread as yet....let me make his usual statement ....with which I agree! There is not one person since the day of Pentecost that has been saved without obedience to Acts 2:38. Repent, be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.....won't make it to heaven without it!

And the scripture to back this statement up is?

[staysharp]

There have been many who were bound by religious traditions down through the ages who experienced the Holy Ghost baptism. Catholics often called this "ecstasy". It wasn't uncommon for individuals who experienced this to speak with tongues, see visions, have angelic visitations, etc. Most had a very limited or a traditionalized view of Scripture. (I assure you that you also have a very traditioanlized and Catholic practice in your own faith where the light of full Apostolic truth hasn't shown.) However, their hearts were seeking God through Christ Jesus the only way they knew. Perhaps most of them were baptized in titles, but in most cases they were baptized as a result of their desire to be obedient to Scripture.

I would agree that the Apostolic formula for water baptism is in the singular name of Jesus Christ. However, baptism ISN'T a magic ritual where the words have to be just right. It is more the disposition of the individual's heart than the words uttered that makes baptism effectual.

So one has to ask...

Does God judge the heart or the Sacrament?

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thum bsup

Does anyone believe the revelation of grace?

Rom 10:5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, [B]13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]

[clgustaveson]

Staysharp are you a Baptist now? You sure gave a great BAPTIST response.....an outward sign of an inward grace!


Since Elder Epley has not made it to this thread as yet....let me make his usual statement ....with which I agree! There is not one person since the day of Pentecost that has been saved without obedience to Acts 2:38. Repent, be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.....won't make it to heaven without it!

Ok, so your answering the question without answering it... The problem I see with how you are stating this is that you are judging souls without a solid foundation.... where is this stated in the Bible?

Show me something concrete...

[clgustaveson]

I guess I'm not sure what the analogy is.

I don't know that love is even a prerequisite for marriage...

But the scriptures should define and measure our convictions - not be at odds with them.

I don't want this to divert us from the original topic but I will explain briefly what I am hinting at...

If getting baptized is a requirement for salvation, it is the failure to do so that is the action of consequence... therefore intent of the action or reason cant be judged in the same fashion as some sort of sin that we would commit.

So all of the ideological and philosophical debates regarding death before one could be baptized or the physical inability are just fun, because this is quite different from a sin of omission... since the act is explicit and very clear as what to do.

So follow me here... if a man doesn't follow a symbolic path to express his faith does he not have faith?

What saving power is there in symbolism? Making the assumption that everyone in the Bible did it so I should just isn't a strong enough argument to say that it is a requirement....

Being born of water and of spirit is a requirement, maybe not the only but it is one.... just being here pretty much shows we have accomplished one of those-- So do we really need to be baptized to go to be saved?

[OnTheFritz]

Staysharp are you a Baptist now? You sure gave a great BAPTIST response.....an outward sign of an inward grace!


Since Elder Epley has not made it to this thread as yet....let me make his usual statement ....with which I agree! There is not one person since the day of Pentecost that has been saved without obedience to Acts 2:38. Repent, be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.....won't make it to heaven without it!

Opinion stated as fact..... yep, that sounds like Bro. Epley.

[clgustaveson]

Opinion stated as fact..... yep, that sounds like Bro. Epley.

What is your belief?

I am just looking for logic amongst unsupported assumptions... I used to believe it was a requirement but lately I just don't see the evidence. So, I am looking to see evidence for either side, but both sides seem to be unsupported...

[KWSS1976]

Just google it "Do I have to to be baptised to be saved" I love me some Google..LOL

[clgustaveson]

Just google it "Do I have to to be baptised to be saved" I love me some Google..LOL

Thanks, you solved my dilemma--

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/baptism.htm

[clgustaveson]

Oh, but this scripture from that site caught my eye 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 why would Paul proclaim he wasn't sent to baptize, only to preach if Baptism is essential to salvation why wouldn't Paul offer a full service salvation plan?

[KWSS1976]

Hey I will not tell you the bible is not confusing..LOL

[OnTheFritz]

What is your belief?

I am just looking for logic amongst unsupported assumptions... I used to believe it was a requirement but lately I just don't see the evidence. So, I am looking to see evidence for either side, but both sides seem to be unsupported...

INO, there is not enough information available to make it "fact" either way. I agree - the evidence is not there to make it a requirement. That being said - I wouldn't risk it. :thumbsup

[clgustaveson]

INO, there is not enough information available to make it "fact" either way. I agree - the evidence is not there to make it a requirement. That being said - I wouldn't risk it. :thumbsup

If we were to live our lives by the "better safe than sorry" philosophy we would be wasting our time... Why would a requirement of salvation, something that should be clear, be so hard to find?

I am starting to fall on the side of the camp that believe it is not a requirement... while I am not a fan of symbolism or legalism I still see its relative importance in the church... but I still don't see where it is a stipulation of salvation.

[Sam]

There have been many who were bound by religious traditions down through the ages who experienced the Holy Ghost baptism. Catholics often called this "ecstasy". It wasn't uncommon for individuals who experienced this to speak with tongues, see visions, have angelic visitations, etc. Most had a very limited or a traditionalized view of Scripture. (I assure you that you also have a very traditioanlized and Catholic practice in your own faith where the light of full Apostolic truth hasn't shown.) However, their hearts were seeking God through Christ Jesus the only way they knew. Perhaps most of them were baptized in titles, but in most cases they were baptized as a result of their desire to be obedient to Scripture.

I would agree that the Apostolic formula for water baptism is in the singular name of Jesus Christ. However, baptism ISN'T a magic ritual where the words have to be just right. It is more the disposition of the individual's heart than the words uttered that makes baptism effectual.

So one has to ask...

Does God judge the heart or the Sacrament?

Some have taken historical references to folks who experienced the gifts of the Spirit and/or those who rejected Church/State baptism and claim that they "prove" that there have always been Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals.

[Sam]

Oh, but this scripture from that site caught my eye 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 why would Paul proclaim he wasn't sent to baptize, only to preach if Baptism is essential to salvation why wouldn't Paul offer a full service salvation plan?

For a couple of reasons:
1. Jewish people were often baptized under a rabbi's ministry. Jewish baptism was a self-immersion three times in water and was "witnessed" by a rabbi or his designee. Jewish baptism was called a "mikveh." Those who underwent the mikveh "cleansing" were said to have been baptized in the name of their rabbi. Paul did not want people dividing up around leaders/teachers/preachers/rabbis so he did not make a big deal about baptism. As was the custom in the early church, converts were immersed (or they self-immersed) right after conversion. This is seen in early New Testament records in the Book of Acts. So, folks did get baptized under the ministry of Paul but he did not want his name associated with their baptism. He wanted them to be devoted to Jesus instead of to a particular church or leader. So, they were said to have been baptized "in the name of Jesus the Messiah" instead of in the name of a leader/teacher/pastor/etc.

2. Paul considered it his calling and primary goal to preach salvation/deliverance. Water baptism was an important ritual carried over from Judaism, through Rabbi John the Baptist and then through Rabbi Jesus and then incorporated in the early church, but was secondary in importance to salvation/conversion which was by faith.

[clgustaveson]

For a couple of reasons:
1. Jewish people were often baptized under a rabbi's ministry. Jewish baptism was a self-immersion three times in water and was "witnessed" by a rabbi or his designee. Jewish baptism was called a "mikveh." Those who underwent the mikveh "cleansing" were said to have been baptized in the name of their rabbi. Paul did not want people dividing up around leaders/teachers/preachers/rabbis so he did not make a big deal about baptism. As was the custom in the early church, converts were immersed (or they self-immersed) right after conversion. This is seen in early New Testament records in the Book of Acts. So, folks did get baptized under the ministry of Paul but he did not want his name associated with their baptism. He wanted them to be devoted to Jesus instead of to a particular church or leader. So, they were said to have been baptized "in the name of Jesus the Messiah" instead of in the name of a leader/teacher/pastor/etc.

2. Paul considered it his calling and primary goal to preach salvation/deliverance. Water baptism was an important ritual carried over from Judaism, through Rabbi John the Baptist and then through Rabbi Jesus and then incorporated in the early church, but was secondary in importance to salvation/conversion which was by faith.

What is your point?

[OnTheFritz]

If we were to live our lives by the "better safe than sorry" philosophy we would be wasting our time... Why would a requirement of salvation, something that should be clear, be so hard to find?

I generally agree with you, but not in this case.

[clgustaveson]

I generally agree with you, but not in this case.

My point is less blunt than what you are seeing lol I disagree with myself in that case.... I don't feel that God would leave something vital to ambiguous interpretation... We can agree to disagree on hair and apparel and believe that these are not issues of salvation in all situations but when it comes to something as important as the formula for salvation I would be highly disappointed in the transparency of God's Word if it wasn't clearly stated and it was a requirement.

[missourimary]

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
...
Couldn't we ask your question this way;

Was the ark essential to Noah's salvation?

Anyway, hope it was OK to chime in. :)

thanks for chiming in-Good answer!

[Hoovie]

I don't want this to divert us from the original topic but I will explain briefly what I am hinting at...

If getting baptized is a requirement for salvation, it is the failure to do so that is the action of consequence... therefore intent of the action or reason cant be judged in the same fashion as some sort of sin that we would commit.

So all of the ideological and philosophical debates regarding death before one could be baptized or the physical inability are just fun, because this is quite different from a sin of omission... since the act is explicit and very clear as what to do.

So follow me here... if a man doesn't follow a symbolic path to express his faith does he not have faith?

What saving power is there in symbolism? Making the assumption that everyone in the Bible did it so I should just isn't a strong enough argument to say that it is a requirement....

Being born of water and of spirit is a requirement, maybe not the only but it is one.... just being here pretty much shows we have accomplished one of those-- So do we really need to be baptized to go to be saved?

I believe justification occurs at the moment of faith/repentance. What happens subsequently, including baptism, is the result of being born of God.

Rejection of baptism, or other things plainly taught in scripture, would be indicitive of one having something less than genuine faith. It is fair to question them, and they should expect resistance from the body they reject and refuse to identify with.

[gloryseeker]

Baptism is a commandment not a suggestion.

Reject it and you will go to hell.

Nothing to discuss.

Too many death bed conversion for your theology to work

[Hoovie]

Hello, I know I'm new here and nobody knows me. I found this forum on Google and this was the newest thread, so I figured I'd jump in.

Have y'all considered this text?

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Couldn't we ask your question this way;

Was the ark essential to Noah's salvation?

Anyway, hope it was OK to chime in. :)

This scripture does show how important baptism is in regards to saving from our guilty conscience.

When we recieve the work of Christ on the cross by faith, he does cleanse the filth and sins of the flesh, but when we make public proclamation through baptism it shows commitment and good conscience toward God.

[Sam]

What is your point?

My post was in response to a post asking why Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

[OnTheFritz]

My point is less blunt than what you are seeing lol I disagree with myself in that case.... I don't feel that God would leave something vital to ambiguous interpretation... We can agree to disagree on hair and apparel and believe that these are not issues of salvation in all situations but when it comes to something as important as the formula for salvation I would be highly disappointed in the transparency of God's Word if it wasn't clearly stated and it was a requirement.

What's clear to some may not be to others. We see what we want to see. I again agree with you, and I understand your question. My response is - I don't see conclusive evidence.

[Timmy]

What's clear to some may not be to others. We see what we want to see. I again agree with you, and I understand your question. My response is - I don't see conclusive evidence.

Ya think?

:toofunny

[Jermyn Davidson]

Not offended.


But it's like this.

You don't "clean yourself up" and then come to Jesus.

He calls and you come to Him because He's calling you to repentance.

You don't continue in sin. You strive to live a life pleasing to the Lord.

These are things that a Christian MUST DO.

It doesn't save you, but you do it because as a Christian, this is what you are instructed to do.

Just as the new believer MUST DEPART FROM SIN, that same new believer MUST BE BAPTIZED.

If for no other reason than obedience.

This is why the scripture in Peter about baptism saving us is important:

IF YOU HAVE A GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARDS YOUR NEW LORD AND SAVIOR, YOU WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT BY OBEYING THE SCRIPTURES.


But you don't get baptized to get saved. I'm speaking to the intent of one's heart and the way the Gospel should be presented-- a way that does not encourage "performance pentecost" or legalism or anything that would suggest that somehow our actions saved us.




How do you look at Communion?
In your mind, does taking Communion save you?



bump

[OnTheFritz]

Ya think?

:toofunny

Do I get an award for most obvious post...? :blush

[Dordrecht]

Was the thief on the cross baptized?

[gloryseeker]

Was the thief on the cross baptized?

Yes, it rained that day :ursofunny

[gloryseeker]

You would question a mans lifestyle even if he had no conviction about his actions?

In that sense do you think men should follow all traditions blindly without seeking a personal connection from God?

Don't take that as a personal attack, my question is not as rude as I think it looks... but should you ever judge a man's heart? Should we judge the intent of a man?

1 Corinthians 2:15 (King James Version)

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

[clgustaveson]

Do I get an award for most obvious post...? :blush

I think we are in agreeableness...

[Sam]

Was the thief on the cross baptized?

Well, he wasn't baptized on the cross (unless it rained and you count sprinkling as baptism) but we do not know if he had ever been baptized prior to his crucifixion or not.

[Dordrecht]

Well, he wasn't baptized on the cross (unless it rained and you count sprinkling as baptism) but we do not know if he had ever been baptized prior to his crucifixion or not.

Considering his past life, it's very likely he was not baptized.

[clyattvillan]

Have y'all been through the tabernacle plan in relation to baptism yet? I didn't want to post something that had already been discussed.

[Aquila]

One has to be baptized in response to the Gospel.

Now, the only place I differ with "traditional" Pentecostal understanding is in that I don't believe one must be completely submerged. I believe that pouring is sufficient.

[Aquila]

Was the thief on the cross baptized?

The thief wasn't a NT Christian. Christ wasn't dead yet. The thief was a sinner under the Law crying out to Jesus, his great highpriest. Jesus, offering himself up for sacrifice, forgave him based on that sacrifice.

[Aquila]

Have y'all been through the tabernacle plan in relation to baptism yet? I didn't want to post something that had already been discussed.

Amen! The pouring of the Laver as part of clensing in the tabernacle is a wonderful type of water baptism.

[KWSS1976]

Dordrecht the thief on the cross don't count even though he died after Jesus to some on here just like Elizabeth being filled with the holyghost and not speaking in tongues does not matter but both matter to me and I already posted what tongues were used for in Acts..read below... LOL

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=393

[Pastor Keith]

One has to be baptized in response to the Gospel.

