Baptism and its meaning

[tabcom]

Are we not all in agreement that the scripture is authoritative, and that scripture mentiones more than one kind of baptism?

Yes, and Yes.

 

[guanophore]

In the first century to be a Christian was to be baptized in water and Trinitarian form.

The assertion of the OP is that the baptism Jesus commanded is not done with water.

 

[Bishopite]

The assertion of the OP is that the baptism Jesus commanded is not done with water.

The OP asserted that which is crazy. He referrences non-Christian ancient history on the supposed meaning of Christian baptism, yet bypasses Christian leaders of history and their writings which overwhelmingly support baptism as did St. Justin Martyr in 155 A.D…
"St. Justin Martyr First Apology, 61[-](http://javascript: void(0)]
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

You mentioned that scripture mentions more than one kind of baptism, yet I would dissagree as does scripture. Eph 4:5 says there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” How can Ephesians say “one baptism” if their are more than one?
I’ll tell you. John 3:5 Jesus says we must be born of “water and the Spirit” and the early church, the disciples of the Apostles always referred to baptism as a unitive act of water (matter) and the Spirit (Trinitarian form). How the OP can assert that baptism is not of water is beyond me. It may be an indication that sola scriptura has brought about near madness in determining what scripture means. Martin Luther, John Calvin both practiced water baptism and padeo baptism, preached it, and gave scripture to support it, most every Evangelical Protestant group practices baptism with water, yet somehow tabcon has now figured out a what scripture really means?

 

[guanophore]

The OP asserted that which is crazy. He referrences non-Christian ancient history on the supposed meaning of Christian baptism, yet bypasses Christian leaders of history and their writings which overwhelmingly support baptism as did St. Justin Martyr in 155 A.D…
"St. Justin Martyr First Apology, 61[-](http://javascript: void(0)]
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

He did not bypass the early fathers, he just has not worked his way up that far yet. He started with the common usage of the word in a cultural context. Give him time! He is a very deliberate researcher.

You mentioned that scripture mentions more than one kind of baptism, yet I would dissagree as does scripture. Eph 4:5 says there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” How can Ephesians say “one baptism” if their are more than one?

In that context, Paul is speaking of the one water baptism for the forgiveness of sins, which we see reflected later in the creed.

However, there is the baptism of suffering, about which he speaks to the apostles. The falling of the HS is also known as baptism.

 I'll tell you. John 3:5 Jesus says we must be born of "water and the Spirit" and the early church, the disciples of the Apostles always referred to baptism as a unitive act of water (matter) and the Spirit (Trinitarian form). How the OP can assert that baptism is not of water is beyond me. It may be an indication that sola scriptura has brought about near madness in determining what scripture means. Martin Luther, John Calvin both practiced *water* baptism and padeo baptism, preached it, and gave scripture to support it, most every Evangelical Protestant group practices baptism with water, yet somehow tabcon has now figured out a what scripture really means?

It is a mystery to me as well. But, it might help if you search for his other threads, where he has started to explain why he believes water baptism has been set aside.

Thanks for letting yourself get roped into the thread!

 

[Bishopite]

Baptism; from the greek words baptizo and bapto

Baptizo bap-tid’-zo

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

You act as if you have found something new, but you are asserting a theological novum (Latin means new theology) never taught until centuries after the reformation. Baptism was as I said prior, is a unitive act of water and Spirit (John 3:5) where the person was regenerated (Titus 3:5) and what James Montgomery Boice is pointing out even though he doesn’t say it (or believe it I’m sure) but look at the bold wording. “There must be a union with him” (the Holy Spirit is God) and “a real change” (that the person is regenerated within referring to baptismal regneration which Catholicism teaches and has always taught from the begining of Christianity. I’d rather cite an early text used by Christians to catechize the newly converted. Such is what the Didache was used for…

“Didache 7
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”

 

[tabcom]

The assertion of the OP is that the baptism Jesus commanded is not done with water.

Not true. The assertion of the OP is that, and I quote, “To better understand what baptism ment to a 1st century jew or gentile, these five words (bapto, baptizo, eis, epi, en) need to be researched in greater detail.”

For what purpose have I started this thread? To reach a common ground in which all can agree on. Specifically, that there was more than one type of baptism going on at the the time of Jesus’ Ministry. That’s all I’m looking for in this thread. Guanophore – you have already replied in the affirmative, thank you.

I’m prepared to move forward, to another topic, in another thread, after I feel like everyone is on board for this one point. We are getting close.

