Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize?

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Not the waist. Yes, we get it.
Who here is encouraging men to touch women's waists? Did i miss something?

Anyone with an ounce of wisdom knows that he should be careful when praying with/for a woman. Therefore touching the waist (or anything below the shoulders probably) would be inadvisable.

There are probably few among us who would agree with that. So what's your next point?
---

Of course you take it to the next level ,as if to say that even touching her forehead or shoulder is wrong. And what do you base that on?... the fact that you dont see in the scriptures where the apostles touched a woman's shoulder or forehead? If thats the case, then thats not "rightly dividing the word" at all.

The way most people baptize people is they put one hand on the waist back and the other on the persons arm on their neck or upper chest.One hand to push them down and the other to bring them up.

[SDG]

Historical, cultural and scriptural data fly in the face of those who would impose their formula and method of a properly administered baptism to cause salvation. TR ... you have no data to prove that baptisms are performed as you do today ... let alone causing the New Birth.

If you can possibly get past those prattling gad flies you may notice some gems in their discourse. For example, the importance of the mikveh in understanding early Christian baptisms. These were steeply stepped cisterns into which usually only a single person could descend at a time. No one would have been able to dunk anyone else around the Temple area in the first century. You did it yourself.

Here's an example of one that wasn't so deep.



It's believed that the 3,000 baptized on the day of Pentecost used these tanks for their baptism while the apostles witnessed/officiated over the ceremonial rites declaring their confession of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ ... and under the authority given to them to baptize in His name.

[TRFrance]

Ms Bratt...
Daniel has his own agenda here.

The original post dealt with why Paul said he was called to preach, not to baptize.
Joelel then got into this [unbiblical] idea that a person can baptize himself.

Daniel wants to take it in still another direction. He's not even addressing the issue under discussion. Dan never seems to miss an opportunity to attack so-called "3-steppers/baptismal-regenerationalist" doctrine.

You can let him hijack the thread if you want to, but I already know his M.O.

As for me, the whole baptism as "part of salvation" debate on this forum is getting real old. Same people... same arguments. Personally, I try not to let myself get sucked in.

[SDG]

Paul in Romans 10 is echoing a biblical truth and a promise from OT scripture ...

These too are the words of the prophet Joel and Peter ... and others also ... there is witness in Scripture .... and calling upon the name has alway fell upon the believer as it relates to salvation ... not the utterances of third party ... i.e. baptizer.

The name is undoubtedly attached to the person and His authority and his entire nature as Savior and God.

A sinner, Jew or Gentile, who has sincerely believed and calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ....

John says

And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us

I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

As does Joel:

Quote:
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

As does the Psalmist:

Quote:
Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH] ; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul."

As does Paul:

Quote:
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

As does Ananias, in Acts:

Quote:
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

As does Peter, in the book of Acts on the day of Pentecost:

Quote:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Paul in Romans 10 is echoing a biblical truth and a promise from OT scripture ...

These too are the words of the prophet Joel and Peter ... and others also ... there is witness in Scripture .... and calling upon the name has alway fell upon the believer as it relates to salvation ... not the utterances of third party ... i.e. baptizer.

The name is undoubtedly attached to the person and His authority and his entire nature as Savior and God.

A sinner, Jew or Gentile, who has sincerely believed and calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ....

John says

And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us

I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

As does Joel:

Quote:
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

As does the Psalmist:

Quote:
Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH] ; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul."

As does Paul:

Quote:
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

As does Ananias, in Acts:

Quote:
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

As does Peter, in the book of Acts on the day of Pentecost:

Quote:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Your saying the person being baptized is to call on the name,not the one doing the baptizing,right ? All though,I don't see myself taking someone to be baptized and not calling on the name of the Lord with them.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Joelel

What makes people think you must hold them or touch them ?

To answer your question with another question ...
What makes you think we should not touch them or hold them? Do you have scripture that says we should not touch or hold the person being baptized?
(Thats just a rhetorical question though. No answer needed)

Originally Posted by Joelel

I said in an other post also,if you took them to the water and called on the name of the Lord as we are suppose to do with them and they jumped in the water,you would be baptizing them.What makes people think you must hold them or touch them ?

1..Because your idea is speculative and not supported by scripture, thats why.
You have no biblical examples of anyone every doing it the way you're describing. Not one.

2.. Since A... the Greek word baptizo means to dip, or immerse, and
B... Since Acts 2:38 and other similar NT scriptures have the Greek word in the passive voice, which means the act is performed by someone else (as I explained previously in post #92 ) ....then obviously it refers to someone else doing the dipping/immersing of the baptized person.

The concept here is fairly simple: If you took them to the water and they jumped in they would still be baptizing themselves.

I cant explain it any clearer. If you want to get into speculative ideas about people jumping into water to baptize themselves, then feel free.

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

To answer your question with another question ...
What makes you think we should not touch them or hold them? Do you have scripture that says we should not touch or hold the person being baptized?
(Thats just a rhetorical question though. No answer needed)


1..Because your idea is speculative and not supported by scripture, thats why.
You have no biblical examples of anyone every doing it the way you're describing. Not one.

2.. Since A... the Greek word baptizo means to dip, or immerse, and
B... Since Acts 2:38 and other similar NT scriptures have the Greek word in the passive voice, which means the act is performed by someone else (as I explained previously in post #92 ) ....then obviously it refers to someone else doing the dipping/immersing of the baptized person.

The concept here is fairly simple: If you took them to the water and they jumped in they would still be baptizing themselves.

I cant explain it any clearer. If you want to get into speculative ideas about people jumping into water to baptize themselves, then feel free.

Why can't they dip themselves without your help.Does your touching them do something ?

[Bro-Larry]

This is just a point of interest, doesn't prove or disprove anything being discussed here. This thread brought it to my memory.

At POA Easter Pageant they have a line of people walking into the baptistry on one end, and there is someone standing outside the baptistry witnessing each baptizee as they dip themselves down into the water. Undertand this is a part of the play.

[SDG]

SACRAMENTALISM GONE WILD!!!!

There are some who have sacramentalized and mysticized baptism to the point that the Cross is not enough .... take the Oneness Pentecostal group originating in China called the True Jesus Church.

This is from their articles of faith:

Water baptism is the sacrament for the remission of sins for regeneration. The baptism must take place in natural living water, such as the river, sea, or spring. The Baptist, who already has had received baptism of water and the Holy Spirit, conducts the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the person receiving the baptism must be completely immersed in water with head bowed and face downward.

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration unfortunately has adulterated scripture in such a way that you have man-made organizations adding to the Word .... and adding to the significance of baptism.