Now, the only place I differ with "traditional" Pentecostal understanding is in that I don't believe one must be completely submerged. I believe that pouring is sufficient.

Your kidding right, Baptism and Pouring aren't even comparable, baptism means burial period, the actual Greek word was used to describe a sinking ship, not a ship being deluged by rain or waves, but ship going under the water for good.

[Pastor Keith]

Since the dawn of the Church age, every believer should be baptized, to avoid or refuse to submit to baptism is to then walk in unbelief and the result will be damnation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, the emphasis is on saving faith that will result in someone being buried with Christ and having the body of sins destroyed.

[Sam]

The thief wasn't a NT Christian. Christ wasn't dead yet. The thief was a sinner under the Law crying out to Jesus, his great highpriest. Jesus, offering himself up for sacrifice, forgave him based on that sacrifice.


Actually, Jesus died before the thief did.

[Sam]

Your kidding right, Baptism and Pouring aren't even comparable, baptism means burial period, the actual Greek word was used to describe a sinking ship, not a ship being deluged by rain or waves, but ship going under the water for good.

I had a preacher tell me that when a person is baptized by the Spirit, the Spirit is poured out upon him, therefore water baptism is water poured out upon a person.

The Greek word bapto (Strongs no. 911) is used in the Greek Old Testament where it says Nebuchadnezzar was "wet" from the dew.

[Sam]

Amen! The pouring of the Laver as part of clensing in the tabernacle is a wonderful type of water baptism.

Were the priests immersed/dipped/buried in the laver as part of their daily cleansing?

[KWSS1976]

Right sam the thief died after jesus per my post

thief on the cross don't count even though he died after Jesus

[KWSS1976]

Or jesus died before the thief same results..LOL

[KWSS1976]

Which brings up the OLD/NEW Covenant issue everyone is so stuck on

[Dordrecht]

Ok......I repented of my sins, got filled with the Holy Ghost.......

I made an appointment with the pastor to get baptized and on my way to church ran off a cliff with the old klunker and got killed...now I go to hell!

Makes no sense, but according to some of you going to hell makes sense in this case because I was not baptized. Got it!

[KWSS1976]

Dordrecht it will be ok..LOL But I do understand your fustration on the baptism thing....If baptism saves then you must get baptised everytime you sin which no one does so it must not save you like some on here says it does....

[Sam]

Dordrecht it will be ok..LOL But I do understand your fustration on the baptism thing....If baptism saves then you must get baptised everytime you sin which no one does so it must not save you like some on here says it does....

As Howard Goss, first General Superintendent of the UPC, stated in an article that appeared on pages 6 and 10 of the June 1954 Pentecostal Herald:

The blood and power of the Lord Jesus is the only source of regeneration or the New Birth. Water baptism alone has no power to remit sins, else we could baptize infants as do the Catholics. The Roman Catholic teaches regeneration by water baptism, but it is not according to the Word of God. A candidate for baptism in water should be baptized BECAUSE THE BLOOD has cleansed, remitted, forgiven his sins, and not in order to get them remitted, as WATER ALONE CANNOT WASH AWAY SINS. The old hymn goes:
What can wash away my sins,
Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.
-----------------------

I doubt if we would see something like this in the Pentecostal Herald today

[KWSS1976]

And per Acts it is Repent,be baptised, and be filled cannot happen the way you posted Dordrecht you cannot repent and be filled thats not the correct order...LOL Just messing with ya...

[Steve Epley]

As Howard Goss, first General Superintendent of the UPC, stated in an article that appeared on pages 6 and 10 of the June 1954 Pentecostal Herald:

The blood and power of the Lord Jesus is the only source of regeneration or the New Birth. Water baptism alone has no power to remit sins, else we could baptize infants as do the Catholics. The Roman Catholic teaches regeneration by water baptism, but it is not according to the Word of God. A candidate for baptism in water should be baptized BECAUSE THE BLOOD has cleansed, remitted, forgiven his sins, and not in order to get them remitted, as WATER ALONE CANNOT WASH AWAY SINS. The old hymn goes:
What can wash away my sins,
Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.
-----------------------

I doubt if we would see something like this in the Pentecostal Herald today

Howard Goss didn't believe the message.:thumbsup

[Pastor Keith]

Howard Goss didn't believe the message.:thumbsup

I think Howard Goss believed in the message as he understood it, now I don't believe that it what the Bible teaches. But I think he was sincere.

I misunderstands Baptism, the water itself doesn't save, that is Baptismal regeneration, but faith in the operation of God, or what God does in response to Faith. Remit and break the power or bondage of the body of sins.

[Dordrecht]

And per Acts it is Repent,be baptised, and be filled cannot happen the way you posted Dordrecht you cannot repent and be filled thats not the correct order...LOL Just messing with ya...

Well, I repented and got filled with the Holy Spirit a couple of years before I was baptized.

According to you that was all a joke and I am not saved and should start over again and do it in the right o r d e r? :sad

Just messing with you also.....:-)

[Hoovie]

As Howard Goss, first General Superintendent of the UPC, stated in an article that appeared on pages 6 and 10 of the June 1954 Pentecostal Herald:

The blood and power of the Lord Jesus is the only source of regeneration or the New Birth. Water baptism alone has no power to remit sins, else we could baptize infants as do the Catholics. The Roman Catholic teaches regeneration by water baptism, but it is not according to the Word of God. A candidate for baptism in water should be baptized BECAUSE THE BLOOD has cleansed, remitted, forgiven his sins, and not in order to get them remitted, as WATER ALONE CANNOT WASH AWAY SINS. The old hymn goes:
What can wash away my sins,
Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.
-----------------------

I doubt if we would see something like this in the Pentecostal Herald today

Sounds right to me.

[Sam]

Well, I repented and got filled with the Holy Spirit a couple of years before I was baptized.

According to you that was all a joke and I am not saved and should start over again and do it in the right o r d e r? :sad

Just messing with you also.....:-)

Some conservative Apostolics would believe you did not receive the REAL Holy Ghost if it happened before you were "properly" baptized because you were still filthy and unwashed from your sin and your sin had not been remitted/forgiven.

[LUKE2447]

I can only shake my head at the original poster who after reading the total of 55 posts in which little "real" argument is done, and mosts posts lack any depth but a poor hint of philososphy. Opinion must be based upon scripture and by the core principle teachings which flow from it. Sure opinion can be very much correct but it must follow clearly in line with scripture and its principle. The problem is you have not even seen arguments and your.....

I am starting to fall on the side of the camp that believe it is not a requirement... ???(due to what has been said here? LOL!)


while I am not a fan of symbolism or legalism (unbelievable)


I still see its relative importance in the church... (LOL what is baptism for and how is it relative more than a personal public confession if it does not have part in salvation. Show the scriptures for your view of baptism)


but I still don't see where it is a stipulation of salvation.(ever read anything on baptism I guess 1 Peter says nothing right and Romans 6 has nothing to do with being placed in the body)


Your statements really say a lot though I was short because I really don't have time you really show confusion by a lot of what you say.

[LUKE2447]

Sounds right to me.

hmmm so I guess death and blood are not synonmous anymore as you are not into his death UNTIL your are baptized. Death and blood are synonomous.

[Aquila]

Your kidding right, Baptism and Pouring aren't even comparable, baptism means burial period, the actual Greek word was used to describe a sinking ship, not a ship being deluged by rain or waves, but ship going under the water for good.

Pastor Keith, the word "baptizo" (Gk.) is a robust word. While yes, it is used to describe the process of submerging something it also means:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean
with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

For example the term "baptizo" is used in relation to pouring water over one's hands:

Luke 11:38
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed (baptizo) before dinner.

Is one "washed" (baptizo) if only water is allowed to run on their hands? Apparently so.

It is also very important to understand Christ's baptism to understand baptism itself. You see John was of the line of Aaron:

Luke 1:5-13
5THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
7And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.
8And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
9According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
11And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

You see, John the Baptist was born into a priestly family and was thus in line for priesthood. However, he rejected the established Temple system and baptized (washed) converts in the wilderness. What were these "washings" (baptismos, Gk., ref Heb 9:10) conducted by John? The Law describes them,

Numbers 19:17-22
{19:17} And for an unclean [person] they shall take of the
ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running
water shall be put thereto in a vessel: {19:18} And a clean
person shall take hyssop, and dip [it] in the water, and
sprinkle [it] upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and
upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched
a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave: {19:19} And
the clean [person] shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the
third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he
shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself
in water, and shall be clean at even. {19:20} But the man
that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul
shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he
hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of
separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he [is]
unclean. {19:21} And it shall be a perpetual statute unto
them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall
wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of
separation shall be unclean until even. {19:22} And
whatsoever the unclean [person] toucheth shall be unclean;
and the soul that toucheth [it] shall be unclean until even.

Then comes Jesus to be baptized of John. It's important to note what Jesus says,

Matthew 3:13-17
{3:13} Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto
John, to be baptized of him. {3:14} But John forbad him,
saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou
to me? {3:15} And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it
to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all
righteousness. Then he suffered him. {3:16} And Jesus,
when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the
water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he
saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting
upon him: {3:17} And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

What did Jesus mean by, "for thus it become us to fulfil all righteousness"? Nowhere in the Law does it demand a person to be completely submerged. However, we do read something very interesting. Priests where consecrated at 30 years of age (Numbers 4:23). Here's how they were consecrated...

Numbers 8:5-7
{8:5} And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, {8:6}
Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and
cleanse them. {8:7} And thus shalt thou do unto them, to
cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and
let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their
clothes, and [so] make themselves clean.

The Old Testament custom in regards to consecrating the priests was to sprinkle the “water of purifying” upon them as they stood in the basin of the tabernacle or in running natural water. Jesus, preparing for his priestly duties as our great high priest, was “fulfilling all righteousness” by seeking this consecration for service from John the Baptist who was essentially a righteous priest of the line of Aaron. Seeing that Jesus did this at 30 years of age (Luke 3:23) we see an additional correlation to this custom of preparation for priesthood. At any rate, if this is so, Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly as our high priest by standing in water and allowing John to sprinkle “water of purifying” upon him. This would have effectively transfered the office of priesthood from the line of Aaron to Christ himself. Many would say that the reference to Jesus coming, “up straightway out of the water”, requires that Jesus was completely immersed. However, it can also be understood as Jesus walking out of the river in which he stood as John baptized him with the sprinkling or pouring of water.

Also pay close attention to what Paul writes...

Romans 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

When Paul writes the word "buried" we Westerners from the 21st Century instantly think of being submerged or put under dirt. But lets note... Christ was NEVER submerged or put under dirt. In fact we read...

John 19:40
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

What was the burial custom of the Jews? They took the body and "washed" (baptizo) it by pouring water over the body. (In fact, it was considered sacrilegious to dunk or submerge the dead in water.) They then rubbed the body down with oil and wrapped it with fragrant spices. Lastly they placed it in a tomb to decompose for a year as they mourned. After their time of mourning they returned for the body and placed the bones in an ossuary. Therefore when Paul spoke of our burial being likened unto Christs... he's implying that we had clean water poured over us.

Most teach that the blood is applied at baptism. If this is true take heed to what Peter wrote...

I Peter 1:2
{1:2} Elect according to the foreknowledge of
God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto
obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace
unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

TO BE CONTINUED

[Aquila]

CONTINUED

Lastly, let's consider Ezekiel's prophecy of Pentecost (both water baptism and Holy Ghost infilling are described)....

Ezekiel 36:25-27
{36:25} Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your
idols, will I cleanse you. {36:26} A new heart also will I
give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will
take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give
you an heart of flesh. {36:27} And I will put my spirit
within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye
shall keep my judgments, and do [them.]

Now consider Pentecost itself....

Acts 2:37-41
{2:37} Now when they heard [this,] they were pricked in
their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the
apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? {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. {2:39}
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. {2:40} And with many other words did he testify and
exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward
generation.
{2:41} Then they that gladly received his word were
baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them]
about three thousand souls.

Where did Peter baptize three thousand souls in Jerusalem??? Some claim the "mikveh" pools. But this is problematic. First, these pools weren't near the quarter of Jerusalem where Peter preached; they were in vicinity of the Temple. Second, the mikveh pools were under control of the Jewish authorities and heavily supervised by the Romans. Had Peter marched 3,000 people to the Temple to dunk people in the mikveh pools in the name of Jesus there would have been absolute chaos. The Jewish authorities wouldn't have allowed anything of that nature to be done in the name of Jesus in vicinity of the Temple. They would have called on the Romans to arrest the Christians and there would have been riots. If the prophesy is regarded as being factual in it's description of Pentecost, we realize that there would have been plenty of water to sprinkle or pour on individuals.

It is also important to note that the "baptism" of the Holy Ghost is the result of God "pouring" out His Spirit...

Acts 2:
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

The "pouring" out of God's Spirit is regarded as the "baptism" of the Holy Ghost! God pours the Holy Ghost baptism. ;)

Not only do I believe that sprinkling or pouring is valid, I believe that if you search the Scriptures and study the use of water throughout the Scriptures in regards to cleansing, especially the Old Testament, you'll see sprinkling and pouring to be a common and abundant practice according to the Law.

I know this isn't in line with Pentecostal TRADITION, but I believe it's true with all my heart.

It was mentioned that the Tabernacle plan features a shadow of baptism. It was the Brazen Laver. Here water was poured over the priests as they entered into the Sanctuary to minister before the Lord. If the Brazen Laver where the priests were purified by the pouring of water is a shadow of baptism...so then is pouring.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/thumb/Tabernacle%20court%20with%20altar%20and%20bronze%2 0laver,%20tb%20n030301_t.jpg

[Dordrecht]

Some conservative Apostolics would believe you did not receive the REAL Holy Ghost if it happened before you were "properly" baptized because you were still filthy and unwashed from your sin and your sin had not been remitted/forgiven.

Got it.
There's a real and an unreal Holy Ghost.:thumbsup

[Aquila]

Actually, Jesus died before the thief did.

That wasn't the point. The point is that Jesus administered the thief's forgiveness prior to the thief's death, i.e., under the Law. Christ offered forgiveness and then offered the ultimate sacrifice for that atonement. That's the role of High Priest.

The thief didn't:

-Believe in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (because Christ hadn't risen yet).
-The thief wasn't infilled with the Holy Ghost.

Essentially... the thief wasn't a Christian, he was a repentant Jew under the Law.