 

[tabcom]

The OP asserted that which is crazy. He referrences non-Christian ancient history on the supposed meaning of Christian baptism

Bishopite, I do appreciate your participation within this discussion.

Please review what I have posted before within this thread. How is my assertion that there was more than one meaning for the word baptize during the days of Jesus crazy?

 

[tabcom]

You mentioned that scripture mentions more than one kind of baptism, yet I would dissagree as does scripture. Eph 4:5 says there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” How can Ephesians say “one baptism” if their are more than one?

I will comment on this verse, because it is connected to the OP. Paul was writing to a gentile church in Ephesus. Those gentile believers would have been familar with the word Baptisma. As I have attempted to point out within this thread, Bapto, Baptizo, and the noun form Baptisma had multiple means, and does not exclusively mean immersing in water (not to say, it cannot mean immerseing in water.) By Paul making the declaration that there is one baptism, implies that there were more than one definition for baptism at the time that he wrote the epistle

Bishopite . . … can you please reply back in the affirmative to this one point. Then I’ll be ready to move on.

 

[tabcom]

One thing you have not entirely covered, however, is WHY you want such an understanding. The assumption is that you wish to understand NT baptism better through such knowledge. Correct?

At this time, I would like to answer this question. Because I doubt there are any Baptist to offend reading this, lets pick on them for a moment. They believe that all they have to do to ‘git saved’ is to be dipped in water and confess with their lips ‘I believe in Jesus’ . That’s all there is to it. Wrong. The Bible does not teach that. There are two doctrines in the Bible. The Devil’s Doctrine is to fulfill self and be a little g-o-d. God’s Doctrine is to die to self and come to life in Christ – daily. In order for the devil to be believable, he has to change his appearance and look like Jesus (1 Cor 11). The word revelation means to remove the cover. If satan is a conterfeit, and he is, then I need to know what the geniune artifact looks like before I can detect the imperfections of satan, the imposter. Then I can remove his cover to expose his lies.

One final footnote. I find it sort of funny that I started a new topic this spring on the 3 Beast of Rev. 13 and when I did not take the bait that the Pope was the anti-christ, I got only a lukewarm interest in the subject before it died out completely.

3 Beast of Rev. 13:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=140738

I feel like I’m nearing the end of this discussion (Baptism and its meaning to a 1st century jew and gentile).

I am preparing the ‘Meaning of Baptism (Part II)’ and will post it Saturday morning.

 

[guanophore]

Bishopite, I do appreciate your participation within this discussion.

Please review what I have posted before within this thread. How is my assertion that there was more than one meaning for the word baptize during the days of Jesus crazy?

I am not sure he read the thread, and was responding to my post. It is thougth to be preposterous because, no matter what the Jews and Gentiles thought of baptism before, Jesus changed the meaning of it, and infused it with His spirit. While study of the meaning of the word may help inform us on the topic, what matters much more to Christians such as Bishopite and myself is what Jesus and the Apostles believed and taught about baptism. Since we have been convinced for 2000 years that this baptism is with water, just as it is described in the NT and the Didache, any other rendition arrived upon by ignoring these references seems preposterous. You will just have to bear with us here.

 

[guanophore]

At this time, I would like to answer this question. Because I doubt there are any Baptist to offend reading this, lets pick on them for a moment. They believe that all they have to do to ‘git saved’ is to be dipped in water and confess with their lips ‘I believe in Jesus’ . That’s all there is to it. Wrong. The Bible does not teach that. There are two doctrines in the Bible. The Devil’s Doctrine is to fulfill self and be a little g-o-d. God’s Doctrine is to die to self and come to life in Christ – daily. In order for the devil to be believable, he has to change his appearance and look like Jesus (1 Cor 11). The word revelation means to remove the cover. If satan is a conterfeit, and he is, then I need to know what the geniune artifact looks like before I can detect the imperfections of satan, the imposter. Then I can remove his cover to expose his lies.

One final footnote. I find it sort of funny that I started a new topic this spring on the 3 Beast of Rev. 13 and when I did not take the bait that the Pope was the anti-christ, I got only a lukewarm interest in the subject before it died out completely.

3 Beast of Rev. 13:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=140738

I feel like I’m nearing the end of this discussion (Baptism and its meaning to a 1st century jew and gentile).

I am preparing the ‘Meaning of Baptism (Part II)’ and will post it Saturday morning.

