Baptism confusion

[Timothy_Piper]

Many people believe that baptism is merely a symbolic act…Let’s see what the Bible has to say. John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”

Since water baptism as an ordinance or in the Catholic world, a sacrament, was not instituted at this point; so it cannot reference water baptism plus Nicodemus was a Jewish authority and the only “water baptism” he may have been familiar with was John the Baptist’s baptism. So we have a real problem here. However, since Scripture does not contradict itself; what would the Jew, Nicodemus, have immediately thought of, the OT purification ceremony. How does that relate to salvation, you must be purified, cleansed from all unrighteousness by Faith, which in turn you will receive & be sealed by the Holy Spirit.

So Randy’s misunderstanding of God’s salvation leads him into error. I can touch on each of these passages, but I don’t have the space here so I will touch on a few of the errors.

Titus 3:5 He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit

This is a perfect illustration of what was spoken above on OT purification; "washing of rebirth or “regeneration”, purified through Faith by God’s grace, not water. Put your faith in water salvation and you will end up in a very warm lake…pun intended.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Again, notice the order, make disciples (saved) and (or) then baptize them, this is at least speaking of water baptism. Plus you must look at the previous versus to really get the context.

Mark 16:16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The first thing that one should notice about this passage is why is baptized mentioned in the first part, but not the second and what kind of baptism is this. Does it mention water? No, but that is not a string argument. Let’s go to John 1 and see what John the Baptist had to say.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew Him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

The reason why baptism is mentioned in the first part of Mark’s record is because it refers to the “immersion or baptism into Christ”; so reread Mark and substitute “immersed into” and the meaning will be come clear, the second part doesn’t need to say immersed because one who does not believe is not immersed into Christ, but we do know many people immersed in water that do not believe…don’t we?

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Again, just substitute “immersed into” in place of Baptism and the picture becomes clear & no water here either.

1 Peter 3:18-22 18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

This is perhaps my favorite because Peter makes it so clear the he is not speaking of water baptism, that only the veiled can miss it. See verse 21 “not the removal of dirt from the body” BUT “pledge of a good conscience toward God” What is this pledge of good conscience? True repentance. So Peter tells you what it is not, water baptism, then tells you what it is. How this is overlooked? This is a portrait of Salvation. The first part is plainly states salvation mssg., then Peter paints a Salvation picture using the Ark and the judgment by water.

What does the water here represent? Judgment - s/b obvious. What does the Ark represent? Safety from what? The judgment. How is a believer saved from the judgment of God? By being a “New Creation” in Christ, the ark of our salvation. Who sealed the Ark? Spirit of God. Who seals the Christian into Christ? The Holy Spirit. Other general thoughts here, Christ, the Ark of our salvation, took upon himself the judgment (the water below & rain above) brought us safely to new life. When Noah stepped of the Ark, old things passed away and behold new things.

**Laura, if you would like I will show you where Randy has errored on the rest of the versus he has cited. It is not his fault by any means, this is very common in all of Christendom. Many people think whenever they see the world water or an inference to water, that it must mean water baptism. Sometimes it does, but it is almost always crystal clear and when it is not obvious, then one needs to pause.

Many people believe the Bible speaks of only one Baptism, but Matt. 3:11 and Luke 3:16 will dispel that myth rather quickly.**

 

[neophyte]

How do you call the Word of God opinion?..

I was referring to what is indeed your opinion. Your entire post consisted of a description of what you believe in your own words. I’m sorry, but nothing that you author is inspired Sacred Scripture.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Sacred Scripture *actually says. *I disagree with what you think it means.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Laura-

Look again at the passages I quoted. The scriptures are clear.

Jesus commanded baptism at the beginning of His ministry (John 3:5) and at the end (Matthew 28:20).

Why was this so important? The Bible tells us:

“Baptism now saves you.”
“[Through baptism you] wash away your sins.”
“Baptism is the circumcision of Christ” - and circumcision was for adults and infants, yes?

You’ll hear all sort of nonsense on this topic in this thread - especially from the Calvinists. Calvinism is a twisted theology that most Protestants reject.