However, I'll digress for a moment. In a sense the thief WAS baptized. You see the entire Jewish nation was baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10:2). *Please note: they weren't submerged* They walked through the Red Sea on dry ground. However, there's little doubt that there was some serious mist coming from those walls of water. :)

[Aquila]

Were the priests immersed/dipped/buried in the laver as part of their daily cleansing?

The priests regularly cleansed before entering the Tabernacle.

"Thou shaft also make a laver of brass and his foot also of brass, to wash withal, and thou shall put it between the tabernacle and the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat. When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water that they die not, or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering unto the Lord" (Exodus 30:18-20)

[Steve Epley]

I think Howard Goss believed in the message as he understood it, now I don't believe that it what the Bible teaches. But I think he was sincere.

I misunderstands Baptism, the water itself doesn't save, that is Baptismal regeneration, but faith in the operation of God, or what God does in response to Faith. Remit and break the power or bondage of the body of sins.

Howard Goss said Baptists would be in the Bride. He didn't believe the message.

[Aquila]

Howard Goss said Baptists would be in the Bride. He didn't believe the message.

Howard Goss simply didn't believe the message with the Fundamentalism with which you believe it. Howard Goss left room for God to be God and judge the heart of a Christian. If a person was baptized with the wrong wording the issue isn't the wording... it's the disposition of their heart. They were seeking to be obedient to what they believed to be the will of Jesus. Were they mistaken? Yes. They God the wording wrong. However, God is a God who judges the heart... not the Sacrament.

[Timmy]

Got it.
There's a real and an unreal Holy Ghost.:thumbsup

Well, isn't there? :hmmm

[Steve Epley]

Howard Goss simply didn't believe the message with the Fundamentalism with which you believe it. Howard Goss left room for God to be God and judge the heart of a Christian. If a person was baptized with the wrong wording the issue isn't the wording... it's the disposition of their heart. They were seeking to be obedient to what they believed to be the will of Jesus. Were they mistaken? Yes. They God the wording wrong. However, God is a God who judges the heart... not the Sacrament.

From a guy who defends Catholic sprinkling two peas in a pod.

[Baron1710]

Howard Goss said Baptists would be in the Bride. He didn't believe the message.


Is your heaven a lonely place? I thought the JW's put limits on Heaven with their 144,000 teaching but your seems to hold about 144. Wonder why it's taking so long to prepare a place for so few people?

[Steve Epley]

Is your heaven a lonely place? I thought the JW's put limits on Heaven with their 144,000 teaching but your seems to hold about 144. Wonder why it's taking so long to prepare a place for so few people?

There have been millions of folks from Pentecost until now that have obeyed the gospel message of Acts 2:38.

[Baron1710]

There have been millions of folks from Pentecost until now that have obeyed the gospel message of Acts 2:38.

Well that's good, because I was beginning to think no one could get in. You know I am just bustin your chops right?

Why do you have to qualify the Gospel message with Acts 2:38?

Not so sure about the scholarship that traces all these supposed Oneness folks, in fact it is dubious at best.

[Steve Epley]

Well that's good, because I was beginning to think no one could get in. You know I am just bustin your chops right?

Why do you have to qualify the Gospel message with Acts 2:38?

Not so sure about the scholarship that traces all these supposed Oneness folks, in fact it is dubious at best.

My friend if there was not a single historical record it would matter not remember those in control writes the history God keeps perfect records.

NOT ONE person has been saved since Pentecost without obeying Acts 2:38.

[Baron1710]

My friend if there was not a single historical record it would matter not remember those in control writes the history God keeps perfect records.

NOT ONE person has been saved since Pentecost without obeying Acts 2:38.

I have no doubt millions have been saved since Pentecost. I am not sure if they have been saved according to your interpretation of what it takes to be saved, but they were saved none the less.

[Steve Epley]

I have no doubt millions have been saved since Pentecost. I am not sure if they have been saved according to your interpretation of what it takes to be saved, but they were saved none the less.

Then Howard Goss would be proud of you.:thumbsup

[Baron1710]

Then Howard Goss would be proud of you.:thumbsup

Well then I am in good company. You know, Ike Terry would be proud of you.

[Steve Epley]

Well then I am in good company. You know, Ike Terry would be proud of you.

That puts me in GREAT company.

[Baron1710]

That puts me in GREAT company.

Yea and now they have to share heaven, the liberal and the Pharisee.

[Steve Epley]

Yea and now they have to share heaven, the liberal and the Pharisee.

I do HOPE this is so.

[Baron1710]

I do HOPE this is so.

Are you saying we can't see the inward man and his true intentions or are you saying that one or the other of them had less than full salvation?

[Aquila]

From a guy who defends Catholic sprinkling two peas in a pod.

LOL

I do sincerely love you Bro. Epley.

You'll find "sprinkling" water as part of clensing throughout the Old Testament in the Law and even written about in the prophets. This was LONG before the Catholic Church. It's as ancient as dirt and if you read the Mishnah regarding mikveh (what most Christian scholars attribute to the origin of full immersion baptism) you'll notice that the Jewish writers admit that it was originally done via sprinkling the "waters of purification" or the "waters of sanctification" found in the brazen laver. Now, while I know it upsets the fruit basket of "Pentecostal tradition" those are the FACTS. But... who am I to upset all that tradition you put so much stock in?

Do a search on the word "sprinkle" or "sprinkling" using Biblegateway.com. It's mentioned more than most realize. Consider this - Throughout the Old Testament the mode of ceremonial cleansing was sprinkling or pouring. The ceremonial blood was sprinkled around the altar (Exodus 29:16, Exodus 20-21; Leviticus 1:5,11; Leviticus 16:14.). A leper who appeared for cleansing was sprinkled seven times (Leviticus 14:7), as was his house (v. 51). From a pint of oil, the priest also had to perform a sevenfold sprinkling before the LORD (v. 16). One who had touched a corpse would be rendered unclean unless the water of purification was sprinkled on him (Numbers 19:13). Levites were sprinkled for their cleansing and consecration as priests (Leviticus 8:30; Numbers 8:7,11). Most important to the subject of New Testament baptism, the members of the covenant community were sprinkled (Exodus 24:7-8).

Likewise, pouring is found as a frequent mode of ceremonial applications. Priests were ordained as such with the pouring of anointing oil (Exodus 29:7). Aaron himself was ordained with the pouring of oil (Leviticus 8:12; 21:10). In addition to sprinkling, sacrificial blood was also poured out at the altar (Exod. 29:12; Lev. 4:7,18,25,30,34; Deut. 12:27). Drink offerings were poured out (Exod. 37:16). Oil was poured on grain offerings (Lev. 2:1,6). And with the law of leprosy (mentioned above), the pint of oil was poured into the priest’s left palm (Lev. 14:15, 26).

So, if believing in sprinkling and pouring as valid modes of water baptism makes me Catholic, does believing in full immersion make you a Baptist??? :lol

[Timmy]

From a guy who defends Catholic sprinkling two peas in a pod.

So, is submersion really more than symbolic? Or is it that the baptism can't be properly symbolic unless it's a submersion?

What happens if something, say a hand or part of the forehead, isn't quite submerged, accidentally? Is the whole thing invalid, or will that part of the person not make it to Heaven? :hmmm

[Aquila]

My friend if there was not a single historical record it would matter not remember those in control writes the history God keeps perfect records.

NOT ONE person has been saved since Pentecost without obeying Acts 2:38.

True. I'd like to mention that many Christians within the Catholic church down through the ages repented of sin, were water baptized, and even experienced spiritual "ecstasy" wherein they spoke unintelligibly and had visions. Most existed within Catholic tradition, but did they not obey Acts 2:38 by repenting, being water baptized, and filled with the Spirit? Sure, the traditional church only offered a threefold baptismal formula... but their hearts were still in obedience walking in all the light they had. Will God throw them into torments because some "man" said the wrong words over them???

Think Epley. I know that's challenging because then you have to walk by the Spirit. It's just too easy to lean on "tradition" and walk "the line" of modern Apostolic "denominations"... because it allows you to move on without really thinking about the issues.

[Steve Epley]

LOL

I do sincerely love you Bro. Epley.

You'll find "sprinkling" water as part of clensing throughout the Old Testament in the Law and even written about in the prophets. This was LONG before the Catholic Church. It's as ancient as dirt and if you read the Mishnah regarding mikveh (what most Christian scholars attribute to the origin of full immersion baptism) you'll notice that the Jewish writers admit that it was originally done via sprinkling the "waters of purification" or the "waters of sanctification" found in the brazen laver. Now, while I know it upsets the fruit basket of "Pentecostal tradition" those are the FACTS. But... who am I to upset all that tradition you put so much stock in?

Do a search on the word "sprinkle" or "sprinkling" using Biblegateway.com. It's mentioned more than most realize. Consider this - Throughout the Old Testament the mode of ceremonial cleansing was sprinkling or pouring. The ceremonial blood was sprinkled around the altar (Exodus 29:16, Exodus 20-21; Leviticus 1:5,11; Leviticus 16:14.). A leper who appeared for cleansing was sprinkled seven times (Leviticus 14:7), as was his house (v. 51). From a pint of oil, the priest also had to perform a sevenfold sprinkling before the LORD (v. 16). One who had touched a corpse would be rendered unclean unless the water of purification was sprinkled on him (Numbers 19:13). Levites were sprinkled for their cleansing and consecration as priests (Leviticus 8:30; Numbers 8:7,11). Most important to the subject of New Testament baptism, the members of the covenant community were sprinkled (Exodus 24:7-8).

Likewise, pouring is found as a frequent mode of ceremonial applications. Priests were ordained as such with the pouring of anointing oil (Exodus 29:7). Aaron himself was ordained with the pouring of oil (Leviticus 8:12; 21:10). In addition to sprinkling, sacrificial blood was also poured out at the altar (Exod. 29:12; Lev. 4:7,18,25,30,34; Deut. 12:27). Drink offerings were poured out (Exod. 37:16). Oil was poured on grain offerings (Lev. 2:1,6). And with the law of leprosy (mentioned above), the pint of oil was poured into the priest’s left palm (Lev. 14:15, 26).

So, if believing in sprinkling and pouring as valid modes of water baptism makes me Catholic, does believing in full immersion make you a Baptist??? :lol

NOTHING you posted here has ONE thing to do with NT water baptism.

[Steve Epley]

So, is submersion really more than symbolic? Or is it that the baptism can't be properly symbolic unless it's a submersion?

What happens if something, say a hand or part of the forehead, isn't quite submerged, accidentally? Is the whole thing invalid, or will that part of the person not make it to Heaven? :hmmm

Baptism-baptize- simply means to immerse or submerge it does NOT mean to sprinkle or pour. It is a burial-planting.

[Steve Epley]

True. I'd like to mention that many Christians within the Catholic church down through the ages repented of sin, were water baptized, and even experienced spiritual "ecstasy" wherein they spoke unintelligibly and had visions. Most existed within Catholic tradition, but did they not obey Acts 2:38 by repenting, being water baptized, and filled with the Spirit? Sure, the traditional church only offered a threefold baptismal formula... but their hearts were still in obedience walking in all the light they had. Will God throw them into torments because some "man" said the wrong words over them???

Think Epley. I know that's challenging because then you have to walk by the Spirit. It's just too easy to lean on "tradition" and walk "the line" of modern Apostolic "denominations"... because it allows you to move on without really thinking about the issues.

If a person in the Catholic church-Mormon church-JW meeeting hall obeyed from the heart Acts 2:38 they were born again. However to be saved you must continue in His word.

[Timmy]

Baptism-baptize- simply means to immerse or submerge it does NOT mean to sprinkle or pour. It is a burial-planting.

Thanks. Want to take a stab at my other question?

[Aquila]

NOTHING you posted here has ONE thing to do with NT water baptism.

So you deny that the brazen laver in the tabernacle was a type of baptism?

[Aquila]

Baptism-baptize- simply means to immerse or submerge it does NOT mean to sprinkle or pour.

Bro. Epley, the word "baptizo" (Gk.) is a robust word with multiple meanings. While yes, it is used to describe the process of submerging something it also means:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean
with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

For example the term "baptizo" is used in relation to pouring water over one's hands:

Luke 11:38
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed (baptizo) before dinner.

According to Scripture one is "washed" (baptizo) if only water is allowed to run on their hands. As with "washing" today it can be done by submerging one's self in a bathtub or by allowing water to sprinkle from a shower or even by pouring from a container such as with a sink bath.

It is a burial-planting.

Since we take on the likeness of Christ's burial in our baptism... when was Christ "planted"??? He wasn't, they washed his body by pouring water on it, wrapped it with spices, and placed him in a tomb.

If you have water poured over you, you've taken on a greater likeness to Christ's burial than if you're dunked. ;)

[KWSS1976]

Hey we have a new way to baptise now..lol

http://static.open.salon.com/files/pulsating_sc_jet_shower_head1239147422.jpg

[KWSS1976]

Guess we do get baptised everyday after all.. At least I do don't know about the rest of ya I know I do not want my vessel to stink......LOL

[KWSS1976]

Yall continue on just added my thoughts....Don't let me stop ya..

[TulsaDavid]

This thread was predicted years ago, with stunning accuracy.

[Timmy]

This thread was predicted years ago, with stunning accuracy.

Really? Who/when?

[TulsaDavid]

If I told you ............. :)

[Timmy]

If I told you ............. :)

Oh, let me guess. Was it around 2000 years ago? Something about a falling away? And/or gathering teachers that tickle ears? Etc.?

[TulsaDavid]

For a boy in a wheel chair, you do ask lots of questions. But of course, with all that time on your hands. :)

[Timmy]

For a boy in a wheel chair, you do ask lots of questions. But of course, with all that time on your hands. :)

Why shouldn't I ask a lot of questions? :heeheehee

[Timmy]

For a boy in a wheel chair, you do ask lots of questions. But of course, with all that time on your hands. :)

BTW, did you see the question for you on the "Let's bash the preacher" thread?

[Fiyahstarter]

What happens if something, say a hand or part of the forehead, isn't quite submerged, accidentally? Is the whole thing invalid, or will that part of the person not make it to Heaven? :hmmm

I'm curious to hear the answers on this one, as this DID happen to my son. The top of his head did not go all the way under.

[gloryseeker]

I'm curious to hear the answers on this one, as this DID happen to my son. The top of his head did not go all the way under.

I had a friend baptized when we were kids and his toe came out of the water as his head went under

[Timmy]

I'm curious to hear the answers on this one, as this DID happen to my son. The top of his head did not go all the way under.

:uhoh

[Sam]

So, is submersion really more than symbolic? Or is it that the baptism can't be properly symbolic unless it's a submersion?