I suggest that you post your actual question or hypothesis as the title. Many people here become tired of the same old complaints, and will not visit a thread with a title like this one. Ifyou had called this “was there more than one baptism?” you would have gotten a better turnout, I think.

 

[Philthy]

I will comment on this verse, because it is connected to the OP. Paul was writing to a gentile church in Ephesus. Those gentile believers would have been familar with the word Baptisma. As I have attempted to point out within this thread, Bapto, Baptizo, and the noun form Baptisma had multiple means, and does not exclusively mean immersing in water (not to say, it cannot mean immerseing in water.) By Paul making the declaration that there is one baptism, implies that there were more than one definition for baptism at the time that he wrote the epistle

Im afraid this conclusion is not entirely valid. Paul may have simply been addressing the question of whether you get baptized once in your life or more than once. Such a difference is probably not conveyed within the “definition” of Baptism, strictly speaking. In other words, although 2 people may agree on the *definition *of Baptism, they may DISAGREE on HOW MANY TIMES it is performed.
This is particularly interesting because your contention that “Baptisma had multiple meanings” combined with the reality that several types of baptism are revealed in the NT seems to speak conclusively that Paul, in claiming there was only one baptism, could NOT have been speaking of the types of baptism, but rather most probably was speaking in reference to how many times it was to be performed. It is also entirely possible that he was speaking of the reality that a trinitarian water baptism, baptism of the Holy Spirit and baptism of Fire all refer to recieving the gift of the one holy Spirit. Fortunately, this does not prevent us from moving forward to the next thread…

 

[savedsinner]

I will comment on this verse, because it is connected to the OP. Paul was writing to a gentile church in Ephesus. Those gentile believers would have been familar with the word Baptisma. As I have attempted to point out within this thread, Bapto, Baptizo, and the noun form Baptisma had multiple means, and does not exclusively mean immersing in water (not to say, it cannot mean immerseing in water.) By Paul making the declaration that there is one baptism, implies that there were more than one definition for baptism at the time that he wrote the epistle

Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

OK tabcom, with this logic, you would have to also say that there was more that one body of Christ, more than one Spirit, more that one hope, More than one Lord, more that one God and Father at the time that Paul wrote the epistle.

 

[runandsew]

Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

OK tabcom, with this logic, you would have to also say that there was more that one body of Christ, more than one Spirit, more that one hope, More than one Lord, more that one God and Father at the time that Paul wrote the epistle.

I think What Paul is writing here in this passage is that there needs to be unity in Christianity, because in the preceding verses he writes:
“As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

He is also warning them from false teachings, and the Judizers who said the the gentiles also needed to be circumcised besides being baptized. He is saying that Christians need to get along together because they are brothers and sisters in Christ through the one true faith.
Again he is saying there need to be unity, and humbly following the teaching of the church.
in verse 14 Paul writes:
“Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming”

To take ‘one baptism’ out of the passage and imply that he is saying that there were different meanings of baptism, is taking that out of context of the whole message. It could be true, but I wouldn’t isolate two words out of a long epistle and give it some meaning that Paul might not have intended.

 

[Bishopite]

I will comment on this verse, because it is connected to the OP. Paul was writing to a gentile church in Ephesus. Those gentile believers would have been familar with the word Baptisma. As I have attempted to point out within this thread, Bapto, Baptizo, and the noun form Baptisma had multiple means, and does not exclusively mean immersing in water (not to say, it cannot mean immerseing in water.) By Paul making the declaration that there is one baptism, implies that there were more than one definition for baptism at the time that he wrote the epistle

Bishopite . . … can you please reply back in the affirmative to this one point. Then I’ll be ready to move on.

That there is more than one meaning of baptism I’m not so sure, however when speaking of “Christian” baptism it has always been know in Christian Tradition (the writings of the Christian leaders called the early church fathers and the Catholic church) as a unitive and regnerative act of the Holy Spirit as I gave evidence from St. Justin Martyr who was a leader in the Catholic church and the Didache. I did not read the entire thread for I wasn’t even going to join in but you prompted me to join with the link provided therefore I jumped into the thread without reading its content and for that I’m sorry and I apologize for that but you also need to know that you prompted me to join in after I responded to a previous post of yours.
So, what do you mean by “one baptism?”