What happens if something, say a hand or part of the forehead, isn't quite submerged, accidentally? Is the whole thing invalid, or will that part of the person not make it to Heaven? :hmmm

Some will say that you must rebaptize, put them under again and be sure that they are completely covered. Others will say that if they are basically underwater except for maybe part of their face, or their stomach, or perhaps part of their hand or foot, it's OK because the burial is symbolic. With the first answer it is insisting on the "letter of the law" and with the second it is going by "the spirit of the law." With the second you are on a slippery slope toward incomplete covering and then maybe pouring will be next, and then maybe sprinkling will be the final outcome. Relax, people, it's a symbolic ritual. In my opinion, the condition of the heart of the individual being baptized is more important than the amount of the water being used or the words being spoken (but then, some think I'm a liberal).

My personal opinion on baptism?
It should be:
in literal water,
for a repentant believer only,
by immersion,
in the name (authority) of Jesus

[Sam]

This is a baptism in a Greek church.
They know what the word baptizo means.
Yet they don't meticulously assure that the person is completely covered


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL_Jo8XcU_s&feature=related

[Sam]

This is an Orthodox baptism in the Ural River in Kazakhstan.

Note how the person self-immerses three times.
This would be more like the Jewish mikveh from which our baptism comes.
It is believed by some that the baptism of John, then by Jesus and His followers was a three-fold self-immersion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U194PCFcqo

[Sam]

How about these baptisms in West Virginia?

Some baptize face forward because:

When Jesus died on the cross, His head slumped forward
and
God don't do nuthin' bacwards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWTk9L_bVrk&feature=PlayList&p=DEBD40918DE2D7E0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=52

[Jermyn Davidson]

I'm curious to hear the answers on this one, as this DID happen to my son. The top of his head did not go all the way under.


If it was up to me, I'd have my son rebaptized, ensuring full immersion.


If I was baptizing someone and part of their body was not fully immersed, I would perform the baptism again, explaining to them my error.



If part of the body is not immersed, you might as well sprinkle them.

[TulsaDavid]

Why shouldn't I ask a lot of questions? :heeheehee**lol** Don't you love self-revolving questions. :D :DBTW, did you see the question for you on the "Let's bash the preacher" thread?Yep. In the spirit of your previous question, why should I answer? :) :)

A little more seriously, and perhaps you'll appreciate this, having children. Some answers are less appreciated than when allowed the time to either (1) figure it out for one's self or (2) position one's self to receive it with far more appreciation.

I've sure had things go over my head in times past, that later were kinda like, "Whoa! That's what they meant." :)

[Aquila]

Hey we have a new way to baptise now..lol

http://static.open.salon.com/files/pulsating_sc_jet_shower_head1239147422.jpg

LOL

Not quite what I had in mind... but if it were the only option for an individual... go for it. :)

[Aquila]

This is an Orthodox baptism in the Ural River in Kazakhstan.

Note how the person self-immerses three times.
This would be more like the Jewish mikveh from which our baptism comes.
It is believed by some that the baptism of John, then by Jesus and His followers was a three-fold self-immersion

Sam, we Christians make a big deal about "mikveh" and declare it the root of our baptismal practices... but I have a few questions...

Where is mikveh mentioned in the Law?

What is the origin of the Jewish mikveh as we know it?

When did the practice of mikveh begin?

These are very important questions.

[Aquila]

Please note... Greek Orthodox also sit the child in the water and pour the water over the head with their hands...

http://blog.johnkapaniris.com/images/0710062.jpg

The word "baptizo" doesn't ONLY mean "to immerse", it also means to "wash". For example the writer of Hebrews wrote...

Hebrews 9:10
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

The writer of Hebrews is speaking about the ritual purifications in the Law requiring "sprinkling" such as with the consecration of Levites and lepers who who were sprinkled with water seven times for purification. Guess what word he uses for "washings"??? You guessed it... "baptismos". Here it is directly from Strong's....

909 // baptismov // baptismos // bap-tis-mos' //

from 907 ; TDNT - 1:545,92; n m

AV - washing 3, baptism 1; 4

1) a washing, purification effected by means of water

It's the same word translated "baptisms" in Hebrews 6:2.

Scripture speaks.

[Aquila]

My point is that water baptism is an essential part of the Gospel message... however, it's far more simple than we make it out to be. Anyone can be water baptized anywhere. All it takes is a bowl of water. The catacombs are full of paintings wherein Christians are baptized by having water poured over them. It's an ancient practice rooted in the Law of God and even predates "mikveh" as the Jewish religion practices it. The reader should also note... mikveh required the candidate to be completely unclothed. If the Lord was clothed at his baptism... it wasn't a mikveh. Also note... the waters of the muddy Jordan were considered unclean for ceremonial mikvehs according to Jewish tradition. However, no such stipulation exists regarding the ritual cleansings found in the Law, which were preformed by pouring and sprinkling.

[Sam]

Sam, we Christians make a big deal about "mikveh" and declare it the root of our baptismal practices... but I have a few questions...

Where is mikveh mentioned in the Law?

What is the origin of the Jewish mikveh as we know it?

When did the practice of mikveh begin?

These are very important questions.

from what I understand, the word "mikveh" means gathering as in gathering of waters and the word is found three times in the Hebrew Scriptures so that's where the threefold self-immersion comes from. It is a Jewish "cleansing ritual" which developed some time after the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity. It was practiced by the Essenes on a regular basis and it is believed that John the Baptist was part of the Essene community from his youth until he appeared "baptizing" people in the wilderness (ref Luke 1:80). There is no Old Testament command for the mikveh/immersion. It is a Jewish tradition. Cleansing by water in the Old Testament were by pouring or sprinkling.

At the time John the Baptist was practicing his baptism/mikveh, it was a common experience among Jews. Some "holy" people practiced regular mikveh washings. A new convert was required to undergo circumcision, offer a sacrifice, and self-immerse as a convert to Judaism. John's baptism was a ritual cleansing for people to prepare for the Messiah. It made a statement that the people were not clean enough to welcome the Messiah --that like a gentile convert, they needed to wash in the mikveh.

John's converts would self-immerse in the Jordan. Then when he pointed them to Jesus as the Lamb of God and Messiah they would follow Him. As far as we know, if they had been baptized by or under the supervision of John or "in his name" they did not get re-baptized by or under the supervision of Jesus or in His name when they began to follow him. But those who had not been previously baptized by John would self-immerse when they became followers of Jesus. We don't know just when the threefold immersion became a single immersion. In the Didache, a book which may go back to as early as 60 AD or as late as 250 AD, baptism was stipulated to be a threefold immersion if enough water was available or if not, water was poured three times on the person's head. What we call the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve) is also called The Limuda and is included in at least one Bible translation as the letter from the elders in Jerusalem in Acts 15:25-29.

[Timmy]

**lol** Don't you love self-revolving questions. :D :DYep. In the spirit of your previous question, why should I answer? :) :)

A little more seriously, and perhaps you'll appreciate this, having children. Some answers are less appreciated than when allowed the time to either (1) figure it out for one's self or (2) position one's self to receive it with far more appreciation.

I've sure had things go over my head in times past, that later were kinda like, "Whoa! That's what they meant." :)

Well, in terms of your #1, I did offer a few possible answers to my question, while I was waiting. Were they at all close? How about a hint? As for #2, will you know when I'm ready to appreciate your answer enough? :winkgrin

[TulsaDavid]

As to #1, I should have clarified. It was just a few years ago (4-5 years, I think).

As to #2, not sure enough to answer. :)

[Aquila]

Bro. Sam, I'm going to share some very important points here, tell me what you think...

from what I understand, the word "mikveh" means gathering as in gathering of waters and the word is found three times in the Hebrew Scriptures so that's where the threefold self-immersion comes from. It is a Jewish "cleansing ritual" which developed some time after the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity. It was practiced by the Essenes on a regular basis and it is believed that John the Baptist was part of the Essene community from his youth until he appeared "baptizing" people in the wilderness (ref Luke 1:80).

We know that scholars believed that he Essenes practiced mikveh based on archeological evidence. However, when it comes to John the Baptist, where does it say that John was a member of the Essenes in the NT??? In fact, if you study what the Essenes believed you'll note that they believed in the coming of two Messiahs, NOT one. Would John have believed or associated himself with that? Also, the Essenes were heavily steeped in Jewish mysticism focusing on the "Sons of Light" teaching. It was essentially Jewish Gnosticism. The truth is, nowhere does the NT mention John as being a member of the Essenes. In fact, we do read about John's heritage in the NT...

Luke 1:5
THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

John wasn't just a hillbilly who associated himself with the Essenes, John was of the priestly class. John's baptizing (baptizo or "washing") out in the wilderness speaks to the fact that he rejected the corrupt "religious" system of the Temple in his day. John clearly administered the Law to the people, as a priest would according to the Law, meaning he sprinkled or poured upon them.

There is no Old Testament command for the mikveh/immersion. It is a Jewish tradition. Cleansing by water in the Old Testament were by pouring or sprinkling.

Amen! Now we have to contend with the Words of Jesus...

Matthew 3:15
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Jewish traditions of men are not "righteousness". The are empty traditions. However, if Christ was fulfilling "all righteousness" we are forced to realize that in Christ's baptism the Law was fulfilled. What Law was that??? We read that the priests were consecrated via sprinkling of the waters of consecration at 30 years old (Numbers 4:23). How old was Jesus? Thirty. John was of the Aaronic line, meaning if John baptized (consecrated Jesus as a priest), John effectively turned the priesthood over to Jesus making Jesus our priest and intercessor. And if that is the case... how was Jesus baptized? The Scriptures describe what must have been done...

Numbers 8:5-7
{8:5} And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, {8:6}
Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and
cleanse them. {8:7} And thus shalt thou do unto them, to
cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and
let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their
clothes, and [so] make themselves clean.

The word "Sprinkle" here is the Hebrew word "nazah" meaning to "spurt", "splash", "spatter", or "sprinkle". If Jesus was fulfilling all righteousness at 30 by becoming our priest and intercessor then John had to splash, spurt, or sprinkle water upon him.... not necessarily "dunk" him.

Also, rigid rules governed the mikveh. If John were to perform a mikveh on Jesus, Christ would have had to be unclothed and in a ritual bath fed by clean running water. The Jordan was muddy and unclean in regards to mikveh.

So if John performed mikveh on Jesus, what part of righteousness was filfilled at Christ's baptism? When did Christ legally assume the priesthood to become our intercessor according to the Law?

Upon close examination outside of religious tradition it becomes essential that John sprinkle or splash Jesus according to the Law.

At the time John the Baptist was practicing his baptism/mikveh, it was a common experience among Jews. Some "holy" people practiced regular mikveh washings. A new convert was required to undergo circumcision, offer a sacrifice, and self-immerse as a convert to Judaism. John's baptism was a ritual cleansing for people to prepare for the Messiah. It made a statement that the people were not clean enough to welcome the Messiah --that like a gentile convert, they needed to wash in the mikveh.

I think we're leaping by assuming John was practicing "his baptism/mikveh". Again, mikveh was performed in ceremonial pools that were ritually clean... and especially not in the Jordan. Yes, mikveh was especially popular among the Jews. But very rarely did Jesus applaud that which was religiously popular in his day... Jesus stuck to the Word.

Also, since you admit that mikveh isn't in Scripture, it is therefore unbiblical. Now, why would John use something unbiblical to prepare the people for Messiah??? It's more probable, seeing that John was of priestly heritage, that John was purifying the people according to the Law...



It is more likely that John's converts offered sacrifice at the temple and saught John for cleansing. John administered the Law to them according to the Word of God whereas the Pharisees were only steeped in man's traditions like mikveh.

John's converts would self-immerse in the Jordan. Then when he pointed them to Jesus as the Lamb of God and Messiah they would follow Him.

First that is conjecture. Second, the muddy Jordan wasn't suitable for a mikveh... especially if John was an Essene. However, if John was administering the Law, John wasn't bound by mikveh tradition. In fact John's baptism of Jesus at 30 consecrated Christ as priest and intercessor, hence John's pointing to Christ as the Lamb of God.

[indent]Numbers 8:7
And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.

Numbers 19:19
And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.

As far as we know, if they had been baptized by or under the supervision of John or "in his name" they did not get re-baptized by or under the supervision of Jesus or in His name when they began to follow him. But those who had not been previously baptized by John would self-immerse when they became followers of Jesus.

Sam, all of that is guess work. Stick to the book. Where is all this immersion stuff in the OT?

We don't know just when the threefold immersion became a single immersion. In the Didache, a book which may go back to as early as 60 AD or as late as 250 AD, baptism was stipulated to be a threefold immersion if enough water was available or if not, water was poured three times on the person's head. What we call the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve) is also called The Limuda and is included in at least one Bible translation as the letter from the elders in Jerusalem in Acts 15:25-29.

Again, traditions of men. Stick to the book.

[TulsaDavid]

I've excerpted just the baptismal objective and actions from Mat 3:13-16... Jesus came ... to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. ... When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water ...Jesus came to John to be baptized by him, not by Himself. When Jesus was baptized, He came up from the water. Two things: (1) it would seem one has to go down into the water, in order to come up from it, and (2) it would seem someone else did the baptizing, aka, the candidate (Jesus) was baptized by John.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Let see what Jesus says.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,but whoever does not believe will be condemned.MARK 16:16 ESV I can't argue with Jesus Christ.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Now there is no virtue in water,water has no regenerational qualities,and yet it seems to have something to do being forgiven.
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 promise of The Holy Spirit. ACTS.2:38 ESV

[Scott Hutchinson]

From The J.B. Phillips New Testament in modern english.
Peter told them,
You must repent and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ,so that you may have your sins forgiven,and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Of course ACTS 2:37,38 was the altar call the death,burial,resurrection of Christ was the main message,but this was the day the church began and so Peter's altar call cannot be ignored.

[Sam]

Aquila, please do not take this as an argument. I am not arguing. I agree that there is a lot we don't know about the origins of Christianity.

As far as John baptizing in Jordan, Matthew 3:5-6 says that people "were baptized of him IN Jordan, confessing their sins.

As far as the two Messiah thing, there was a belief among Jews that there could be two Messiahs. This was based on two different sets of prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. One was identified as Messiah ben Yosef, who would be the suffering Messiah and would be martyred. The other would be Messiah ben David, who would rule from David's throne. We see a hint that John may have believed that or may have considered it in Matthew 11:1-3 when he sent disciples to ask Jesus if He was the One to come or if they should look for another.

As far as I know there is nothing in writing available to tie John the Baptist with the Essene community. From what I understand they were a separatist group who looked down on the established priesthood system in Jerusalem and who were looking for Messiah and His kingdom. Luke 1:80 speaks of John being in the wilderness from some time in his early life until his shewing/manifestation unto Israel. We don't find anything in the Scriptures about his teaching or ministering in the Temple. Instead, he seems to be separate from it.

As far as I know we don't really know how the Jewish mikveh started nor do we really know where John got his idea to baptize people or why Jesus continued the practice. We ASSUME it was the mikveh and Gentile convert thing. Since John practiced it, then Jesus continued it, it just seems to have been carried over into the church as a Jewish practice.

Yes, I can see the symbolism of Jesus being washed/sprinkled by a priest to release Him into the priesthood. And, in Matthew 21:23-27 when Jesus was questioned as to where He got His authority to minister He seems to tie it in with John's baptism.

Your speaking of sprinkling or pouring as water baptism may shake some people up here. We are just so used to insisting on immersion --even complete immersion to the point of rebaptizing someone if a body part is not completely covered the first time. That has become a Pentecostal tradition and insisted on by most Pentecostal groups. My reason for quoting the Didache/Limuda (which some consider only tradition and some consider Scripture) was just to show that possibly even in the days of the Apostles, three fold immersion or pouring were both in use and the traditional FS&HG formula (gasp, shudder) was referenced.

I'm not being contentious or trying to debate. I admit there is a lot we don't know for sure.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Check it out.
http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.experiencefestival.com/jewish_messiah_-_conservative_judaism

[Scott Hutchinson]

What is this ?
http://www.essenespirit.com/jesus.html

[Timmy]

As to #1, I should have clarified. It was just a few years ago (4-5 years, I think).

Uh.... Are we talking about the same thing, here? :blink


As to #2, not sure enough to answer. :)

OK, then. If we're talking about what I thought we were talking about (my question "why?" (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=755100#post755100) in http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24410), take my word for it: I am ready. I will greatly appreciate your answer. :thumbsup

[TulsaDavid]

Almost thou persuadest me to be an answerer. :)

[Aquila]

I've excerpted just the baptismal objective and actions from Mat 3:13-16Jesus came to John to be baptized by him, not by Himself. When Jesus was baptized, He came up from the water. Two things: (2) it would seem someone else did the baptizing, aka, the candidate (Jesus) was baptized by John.

Yes, Jesus was baptized by John.

(1) it would seem one has to go down into the water, in order to come up from it,

I think we need to be careful not to read too much into this statement. Jesus may have simply waded out into the water about ankle or waist deep, allowing John pour water over him. Then Jesus simply, "came up from the water", meaning he walked out, up onto dry ground.

http://www.logoi.com/pastimages/img/baptism_of_christ_4.jpg

And then there are myriads of ancient catacomb paintings dating back to the first century depicting baptism by pouring...

http://www.davidmacd.com/images/97310002_baptism_infant.jpg

[TulsaDavid]

I too think we need to be careful not to read too much into this statement. The simple sense of that verse would be that Jesus went down into the water, hence came up from it, as opposed to conjecturing what he "may have" done.

As to history:

Perhaps you've read myriad regurgitations of the 1955 Time Magazine account of a baptism around 100 A.D. of Publius Decius. A web page on History of Baptism (http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/historyofbaptism.html) recites it, and a few years ago it was discussed on FCF (I'm quite sure it was before NFCF)."The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the woodseller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. ‘Credis?’ he asked. ‘Credo,’ responded Publius. ‘I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I died that with Him I may have Eternal Life.’ Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus’ voice in his ear ---- ‘I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus’ ---- as the cold water closed over him."

Since all websites quote each other, repetition does not necessarily substantiate.

But, fortunately I found and purchased a December 5, 1955 issue of Time Magazine off Ebay. This was part of an article on Protestant Revivalism.

[Steve Epley]

I too think we need to be careful not to read too much into this statement. The simple sense of that verse would be that Jesus went down into the water, hence came up from it, as opposed to conjecturing what he "may have" done.

As to history:

Perhaps you've read myriad regurgitations of the 1955 Time Magazine account of a baptism around 100 A.D. of Publius Decius. A web page on History of Baptism (http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/historyofbaptism.html) recites it, and a few years ago it was discussed on FCF (I'm quite sure it was before NFCF).

Since all websites quote each other, repetition does not necessarily substantiate.

But, fortunately I found and purchased a December 5, 1955 issue of Time Magazine off Ebay. This was part of an article on Protestant Revivalism.

My friend forget it anyone who would attempt to defend sprinkling it is not worth the energy and time. But it does prove one error embraces another. Maybe we should say will the last Apostolic posting bring your Bible?

[Aquila]

Aquila, please do not take this as an argument. I am not arguing. I agree that there is a lot we don't know about the origins of Christianity.

I agree. And I fully understand your spirit. I'm enjoying the conversation and I too am only wishing to share what I think. No arguing here bro. I love ya.

As far as John baptizing in Jordan, Matthew 3:5-6 says that people "were baptized of him IN Jordan, confessing their sins.

It appears that they went to Jordan to be baptized of John because he baptized in the river Jordan...

Mark 1:5
And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

As far as the two Messiah thing, there was a belief among Jews that there could be two Messiahs. This was based on two different sets of prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. One was identified as Messiah ben Yosef, who would be the suffering Messiah and would be martyred. The other would be Messiah ben David, who would rule from David's throne. We see a hint that John may have believed that or may have considered it in Matthew 11:1-3 when he sent disciples to ask Jesus if He was the One to come or if they should look for another.


I don't see John's words reflecting that idea. John is recorded as having sent the question,

Matthew 11:3
And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

It appears that John knew that there would be one Messiah, because he asked if Jesus was "he" that should come. Not "one of them who should come." Certainly John's words, "or do we look for another", indicates that if Jesus wasn't "the one" they'd look for another individual. I don't see a hint that John may have believed in two Messiah's here.

As far as I know there is nothing in writing available to tie John the Baptist with the Essene community. From what I understand they were a separatist group who looked down on the established priesthood system in Jerusalem and who were looking for Messiah and His kingdom. Luke 1:80 speaks of John being in the wilderness from some time in his early life until his shewing/manifestation unto Israel. We don't find anything in the Scriptures about his teaching or ministering in the Temple. Instead, he seems to be separate from it.

Yes, back in that day there were many separatist groups because of the Jewish authority's alignment with their Roman conquerors.

The Essenes were very communal. John appears to be a solitary recluse. The Essenes believed in many things that we would recoil at today. In their mysticism there are strong Gnostic influences, a demand for celibacy, belief in two Messiahs, etc. While we agree that John clearly rejected the Temple system and opted for the wilderness, I don't see anything connecting him to the Essenes. The Scriptures directly connect John's heritage to the priesthood. And we can assume that John was raised in and around the Temple, educated in the Temple, and prepared for priesthood. That would mean that John was well accustomed with the Law's requirements of sprinkling and pouring. John may have viewed the unbiblical mikveh tradition with contempt if he was a lover of God's Law.

As far as I know we don't really know how the Jewish mikveh started nor do we really know where John got his idea to baptize people or why Jesus continued the practice. We ASSUME it was the mikveh and Gentile convert thing. Since John practiced it, then Jesus continued it, it just seems to have been carried over into the church as a Jewish practice.

I was told by a very knowledgeable Jewish man that the mikveh as we know it began under Ezra. Jewish literature appears to connect it to the cleansing rituals of the Tabernacle and the Temple, however the Law itself requires sprinkling and pouring, no where does it demand immersion. So the mikveh is a tradition of man.

Yes, I can see the symbolism of Jesus being washed/sprinkled by a priest to release Him into the priesthood. And, in Matthew 21:23-27 when Jesus was questioned as to where He got His authority to minister He seems to tie it in with John's baptism.

It's very interesting when one thinks about it.

Nobody's ever answered my question. If John was performing a mikveh - a Jewish tradition not found in Scripture - how was John and Jesus "fulfilling all righteousness"??? Clearly Jesus was fulfilling something in the Law. At thirty years of age the only thing that stands out is the consecration of the priests.

Your speaking of sprinkling or pouring as water baptism may shake some people up here. We are just so used to insisting on immersion --even complete immersion to the point of rebaptizing someone if a body part is not completely covered the first time. That has become a Pentecostal tradition and insisted on by most Pentecostal groups. My reason for quoting the Didache/Limuda (which some consider only tradition and some consider Scripture) was just to show that possibly even in the days of the Apostles, three fold immersion or pouring were both in use and the traditional FS&HG formula (gasp, shudder) was referenced.

I understand. I find it refreshing that at least you admit that this is an entrenched tradition, that mikveh isn't necessarily biblical, and that sprinkling and pouring were both in use in the days of the Apostles.

I'm not being contentious or trying to debate. I admit there is a lot we don't know for sure.

That's cool Bro. Sam, I'm just enjoying the discussion.

God bless.

[mizpeh]

I too think we need to be careful not to read too much into this statement. The simple sense of that verse would be that Jesus went down into the water, hence came up from it, as opposed to conjecturing what he "may have" done.

As to history:

Perhaps you've read myriad regurgitations of the 1955 Time Magazine account of a baptism around 100 A.D. of Publius Decius. A web page on History of Baptism (http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/historyofbaptism.html) recites it, and a few years ago it was discussed on FCF (I'm quite sure it was before NFCF).

Since all websites quote each other, repetition does not necessarily substantiate.

But, fortunately I found and purchased a December 5, 1955 issue of Time Magazine off Ebay. This was part of an article on Protestant Revivalism.David of Tulsa, what reference(s) does the Time article give for the account of this baptism? What primary document does it cite?

[TulsaDavid]

Mizpeh, the author didn't say. That was disappointing. I called Time, and they didn't have info on how to reach him or anyone connected with him (I'd have to dig out the magazine to remember his name ... a few years have passed).

As is the case in life, other matters took my attention away. I don't doubt the reciting, but in the interest of transparency, the article did not disclose it. So as time permits, I dig. :)

[Aquila]

I too think we need to be careful not to read too much into this statement. The simple sense of that verse would be that Jesus went down into the water, hence came up from it, as opposed to conjecturing what he "may have" done.

Bro David, it doesn't say that Jesus was dunked completely under water. It just says that Jesus came up out of the water. I was fishing once, waded in, and after I was done I came up out of the water. I wasn't completely submerged.

But the point is... how would Jesus being "dunked" at 30 years of age "fulfill all righteousness"? Where does the Law command a 30 year old man to be dunked under water???

It doesn't.

We do read that the priesthood was to be consecrated at 30 years of age,

Numbers 4:23
23From thirty years old and upward until fifty years old shalt thou number them; all that enter in to perform the service, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.

And if this is why Jesus sought John for Baptism we have to understand how this consecration was to be performed. The Scriptures tell us,

Numbers 8:5-7
5And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
6Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them.
7And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, ...

Thus Christ fulfilled all righteousness and assumed the role of our priest and intercessor by standing in the Jordan and allowing John to "splash", "spatter", or "sprinkle" water upon him according to the Law's requirements.

[mizpeh]

Mizpeh, the author didn't say. That was disappointing. I called Time, and they didn't have info on how to reach him or anyone connected with him (I'd have to dig out the magazine to remember his name ... a few years have passed).

As is the case in life, other matters took my attention away. I don't doubt the reciting, but in the interest of transparency, the article did not disclose it. So as time permits, I dig. :)

I've been 'googling' but haven't found anything yet. I'll continue to google. :)

[Timmy]

Almost thou persuadest me to be an answerer. :)

:lol

Now I'm wondering if there's a #3: gives you more time to think of a good answer! :toofunny

[Aquila]

Look at the account of the Philippian jailor. We read,

Acts 16:31-33
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Notice that Paul and Silas give a Bible study to all that were in the jailor's house. Notice also that at the same our of the night - after their preaching - the jailor washes their stripes. Keep in mind, this is now well after Midnight. When the jailor washed their stripes in his home the implements would have been towels and a wash basin of water. The next thing we read, he and all his, were water baptized.

Now, some would have us believe that Paul and Silas took this Philippian jailor and his family tromping out into the dark Philippian wilderness to find a river for submersion well after midnight.

I see something else.

I see the jailor washing their stripes in his home using towels and a wash basin. The water was there... in the wash basin. The basin of water used to wash the dirt from Paul and Silas' stripes was the same basin of water used to wash away the jailor's sins. We see a very beautiful exchange here, the jailor washes their wounded bodies... they wash the jailor's wounded soul.

All provided in a humble home by a humble wash basin of water.

[TulsaDavid]

:lol Now I'm wondering if there's a #3: gives you more time to think of a good answer! :toofunnyEveryone has the freedom to be a wonderer. :)

[Steve Epley]

Look at the account of the Philippian jailer. We read,

Acts 16:31-33
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Notice that Paul and Silas give a Bible study to all that were in the jailer's house. Notice also that at the same our of the night - after their preaching - the jailor washes their stripes. Keep in mind, this is now well after Midnight. When the jailor washed their stripes in his home the implements would have been towels and a wash basin of water. The next thing we read, he and all his, were water baptized.

Now, some would have us believe that Paul and Silas took this Philippian jailer and his family tromping out into the dark Philippian wilderness to find a river for submersion well after midnight.

I see something else. I see the jailer washing their stripes in his home using towels and a wash basin. The water was there... in the wash basin. The basin of water used to wash the dirt from Paul and Silas' stripes was the same basin of water used to wash away the jailer's sins. We see a very beautiful exchange here, the jailer washes their wounded bodies... they wash the jailer's wounded soul.

All provided in a humble home by a basin of water.

You have a great imagination you might try your hand at fiction? Forgive me you are already doing that.:thumbsup

[TulsaDavid]

All provided in a humble home by a basin of water.It would be conjecture to assume so. Wherever the NT comes closest to connecting dots between baptism and water, it's full water and immersion.

[Aquila]

You have a great imagination you might try your hand at fiction? Forgive me you are already doing that.:thumbsup

Indeed, I've written some fiction. I really enjoy writing. Anyone can tell that from some of my long and drawn out posts.

Sadly, I've discovered that most religionists lack imagination. ;)

In regards to the Philippian jailor account. It's not my imagination that you imagine him and his family being led by Paul, tromping out into the dark Philippian wilderness to find a river for complete submersion.

It's not my imagination that a wash basin of water was present.

Also, it's not my imagination that the jailor used the wash basin to wash their wounds.