 

[Bishopite]

At this time, I would like to answer this question. Because I doubt there are any Baptist to offend reading this, lets pick on them for a moment. They believe that all they have to do to ‘git saved’ is to be dipped in water and confess with their lips ‘I believe in Jesus’ . That’s all there is to it. Wrong. The Bible does not teach that. There are two doctrines in the Bible. The Devil’s Doctrine is to fulfill self and be a little g-o-d. God’s Doctrine is to die to self and come to life in Christ – daily. In order for the devil to be believable, he has to change his appearance and look like Jesus (1 Cor 11). The word revelation means to remove the cover. If satan is a conterfeit, and he is, then I need to know what the geniune artifact looks like before I can detect the imperfections of satan, the imposter. Then I can remove his cover to expose his lies.

One final footnote. I find it sort of funny that I started a new topic this spring on the 3 Beast of Rev. 13 and when I did not take the bait that the Pope was the anti-christ, I got only a lukewarm interest in the subject before it died out completely.

3 Beast of Rev. 13:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=140738

I feel like I’m nearing the end of this discussion (Baptism and its meaning to a 1st century jew and gentile).

I am preparing the ‘Meaning of Baptism (Part II)’ and will post it Saturday morning.

The problem with your whole approach to the meaning of baptism, is that you vehemently ignore any of the early church fathers who are the leaders of the Christian faith and of some who were disciples of the Apostles who were taught by them and practiced what they preached and they preached and practiced baptism with WATER and wrote about it being a regerative act of water and the Spirit.

So, I’m NOT going to move on until you acknowledge the pink elephant in the room which is the early church fathers who’s writings show us what “Baptism” actually meant in the first, second, third et al generations since; explaining the meaning of Baptism without acknowledging some of the most brilliant minds in Christiandom of the early church is futile.

You start with the false assumption that the Catholic church is corrupt (yet you don’t give specific evidence where they fell from orthodoxy), so that you must take the postion that there is another answer to what baptism means. The problem is that when you start with a false assumption, you get a false conclusion which is anything other than baptism being a unitive act of water and the Holy Spirit when done with the correct intent which is baptizing in a Trinitarian form with water.

 

[Bishopite]

Yes, the disciples were baptized in water. Because they were Jews.

No that’s incorrect. That disciples weren’t all Jews, some were Greek as Luke wasn’t a Jew, he was Greek.

 

[guanophore]

No that’s incorrect. That disciples weren’t all Jews, some were Greek as Luke wasn’t a Jew, he was Greek.

I think he meant Apostles. All the Apostles were Jews. They were baptized because they were Jews. Now, he previously said that baptism was for proselytes, and has not yet conneced how it is that people born Jews were baptized…

But he did make it clear that it is a dead tradition that was nailed to the cross. That raises the question, why did Jesus get baptized, and why did he train his Apostles to baptize, and why did he command baptism after the resurrection?

The problem with your whole approach to the meaning of baptism, is that you vehemently ignore any of the early church fathers who are the leaders of the Christian faith and of some who were disciples of the Apostles who were taught by them and practiced what they preached and they preached and practiced baptism with WATER and wrote about it being a regerative act of water and the Spirit.

So, I’m NOT going to move on until you acknowledge the pink elephant in the room which is the early church fathers who’s writings show us what “Baptism” actually meant in the first, second, third et al generations since; explaining the meaning of Baptism without acknowledging some of the most brilliant minds in Christiandom of the early church is futile.

You start with the false assumption that the Catholic church is corrupt (yet you don’t give specific evidence where they fell from orthodoxy), so that you must take the postion that there is another answer to what baptism means. The problem is that when you start with a false assumption, you get a false conclusion which is anything other than baptism being a unitive act of water and the Holy Spirit when done with the correct intent which is baptizing in a Trinitarian form with water.

You are out of order Bishopite! He hasn’t worked his way up to the Fathers yet.

He started out “Baptism doesn’t make you right with God” thread

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=166711&highlight=baptism

Where he established that baptism was about making pickles. Then he started this new thread, and has established that there is more than one kind of baptism. We haven’t gotten any where close to the fathers yet. As far as I can tell, there may be a dozen threads ahead!

 

[tabcom]

Paul may have simply been addressing the question of whether you get baptized once in your life or more than once.

I’m going to have to put a ‘bookmark’ on this thought for now. Thank you for submitting it.

OK tabcom, with this logic, you would have to also say that there was more that one body of Christ, more than one Spirit, more that one hope, More than one Lord, more that one God and Father at the time that Paul wrote the epistle.

Paul did write about ‘more than one’ Jesus. To be specific, ‘another Jesus’. That would be Satan transforming himself into an angel of light (1 Cor. 11 ch.)

 

[tabcom]

I promise to move the discussion along this Saturday morning

Thanks for hanging in there.