The only unconnected dot would be the washing of the jailor's soul. It's more than fitting if the jailor's soul was washed from the same basin of water used to wash the stripes of Paul and Silas.

[Steve Epley]

Indeed, I've written some fiction. I really enjoy writing. Anyone can tell that from some of my long and drawn out posts.

Sadly, I've discovered that most religionists lack imagination. ;)

In regards to the Philippian jailor account. It's not my imagination that you imagine him and his family being led by Paul, tromping out into the dark Philippian wilderness to find a river for complete submersion.

It's not my imagination that a wash basin of water was present.

Also, it's not my imagination that the jailor used the wash basin to wash their wounds.

The only unconnected dot would be the washing of the jailor's soul. It's more than fitting if the jailor's soul was washed from the same basin of water.

For all you know there might have been a mote around the jail or a tub to bath in or a creek running through the yard or a lake beside the jail. Good grief.

[Aquila]

It would be conjecture to assume so. Wherever the NT comes closest to connecting dots between baptism and water, it's full water and immersion.

I can present you with a list of OT Scriptures (the only Scriptures present in NT times) depicting cleansing specifically by sprinkling and pouring.

I challenge you to present one verse specifically describing full submersion

Oh, one question before we continue...

Bro. David, is the blood applied in the waters of baptism?

[Aquila]

For all you know there might have been a mote around the jail or a tub to bath in or a creek running through the yard or a lake beside the jail. Good grief.

"... or an Olympic size swimming pool, or a fountain, or horse trough, or a...."

All of that is a possibility (I guess). However the text clearly mentions the washing of Paul and Silas' wounds. Custom of the day was to bathe and wash from basins.

I challenge you to find another source of water in the passage.

[TulsaDavid]

Aquila, I've seen your scriptures and presentation. Plus, any posting with several paragraphs is a waste of time, as most discussions split exponentially into diversions, making it quite difficult to continue. So repeating your points is not necessary. Immersion is, though.

Being buried with Him in baptism is not a partial submerging. The OT case makes no NT case. I understand your position, but think it horribly wrong.

Where the blood is applied is where remission of sins happens. (Without blood there is no remission.)

In Acts 2:38 both repentance and baptism in Jesus name are given in conjunction with remission. Some make a case that it's only the baptism part that is in tandem with remission of sins. Acts 22:16 could support that.

Nevertheless, whether repentance starts the application of blood and baptism in Jesus name finishes it, or whether baptism in Jesus name alone, without either, the blood of Jesus Christ is not applied.

[Aquila]

Aquila, I've seen your scriptures and presentation. Plus, any posting with several paragraphs is a waste of time, as most discussions split exponentially into diversions, making it quite difficult to continue. So repeating your points is not necessary. Immersion is, though.

Please present scriptures specifically noting full immersion.

Being buried with Him in baptism is not a partial submerging. The OT case makes no NT case. I understand your position, but think it horribly wrong.

Bro. David, our baptism is likened unto Christ's burial and therewith we are buried with him in baptism. We agree here. But you seem to think that Jesus was buried by being immersed under dirt like we are in the 21th century. Jesus was never "immersed" in anything upon his burial. They took Christ's body and buried him in the manner and customs of the Jews. They cleansed it by pouring water over it, then they anointed the body with oil, and finally wrapped it with fragrant spices. Lastly, Jesus was placed in a tomb. Jesus was NEVER immersed in anything as part of his burial. But... water was featured in his burial... it was poured over his body. The pouring of water over a person in baptism allows them to partake in Christ's burial. The outpouring of the Holy Ghost anoints them. Then clean Christian living and modesty wraps them with fragrant spices pleasing to the Lord.

Pouring the waters of baptism reflects Christ's burial far better than immersion ever would.

Where the blood is applied is where remission of sins happens. (Without blood there is no remission.)

I agree.

In Acts 2:38 both repentance and baptism in Jesus name are given in conjunction with remission. Some make a case that it's only the baptism part that is in tandem with remission of sins. Acts 22:16 could support that.

Nevertheless, whether repentance starts the application of blood and baptism in Jesus name finishes it, or whether baptism in Jesus name alone, without either, the blood of Jesus Christ is not applied.

Amen. Now consider these verses....

Hebrews 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

The cleansing blood of Jesus is sprinkled.

[mfblume]

Yes baptism is necessary for salvation.

[TulsaDavid]

The act of immersion (baptism) and how that applies the blood by the typology of sprinkling are a manufactured force-connection as far as one literally mandating the other. The Hebrews were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Walking on the bottom of the ocean is quite a ways beneath the surface of the water, even if it didn't fall on them.

[mfblume]

Nowhere does the bible equate baptism with blood application as some make out. Baptism into Christ includes dying, burial and resurrection.

Romans 6:3-4 ESV Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (4) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:11-12 ESV In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, (12) having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.


Entering the Hebrew homes with blood surrounding the doorways shows baptism INTO (doors are entrances) His death. What better way to show entering the lamb's death than by putting a dead lamb's blood on the door?

By we cannot say the blood is applied in only one of the three elements noted in Acts 2:38. We just need all three.

[TulsaDavid]

Without blood = no remission.

Baptism in Jesus name = remission of sins.

Do the math.

[mfblume]

Without blood = no remission.

Baptism in Jesus name = remission of sins.

Do the math.

It is as wrong to say blood is applied in baptism alone as it is to say baptism is only burial. Baptism is actually death, burial and resurrection. REMISSION means forgiveness and repentance AND baptism TOGETHER cause remission of sins. "Repent AND be baptized" for the REMISSION. "believe and be baptized" to be saved.

[TulsaDavid]

With or without the conjunction of repentance, baptism is still part of that which = remission of sins.

Baptism IS burial. We die in repentance. We arise in newness of life with the Holy Ghost. Being baptized into Jesus' death is obvious. You don't bury a living man.

But the act of dying is repentance. You did to the old man, to the sins of the flesh. Then you bury that. Both are part of the blood process, since both = remission of sins. And both does not preclude baptism, hence, the blood is applied there as well.

[mfblume]

With or without the conjunction of repentance, baptism is still part of that which = remission of sins.

PART, yes.

Baptism IS burial.

We die in repentance.

Show me a statement that says repentance is death, and I can show you where baptism, puts us into Jesus' death, making His death ours.

We arise in newness of life with the Holy Ghost.

That is traditional thinking. But Romans 6 mentions nothing about Spirit baptism, and Romans 6 is the reference to newness of life. Newness of life, if you read the context of Romans 6 through 7, is overcoming SIN due to our baptism into death.

And Col 2:11-12 says baptism is also something wherein we are risen with Christ, and no Spirit baptism is there mentioned either. I believe we need Spirit Baptism, but the idea f the three elements of Acts 2:38 corresponding to death, burial and resurrection is error and not laid out in scripture as that.

Did you not read Col 2:11-12 where I showed baptism involves resurrection?

Being baptized into Jesus' death is obvious. You don't bury a living man.

That is not what the issue is saying. It is saying HIS DEATH becomes our own when we are baptized into Him. We are alive when we are baptized, and only by putting us IN CHRIST are wen then changed into new creatures. Baptism is all three -- death, burial and resurrection.

But the act of dying is repentance. You did to the old man, to the sins of the flesh. Then you bury that. Both are part of the blood process, since both = remission of sins. And both does not preclude baptism, hence, the blood is applied there as well.

You use all these terms of dying to the old man, and they are only used in Romans 6 where baptism alone is mentioned. Where is repentance and Spirit baptism mentioned in Roman 6? Rom 6 mentions newness of life and the old man's destruction.

[Aquila]

The act of immersion (baptism) and how that applies the blood by the typology of sprinkling are a manufactured force-connection as far as one literally mandating the other.

I'm not speaking about literal mandates. However, I am trying to show how our cleansing is illustrated by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. In the OT the blood and the water were repeatedly sprinkled. Even the brazen laver, a type of baptism, served as a place where the priests washed themselves by pouring water over themselves before entering the tabernacle. It's all connected.

The Hebrews were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Walking on the bottom of the ocean is quite a ways beneath the surface of the water, even if it didn't fall on them.

Actually they didn't walk on the bottom of the ocean, it was the Red Sea. And yes, they walked on the bottom of the sea between two walls of water being held by the wind. They were never under the surface of a body of water therefore they were never immersed. However, as they walked, the mist from these strong winds prevailing upon the water would have sprinkled them thoroughly.

Exodus 14:21-22
21And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

[TulsaDavid]

You didn't show anything of the sort in Cor 2:11-12. Being risen with him through the faith of the operation of God and the previous clause of baptism are one thing leading into another. And God operates by His Spirit through NT, both in example and principle.

The old man is crucified and the body of sin put away when in repentance we are released from its bondage and change from serving sin to serving God.

[mfblume]

You didn't show anything of the sort in Cor 2:11-12.

Yes I did. Col 2:11-12 says baptism involves burial and resurrection.

Being risen with him through the faith of the operation of God and the previous clause of baptism are one thing leading into another. And God operates by His Spirit through NT, both in example and principle.

He is saying baptism is circumcision. An operation. Think of surgery. An operation. removing not body of flesh but sins of flesh.

The old man is crucified and the body of sin put away when in repentance we are released from its bondage and change from serving sin to serving God.

You are ignoring my words.

Crucifixion, coming into His death are both noted in baptism. in Rom 6. Repentance AND baptism see this. Not one or the other.

[TulsaDavid]

You're right.

I am ignoring your words.

[mfblume]

Without rhetoric or traditional statements, show me in the bible where death occurs at repentance and resurrection occurs in Spirit baptism. Nothing but the bible.

[Sam]

The act of immersion (baptism) and how that applies the blood by the typology of sprinkling are a manufactured force-connection as far as one literally mandating the other. The Hebrews were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Walking on the bottom of the ocean is quite a ways beneath the surface of the water, even if it didn't fall on them.

but no water touched them
they did not even get wet

[Sam]

The following is a true record of a Baptism which took place in Rome A.D. 100 and was reproduced in TIME magazine, December 5, 1955.

"The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the woodseller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. ‘Credis?’ he asked. ‘Credo,’ responded Publius. ‘I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I died that with Him I may have Eternal Life.’ Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus’ voice in his ear ---- ‘I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus’ ---- as the cold water closed over him."

The above appeared on one of our previous forums. The first paragraph is commentary by the one who posted it. The second paragraph is a quote from the referenced magazine.

I remember reading that magazine in the high school library in my senior year while I was in study hall. I remember that article. Someone (I don't remember who) prominent who was part of a political or royal or celebrity family had "converted" and had been "baptized" in a church. It was a pretty elaborate ceremony. I think it was in an Episcopal Church but I don't remember. Time magazine printed the story as news/commentary and started the article with the paragraph above to contrast early Christian baptism with the elaborate ceremony the "celebrity" had been through. Whoever wrote the article probably made up the lead in paragraph but felt like it represented (as far as he or she knew) early Christian baptism.

I had just been baptized in Jesus' name a short time before I read that article. I had been baptized October 27, 1955 at Elim Tabernacle (UPC) in Milwaukee, WI. I had been saved since March 28, 1955 and subsequently baptized in a lake by my Baptist pastor. I was searching for more truth and a closer walk with the Lord and was pretty sure baptism in Jesus' name was Scriptural but still had some reservations even though I had gone ahead and taken the "plunge."

Reading the article that day in the high school library was sort of a confirmation that early Christian baptism involved the name of Jesus.

Over these past 50 some years every once in a while I've wondered just what the date of that article was and if I'd ever see it again.

Thank you to the person who posted that link.

[Aquila]

but no water touched them
they did not even get wet

Ummmm... the Scripture doesn't say that they didn't get wet. That's an assumption we jump to when reading the Bible. I can remember visiting the Niagara Falls in NY. We stood on "dry ground" but we got quite wet because of the mist in the air. Here's what the Scripture reads...

Exodus 14:21-22
21And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

We see that a strong east wind prevailed against the waters all night and dried the ground. In fact the wind was so strong it held the waters at bay like two walls on either side of them. Imagine the reality this would have presented. There would have been very strong winds and lots of mist blowing around. Most likely they were quite wet when they got to the other side.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Ummmm... the Scripture doesn't say that they didn't get wet. That's an assumption we jump to when reading the Bible. I can remember visiting the Niagara Falls in NY. We stood on "dry ground" but we got quite wet because of the mist in the air. Here's what the Scripture reads...

Exodus 14:21-22
21And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

We see that a strong east wind prevailed against the waters all night and dried the ground. In fact the wind was so strong it held the waters at bay like two walls on either side of them. Imagine the reality this would have presented. There would have been very strong winds and lots of mist blowing around. Most likely they were quite wet when they got to the other side.





Then they would have had to walk through mud, not dry ground.

With all the mist and all, the ground would have only been dry for the first 100,000 of em.... :)

[Aquila]

Then they would have had to walk through mud, not dry ground.

With all the mist and all, the ground would have only been dry for the first 100,000 of em.... :)

The ground my wife and I stood on while at Niagara Falls was pretty dry, however, the mist in the air was enough to dampen our skin and clothing.

And you have a point... it may have been muddy. Remember, when we read the term "dry ground" the issue may not be "dry" as in "like desert", but rather "dry" as in like land above sea level, even if damp.

[Jermyn Davidson]

The ground my wife and I stood on while at Niagara Falls was pretty dry, however, the mist in the air was enough to dampen our skin and clothing.

And you have a point... it may have been muddy. Remember, when we read the term "dry ground" the issue may not be "dry" as in "like desert", but rather "dry" as in like land above sea level, even if damp.



why change the Biblical narrative?

if it says they walked through on dry ground, then the ground was dry.

[Aquila]

why change the Biblical narrative?

if it says they walked through on dry ground, then the ground was dry.

The ground may have been "dry"... however that doesn't preclude the people becoming wet from mist and occasional gusts of water. Remember the water was held up by wind. And if the angle of the wind was such to blow the water up and to the sides the mist would have been traveling that direction. I can't see them not getting a drop on them. And the text doesn't say they were dry, only that the ground was dry.

[Jermyn Davidson]

The ground may have been "dry"... however that doesn't preclude the people becoming wet from mist and occasional gusts of water. Remember the water was held up by wind. And if the angle of the wind was such to blow the water up and to the sides the mist would have been traveling that direction. I can't see them not getting a drop on them. And the text doesn't say they were dry, only that the ground was dry.


But if they were wet then the ground would have to become wet.

How many thousands passed through?

The Bible is better left unmolested.


They passed through and walked on dry ground, hence they were dry,

[mfblume]

Somehow this chat lately reminds me of the question, How many angels can dance on the point of a needle?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Somehow this chat lately reminds me of the question, How many angels can dance on the point of a needle?



yeah, neither one of us were there....

it's just that if a person would try to use this miraculous incident to try to justify baptism in any other way than full immersion, I feel like that person's position should be challenged.

However, and more importantly is my attitude.

[mfblume]

yeah, neither one of us were there....

it's just that if a person would try to use this miraculous incident to try to justify baptism in any other way than full immersion, I feel like that person's position should be challenged.

I do agree. Amen.

[Aquila]

But if they were wet then the ground would have to become wet.

How many thousands passed through?

The Bible is better left unmolested.


They passed through and walked on dry ground, hence they were dry,

The Paul writes,

I Corinthians 10:1-2
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

Baptism demands water. Yes, we can debate all day long about how much water... but the fact remains that there must be water applied to the individual. If what you say is true... baptism doesn't even require the application of water.

[Aquila]

It should also be noted that Paul states that they were baptized "in the cloud and in the sea". The two experiences being similar. What is a cloud? Here's a description...

What are clouds?
A cloud is a large collection of very tiny droplets of water or ice crystals. The droplets are so small and light that they can float in the air.
-http://www.weatherwizkids.com/cloud.htm

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Paul is alluding to the fact that they were baptized in the mist of the cloud and the water.

[Jermyn Davidson]

It should also be noted that Paul states that they were baptized "in the cloud and in the sea". The two experiences being similar. What is a cloud? Here's a description...

What are clouds?
A cloud is a large collection of very tiny droplets of water or ice crystals. The droplets are so small and light that they can float in the air.
-http://www.weatherwizkids.com/cloud.htm

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Paul is alluding to the fact that they were baptized in the mist of the cloud and the water.

Although I am working on my degree from Embry Riddle in Rocket Propulsion, I do not see how anything other than full immersion in water tin Jesus Name to be the correct Biblical mode of baptism.


Logic can be good.

But the Bible doesn't give examples of New Testament believers being sprinkled so I won't go along with it.













































































ok,
not Embry Riddle and not Rocket Propulsion :)

[Jermyn Davidson]

Good Night everyone! :)

[Aquila]

So we see the following...

- Ceremonial cleansings and washings referred to as "baptismos" by the writer of Hebrews were conducted by sprinkling and pouring throughout the Old Testament.

- Specifically the Brazen Laver - used by the priests to consecrate themselves prior to entering the Tabernacle - is a type of water baptism in the Tabernacle plan. This water was applied by being poured over the priests. Hence the Old Testament type of Baptism in the Tabernacle plan was performed via pouring.

- John was of priestly heritage and thus would have known about the Law's requirements of cleansing via sprinkling water.

- Christ's baptism only filfilled the Law if it were a consecration to priesthood, which required sprinkling or effusion.

- We see how baptism is a figure of Christ's own burial and how by baptism we take part in Christ's burial. However, Christ's body wasn't immersed into the ground. Instead his body was cleansed by having water poured over it, anointed with oil, then wrapped with spices and placed in a tomb. The only thing that correlates Christ's burial with baptism would be the pouring of water to clean his body.

- Peter and those gathered in the upper room baptized 3,000 people on the day of Pentecost in the Upper City of Jerusalem nearly entirely on the other side of the city from the Temple courtyard where the mikveh pools were present (and under the control of the Jewish authorities). Effusion or sprinkling would have been easily employed with little ado.

- Ezekiel's prophecy regarding Pentecost clearly states that God would "sprinkle" clean water upon the people to cleanse them, write his Law upon their hearts, and put His own Spirit within them.

- The Philippian jailor's baptism features the water used to wash Paul and Silas' stripes. This wouldn't have facilitated full immersion but would have facilitated pouring or sprinkling.

- Paul writes that we are a living sacrifice, sacrifices were sanctified by sprinkling.

- The writer of Hebrews states that the New Covenant, based on "the blood of sprinkling", speaks better things than that of Able.

- The writer of Hebrews also states that our hearts were "sprinkled" from an evil conscience, and as a result our bodies were washed with clean water.

- Peter writes in I Peter that the blood was applied to our hearts by "sprinkling".

- The children of Israel were baptized in the cloud and in the sea (an allusion to their effusion by being sprinkled by droplets of water floating in the air).

Let's look at the Eunuch's baptism...

Acts 9:26-38
26And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And 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.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

First we see that Luke tells us that they were traveling "from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert". This is the Negev spanning the distance between Jerusalem and Gaza. Archeology shows that indeed Luke was right... this is desert. However, we read in the Scripture that after Philip preaches Christ to him they come upon water and the Eunuch exclaims, "See, here is water". Where did this water come from? While the Negev is desert it is known to have seasonal "wadis" or streams of rainwater that flow down from the mountains. These "wadis" are rarely streams deeper than ankle deep. It is most probable that Philip led the Eunuch down into the wadi and standing in the water Philip poured water over the Eunuch.

So add this to the list....

- The Ethiopian Eunuch was traveling a desert road where he accepted the Gospel as preached by Philip. Being desert, the only water available would have been a shallow wadi that they happened by. This wouldn't have facilitated full immersion but it would have facilitated effusion.

[CC1]

Jermyn,

Hmmm....I am not sure the Lord will appreciate you putting "tin" before his name!

[Aquila]

So indeed baptism is an essential part of salvation. However, water baptism is easily implemented anywhere and there is no excuse for disobedience. The Eunuch gladly obeyed and was baptized with water from the shallow wadi he and Philip discovered on that desert road in the Negev.

[Steve Epley]

So indeed baptism is an essential part of salvation. However, water baptism is easily implemented anywhere and there is no excuse for disobedience. The Eunuch gladly obeyed and was baptized with water from the shallow wadi he and Philip discovered on that desert road in the Negev.

Again pure speculation.

I would address all your stuff if you claimed to be a Methodist or Presbyterian I ain't addressing it with someone who claims to be Apostolic.

[Sam]

Somehow this chat lately reminds me of the question, How many angels can dance on the point of a needle?

yeah, or how wet is wet and how dry is dry?

[Sherri]

Well, thank God we baptized several people this morning in water, in Jesus' name and they were fully immersed. We made sure they got wet all over!:thumbsup

[Aquila]

Well, thank God we baptized several people this morning in water, in Jesus' name and they were fully immersed. We made sure they got wet all over!:thumbsup

Praise God.

I know of a simple church elder who pastors a church out of his home. It's about 12 - 15 people and they have regular food, singing, and Bible study. He baptized two people on his back porch a little over a week ago. It was beautiful. They were on their knees in prayer with the Spirit moving, Scott took a wooden salad bowl of water and poured it over each of them in the name of the Lord.

[Aquila]

Again pure speculation.

I would address all your stuff if you claimed to be a Methodist or Presbyterian I ain't addressing it with someone who claims to be Apostolic.

That's 'cause you don't have anything substantial. You see, even immersion is speculative. There's nothing in SCRIPTURE to support a mandate for full immersion. Every argument immersionists establish is built on the Mikveh - which is an unbiblical Jewish tradition.

[Aquila]

I'll ask some of the question I have and I'd like some of you to present what you think...

When does Scripture show us Christ taking the priesthood upon himself from the line of Aaron?

If Christ and John the Baptist were fulfilling all righteousness, what Law in the OT were they fulfilling at Christ's baptism?

I leave it at two questions at this point.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[Sherri]

How do you associate baptism with burial if they're not buried in the water? Or maybe you don't associate baptism with burial. (????)

[Steve Epley]

That's 'cause you don't have anything substantial. You see, even immersion is speculative. There's nothing in SCRIPTURE to support a mandate for full immersion. Every argument immersionists establish is built on the Mikveh - which is an unbiblical Jewish tradition.

NOPE because it is a waste of time you are under a spirit of delusion.

[Aquila]

How do you associate baptism with burial if they're not buried in the water? Or maybe you don't associate baptism with burial. (????)

Sherri, welcome to the discussion! First off I want to say that I love ya Sis, and I share my understanding with you in the utmost humility because I understand how it contradicts "Pentecostal tradition.

I've answered this many times and no one has commented on it. Most readers simply ignore the points made. It is an assured truth, Christian Baptism in Jesus name is associated with "Christ's burial". Let's look at Scripture before I say anything. Paul wrote,

Romans 6:3-4a
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

For most of us 21st century Westerners who value biblical fundamentalism, we say with our deep Southern draws,

"See der, dat der is the word burial. That means a man is t'be completely buried unner wader. C'ause after all, dead people are completely buried unner dirt!"

[Emphasis for effect, because this is indeed how I used to teach it.]

But there is a very serious problem with this reasoning. When Paul wrote the word "burial" he didn't think of it like we do in 21st Century America. If baptism associates us with "Christ's burial" it's important to ask, "How was Christ buried?" , to understand how one should be water baptized.

Again, we have to go to Scripture. Here's what the Bible says,

John 19:39-41
39And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
41Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

To know how Christ was buried one must know "the manner of the Jews" in regards to burial. The Jews of First Century Judea didn't bury their dead by submerging them under dirt. This form of burial was typically left for slaves and criminals. Instead the Jews took the body of the dead, laid it out on a table or a mat. Then they "poured" clean water over the body to cleanse it from dirt and filth. Next they anointed the body with oil and wrapped it with fragrant spices. Finally they laid the deceased in a tomb.

This is exactly how Christ was buried. Christ's body wasn't buried under ground or submerged under dirt. Christ's body washed with water by having it poured over him. Then he was anointed with oils, wrapped with spices, and laid in a tomb.

So now... how does "baptismal immersion" reflect Christ's burial? In fact, it doesn't. It is completely opposite of how Christ was buried. He was buried in a tomb above ground after having water poured over his body. Therefore, it is far more accurate to how Paul viewed "burial" and to how Christ was actually buried to "pour" water over the repentant sinner. If Paul attended a water baptism service today in our churches he would wonder how dunking a person under water reflected Christ's burial. Essentially this custom of complete submersion has it's roots in Anabaptist and early Baptist movements who knew very little about ancient Judean customs.

Paul said that baptism associates us with Christ's burial, not "burial" as we see it today. Therefore the water should be applied to us the way it was applied to Christ in his burial... by pouring.

That's my understanding. Please feel free to share your thoughts.

[Aquila]

NOPE because it is a waste of time you are under a spirit of delusion.

Bro. Epley, it is written,

Romans 6:3-4a
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

How was Christ buried? Christ was buried after the manner of the Jews. That means that Christ had water poured over him his body, his body then was anointed with oils and was wrapped with fragrant spices. Finally he was placed in an above ground tomb in a garden.

Christ was never immersed or submerged in dirt or buried in the manner we bury today. Since water was POURED over Christ as part of his burial, it's more in harmony with SCRIPTURE to pour water over repentant sinners.

If you don't accept this, you deny that Christ was cleansed with poured water, anointed with oils and wrapped with spices and sat in a tomb. If you deny this... how do you think he was buried?

As on so many other issues Bro. Epley, you're reason is in line with the Traditions taught to you in modern Pentecost. But they are not at all in harmony with Biblical example, custom, or actual practice.

Show me where I'm wrong by showing me where Christ was immersed in anything.

[freeatlast]

I am enjoying your posts Aquila.
Since I see baptism as something that people do because they have been saved Not to get saved. I refuse to get ot excited over the modes pouring, sprinkling, immersion.
Or whether the minister speaks the words Father Son and Holy ghost. Or Lord Jesus Christ or Jesus name or the name of the Lord or Yesuha.

God is not going to disqualify someones salvation on a technicality.

If nothing else Aquila, your schoalrly posts should stop and make one think

Maybe just maybe we might be wrong on our rock solid intrepations of scripture.

To stand and declare that ALL that have not been baptized just exactly the way I think it should be done are going to bust hell wide open.....

Yikes !! those are not shoes I would be willing to be in before the Lord.

To judge someone he has cleansed and saved by his own blood UNWORTHY.

I have always followed the teaching of baptism by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Chrsit BUT I will not judge another mans servant, in any way.

OK.... somebody just shoot me now!!

[Sherri]

Sherri, welcome to the discussion! First off I want to say that I love ya Sis, and I share my understanding with you in the utmost humility because I understand how it contradicts "Pentecostal tradition.

I've answered this many times and no one has commented on it. Most readers simply ignore the points made. It is an assured truth, Christian Baptism in Jesus name is associated with "Christ's burial". Let's look at Scripture before I say anything. Paul wrote,

Romans 6:3-4a
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

For most of us 21st century Westerners who value biblical fundamentalism, we say with our deep Southern draws,

"See der, dat der is the word burial. That means a man is t'be completely buried unner wader. C'ause after all, dead people are completely buried unner dirt!"

[Emphasis for effect, because this is indeed how I used to teach it.]

But there is a very serious problem with this reasoning. When Paul wrote the word "burial" he didn't think of it like we do in 21st Century America. If baptism associates us with "Christ's burial" it's important to ask, "How was Christ buried?" , to understand how one should be water baptized.

Again, we have to go to Scripture. Here's what the Bible says,

John 19:39-41
39And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
41Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

To know how Christ was buried one must know "the manner of the Jews" in regards to burial. The Jews of First Century Judea didn't bury their dead by submerging them under dirt. This form of burial was typically left for slaves and criminals. Instead the Jews took the body of the dead, laid it out on a table or a mat. Then they "poured" clean water over the body to cleanse it from dirt and filth. Next they anointed the body with oil and wrapped it with fragrant spices. Finally they laid the deceased in a tomb.

This is exactly how Christ was buried. Christ's body wasn't buried under ground or submerged under dirt. Christ's body washed with water by having it poured over him. Then he was anointed with oils, wrapped with spices, and laid in a tomb.

So now... how does "baptismal immersion" reflect Christ's burial? In fact, it doesn't. It is completely opposite of how Christ was buried. He was buried in a tomb above ground after having water poured over his body. Therefore, it is far more accurate to how Paul viewed "burial" and to how Christ was actually buried to "pour" water over the repentant sinner. If Paul attended a water baptism service today in our churches he would wonder how dunking a person under water reflected Christ's burial. Essentially this custom of complete submersion has it's roots in Anabaptist and early Baptist movements who knew very little about ancient Judean customs.

Paul said that baptism associates us with Christ's burial, not "burial" as we see it today. Therefore the water should be applied to us the way it was applied to Christ in his burial... by pouring.

That's my understanding. Please feel free to share your thoughts.

Interesting thoughts. But doesn't the Greek word for baptism itself mean "to put under" or "to submerge"?

[Aquila]

Interesting thoughts. But doesn't the Greek word for baptism itself mean "to put under" or "to submerge"?

No. The Greek word "baptizo" does not strictly mean, "to put under" or "to submerge". A study of the Greek term will reveal that it also means, "to wash", "to make clean with water", "to wash one's self", "to bathe".

For example, in Hebrews the writer writes,

Hebrews 9:10
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

The word used here translated "washings" is "baptismos". Specifically the writer is writing about the ceremonial cleansings found in the OT. And if one researches these ceremonial cleansings, they were performed by sprinkling and pouring. Therefore the writer of Hebrews uses the term "baptismos" (plural of "baptiso") to describe sprinkling and pouring under the Law. These were therefore in fact "baptisms" though no one was immersed.

Also note, we use the Brazen Laver in the Tabernacle plan to typify water baptism in our Bible studies. How was the water from that Laver applied to the priests???

Numbers 8:5-7
{8:5} And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, {8:6}
Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and
cleanse them. {8:7} And thus shalt thou do unto them, to
cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and
let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their
clothes, and [so] make themselves clean.

The sprinklings in these ceremonies were "washings" (baptismos), or "baptisms".

[Aquila]

Interesting thoughts. But doesn't the Greek word for baptism itself mean "to put under" or "to submerge"?

Besides, Paul said that we take upon ourselves the burial of Christ via water baptism. Paul didn't expound on which meaning to draw from the word "baptiso" (because baptiso has several different meanings). The point is... if Christ wasn't submerged as part of his burial...how does submersion reflect his burial? Christ did have water poured over him before being anointed, wrapped, and placed in the above ground tomb. Therefore Paul had this in mind when writing about being buried with Christ. So we should understand that the Greek term "baptiso" also means "to wash". The word is also used for those who pour water over their hands as part of the Jewish traditions. Therefore, one is "baptismo" if water is poured over them. Just as Christ had water poured over him at his burial. Immersion wasn't a part in Christ's burial at all and therefore doesn't reflect it's reality. Immersion only reflects our 21st Century understanding of the word "burial".

[staysharp]

NOPE because it is a waste of time you are under a spirit of delusion.

The Catholics are not stupid delusional people. They've had 2K years of church history to perfect their doctrines. They've been studied by the best scholarly minds. While we may not agree with all they teach, they do have a reason for it.

[Sherri]

Besides, Paul said that we take upon ourselves the burial of Christ via water baptism. Paul didn't expound on which meaning to draw from the word "baptiso" (because baptiso has several different meanings). The point is... if Christ wasn't submerged as part of his burial...how does submersion reflect his burial? Christ did have water poured over him before being anointed, wrapped, and placed in the above ground tomb. Therefore Paul had this in mind when writing about being buried with Christ. So we should understand that the Greek term "baptiso" also means "to wash". The word is also used for those who pour water over their hands as part of the Jewish traditions. Therefore, one is "baptismo" if water is poured over them. Just as Christ had water poured over him at his burial. Immersion wasn't a part in Christ's burial at all and therefore doesn't reflect it's reality. Immersion only reflects our 21st Century understanding of the word "burial".Aquila--is sprinkling the only way that you baptize? If you've covered this already, forgive me. I haven't read the entire thread.

[Aquila]

Aquila--is sprinkling the only way that you baptize? If you've covered this already, forgive me. I haven't read the entire thread.

I don't believe that the amount of water is important. However, I believe that effusion is more "biblical".

For example, how did God send the "baptism of the Holy Ghost"?

Acts 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

And consider the prophecy of Pentecost found in Ezekiel...

Ezekiel 36:25-26
25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Even the prophecies of Pentecost found in Joel and Ezekiel mention the sprinkling of water and the pouring of the Spirit in relation to spirit and water baptisms.

[Shawn]

Acts 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:


Pour his spirit out on who??

[Aquila]

Pour his spirit out on who??

All flesh, meaning all who call on him regardless of nationality.

[LUKE2447]

The Catholics are not stupid delusional people. They've had 2K years of church history to perfect their doctrines. They've been studied by the best scholarly minds. While we may not agree with all they teach, they do have a reason for it.

only somethings. I would haveto question you undertanding about the issues with Catholic doctrine and how much total nonsense they have in which is totaly not supported or even hinted to by scripture. Eastern Orthodox would be much closer than the Catholic church even though still off as they resisted much of the unification of government and church in the 3rd and 4th centuries etc...

[Jermyn Davidson]

Aquilla,

After (kind of) objectively reading your posts, I conclude that you have a point-- a point that I simply do not agree with.

If I am ever to baptize anyone, they will be immersed in water in the Name of Jesus Christ.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I have baptized several people and I do it by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ.

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=553

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090314103102AAwhtoi

[Aquila]

Aquilla,

After (kind of) objectively reading your posts, I conclude that you have a point-- a point that I simply do not agree with.

If I am ever to baptize anyone, they will be immersed in water in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Agreeing to disagree is fine. I used to be a die hard immersionist also. But a question continued to nag me and nag me. What if you have a repentant sinner, the Spirit is moving, and they want to get baptized. But you can't find enough water to dunk them in? Most of the men I know put their baptism off until they find a place to baptize people. However, biblically speaking, converts were water baptized immediately upon conversion. The three thousand souls saved on Pentecost were water baptized on the spot in the Upper City of Jerusalem where the Upper Room was located. The only baptism where there appears to be a wait was with regards to the Eunuch, but we see that Philip baptized him as soon as there was a shallow wadi available.

What do you do if someone has just had surgery or has been in a serious accident and can't move?

If one understands the biblical bases of effusion all these questions are quickly resolved.

[DividedThigh]

water, by immersion , in the name of Jesus, bible, dt

[Aquila]

I have baptized several people and I do it by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ.

I think that is beautiful. But I think it's important to be biblical. Is immersion "biblical"? Where do we see an immersion baptism in the Bible?

- Ceremonial cleansings and washings (baptismos) were commanded to be done by effusion not immersion. Specifically the brazen laver where the priests consecrated themselves daily (an OT type of water baptism we use in Bible studies all the time) was where water was poured for their cleansing.

- John being of priestly heritage clearly would have understood the sprinklings and effusions required in the Law, especially that in regards to the consecration of the priesthood.

- Christ's baptism didn't fulfill anything in the Law if it was by immersion because the Law never required immersion. But if Jesus stood in the water and allowed John (a Levite) to pour or sprinkle water over him as required in the Law, Jesus would have effectively been consecrated a sacrifice and our intercessor according to the Law's requirements, and thereby would have fulfilled all righteousness.

- Pouring is a more accurate figure of Christ's burial seeing that Jesus was never immersed in anything. He was buried in an above ground tomb in a garden. However he was buried after the manner of the Jews which included pouring water over the body to cleanse it, anointing it with oil, and wrapping with spices.

- Peter and the rest of the Apostles baptized 3,000 souls outside the house with the upper room in the Upper City of Jerusalem (opposite side of town from the Temple). While many assume they marched to the Temple to use the mikveh pools, this is highly unlikely seeing that the Jewish authorities would have never allowed that to happen without calling on the Romans to kill the Christians who would be desecrating the temple grounds and destroying the peace with the name of Jesus. Effusion not immersion makes the most sense in this case.

- Ezekiel's prophecy regarding Pentecost clearly states that God would "sprinkle" clean water upon the people to cleanse them, write his Law upon their hearts, and put His own Spirit within them.

- The Philippian jailor's baptism features the water used to wash Paul and Silas' stripes. This wouldn't have facilitated full immersion but would have facilitated pouring or sprinkling.

- Paul writes that we are a living sacrifice, sacrifices were sanctified by sprinkling.

- The writer of Hebrews states that the New Covenant, based on "the blood of sprinkling", speaks better things than that of Able. Most agree that the blood is applied at Baptism, it is the "blood of sprinkling".

- The writer of Hebrews also states that our hearts were "sprinkled" from an evil conscience, and as a result our bodies were washed with clean water. This directly alludes to baptism and sprinkling of blood.

- Peter writes in I Peter that the blood was applied to our hearts by "sprinkling". Again,if the blood is applied at baptism it was sprinkled.

- The children of Israel were baptized in the cloud and in the sea (an allusion to their effusion by being sprinkled by droplets of water floating in the air).

- Take into consideration that the Church grew like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire. Churches mostly gathered in homes and didn't have "baptisteries". The earliest church with a baptistery found on record had a baptistery nearly 3 inches deep where people stood and had water poured on them. Down in the catacombs throughout Rome we see first and second century wall paintings depicting baptism by pouring. To be water baptized out in the open by immersion would have been very dangerous. It was far more practical to water baptize by pouring while churches gathered in humble homes or deep in the catacombs.


I think we're taking just one meaning from the word "baptizo" or "baptismos" and force fitting it into passages without truly taking an objective look at the passages themselves. While I wouldn't require someone who's been water baptized by immersion to be rebaptized by effusion, I have to say that there is a strong case for effusion being far more biblical.

[Aquila]

http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=553

I'm going to have to run an errand but when I get back I'll address every point in this website demonstrating that the writer is clearly not considering all the data.

[Aquila]

There is a danger in taking the meaning of a Greek word from a dictionary and applying it to spiritual practice. What if someone 2,000 years from now took the phrase, "We paid an arm and a leg for that car." Of course they can't take the meaning of these words literally, they have to know how these words are used in our vernacular. I've demonstrated how the term "baptismos" is also used in the ancient vernacular to describe the ceremonial washings of the OT which were performed by pouring and sprinkling.

You can't just run with a text book definition. You have to see how the Bible uses a term. When the writer of Hebrews used the term "baptismos" to describe the sprinklings and pourings in the Old Testament he revealed the expansive use of the term in the ancient vernacular to include sprinkling and pouring.

[freeatlast]

Aquila: How do you feel about the laws regarding the Jewish Mikvah.

As I understand them, one muist be entirely under the water to be washed.

Care is taken that even ornaments of jewelry are removed and finger nails are cleaned to assure that the muikvah waters completly covers the person recieving mikvah.

Even the attending priests/rabbi does not touch the person as they immerse themselves in the mikvah.

The mikvah and christian baptism are viewed as close cousins I believe.

[Aquila]

Aquila: How do you feel about the laws regarding the Jewish Mikvah.

As I understand them, one muist be entirely under the water to be washed.

Care is taken that even ornaments of jewelry are removed and finger nails are cleaned to assure that the muikvah waters completly covers the person recieving mikvah.

Even the attending priests/rabbi does not touch the person as they immerse themselves in the mikvah.

The mikvah and christian baptism are viewed as close cousins I believe.

I'd like to respond with a question:

Where is the "Mikvah" commanded in Old Testament Scripture?

[LUKE2447]

I'd like to respond with a question:

Where is the "Mikvah" commanded in Old Testament Scripture?

Many teachings we understand today are through "non canonical" books. Does it mean they are not true? No! Several things we understand are through those other writings. Because they are considered "oral law" does not mean parts are any less inspired. I am not a person for "others" deciding which books are correct and not. Mosth ave little understnading on howthe oral law worked and much of the teachings of Jesus coincided with them.

[Sam]

Agreeing to disagree is fine. I used to be a die hard immersionist also. But a question continued to nag me and nag me. What if you have a repentant sinner, the Spirit is moving, and they want to get baptized. But you can't find enough water to dunk them in? Most of the men I know put their baptism off until they find a place to baptize people. However, biblically speaking, converts were water baptized immediately upon conversion. The three thousand souls saved on Pentecost were water baptized on the spot in the Upper City of Jerusalem where the Upper Room was located. The only baptism where there appears to be a wait was with regards to the Eunuch, but we see that Philip baptized him as soon as there was a shallow wadi available.

What do you do if someone has just had surgery or has been in a serious accident and can't move?

If one understands the biblical bases of effusion all these questions are quickly resolved.

a couple of thoughts,

I've posted some videos of Orthodox (who should know the meaning of the word) baptisms. They didn't meticulously submerge completely.

I've posted how I was willing to go and baptize (sprinkle or pour a little water) on the head of a person on her deathbed and the relief I felt when I didn't have to because the family had made other arrangements.

Some years back I read about an incident in the life of the late L.R. Parent. After he "saw" baptism in Jesus' name, he stuck his hand into some water in Jesus' name and asked the Lord to accept that for his baptism until he could find someone to immerse him. Anybody reckon the late Bishop Parent would have gone to hell if he died before his immersion?

A few years ago, Pastor Tommy Barnett was walking cross country to obtain money (I think for the LA Dream Center). On the way he witnessed to a man and the man committed hid life to Jesus. They were in the desert somewhere and before they parted ways, Pastor Barnett baptized him using a bottle of Evian water. I doubt if they climbed down into that bottle for a full immersion. What think ye of that "baptism"? A while back I heard of a preacher who said the Ethiopian pointed to a jug of water and requested baptism so Philip poured some of it over him. The late Brother Roosevelt York said he would only believe that if you could show him how they both got down into that jug of water (ref Acts 8:38)

[LUKE2447]

a couple of thoughts,

I've posted some videos of Orthodox (who should know the meaning of the word) baptisms. They didn't meticulously submerge completely.

I've posted how I was willing to go and baptize (sprinkle or pour a little water) on the head of a person on her deathbed and the relief I felt when I didn't have to because the family had made other arrangements.

Some years back I read about an incident in the life of the late L.R. Parent. After he "saw" baptism in Jesus' name, he stuck his hand into some water in Jesus' name and asked the Lord to accept that for his baptism until he could find someone to immerse him. Anybody reckon the late Bishop Parent would have gone to hell if he died before his immersion.

A few years ago, Pastor Tommy Barnett was walking cross country to obtain money (I think for the LA Dream Center). On the way he witnessed to a man and the man committed hid life to Jesus. They were in the desert somewhere and before they parted ways, Pastor Barnett baptized him using a bottle of Evian water. I doubt if they climbed down into that bottle for a full immersion. What think ye of that "baptism"?

and these examples prove what, that people can do what they want and how ever they want and feel it is justified? It's a interesting story so it makes it right? God in the end will judge with righteous judgment. In the mean time I will teach what I feel God has led me to teach. I believe everyone will be surprised in the end both liberals and conservatives both will be shocked with horror at our failure and the depth of God's Law and also surprised at his mercy and we will realize he is just. He will be true to his Word!

[freeatlast]

I'd like to respond with a question:

Where is the "Mikvah" commanded in Old Testament Scripture?

Dunno Aquila..I assume you do? I'll let you fill me on the details of it with an answer to my question.