I’ll post a bit more on water baptism in a separate post.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Water is a common image in the OT where it does NOT equal baptism; however, this water pre-figures the water baptism that becomes very important in the NT.

Water, Water Everywhere
Taken from: catholic-convert.com/?p=238

1.   The first creation came from the earth which was covered with WATER and the SPIRIT hovered over the waters and from the water emerged land and man and God's first creation (Gen 1:1-2).

2.   A new humanity was started with Noah through WATER and SPIRIT. The ark went through the water and a dove (representing the Spirit) hovered overhead with an olive branch. Peter said this represents baptism which "now saves us" (1 Peter 3:18-21).

3.   The nation of Israel was created through the WATER of the Red Sea (baptism) with the cloud and fire of the Holy SPIRIT overhead — my, oh my, again we have water and Spirit (Ex 14).

4.   Ezekiel then describes what the New Covenant will look like and he said we will be sprinkled with clean WATER and his SPIRIT will be placed in us (Ez 36:25). Born again, I suspect.

5.   Then Jesus, right before saying you must be born of “water and the Spirit” had just gone down into the WATER of the Jordan and the SPIRIT came down and landed on his head. Again, water and the Spirit (Mt 3:16; Jn 1:29).

6.   Jesus teaches Nicodemus that he must be born again, or from above which is accomplished through “WATER and the SPIRIT.“

7.   When Jesus finished these words what was the first thing he did? He went down and baptized people in the Jordan with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2).

8.   At the first Holy Ghost Gospel Revival meeting Peter stood up at Pentecost and said, “Repent, and be baptized (WATER) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy SPIRIT“ (Acts 2:38).

9.   Peter also says “Baptism now saves you“ (1 Pet 3:18), and Paul is told “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16), and Paul writes that we are saved “by the washing of regeneration (WATER) and renewal in the Holy SPIRIT“ (Titus 3:5).

Water baptism was prefigured in the OT and brings about the forgiveness of sins and regeneration of the soul.

1 Corintians 10:1-4
“I WANT you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

This is an abundantly clear OT prefiguring of baptism and being saved by baptism. The Israelites were baptized into Moses by passing through the water of the Red Sea; we are baptized into Christ by passing through the water of the baptismal font. Additionally, the Israelites that left Egypt are described as follows:

Exodus 12:37-38
And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very many cattle, both flocks and herds.

From this, it is obvious that the sacrament of baptism is for men, women, and children.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

I was referring to what is indeed your opinion. Your entire post consisted of a description of what you believe in your own words. I’m sorry, but nothing that you author is inspired Sacred Scripture.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Sacred Scripture *actually says. *I disagree with what you think it means.

Thank you for the blessings.

Rather than pointing fingers and since you claim to know what Scripture actually says, then show me from Scripture why I am wrong in your opinion and inform what Scripture actually says. You seem so confident in actually knowing what Scripture says, then show me my error that I may learn.

 

[neophyte]

…Rather than pointing fingers…

That comment was uncalled for.

…and since you claim to know what Scripture actually says, then show me from Scripture why I am wrong in your opinion and inform what Scripture actually says. You seem so confident in actually knowing what Scripture says, then show me my error that I may learn.

Above you said that 1 Peter 3:21 “Specifically puts away the notion of water baptism”, even though that’s not at all what it says and what it does say doesn’t mean that.

You also said that the intent of Mark 16:16 "is to put emphasis on the HS ", but the passage doesn’t say that either, and there is no passage of Scripture that says that that’s the intent of Mark 16:16.

I can go on. The issue is that you take passages of scripture and say “this means that yadda yadda yadda”, when there’s nothing in the passage that says “yadda yadda yadda” and there’s nothing anywhere in the bible that says that the passage in question means what you claim it means. These are all conclusions that you draw based on your own understanding, but they aren’t sacred scripture and you have no authority to bind anyone to submit to your conclusion.

I was raised a Protestant, I studied these questions deeply myself and as I said, the Holy Spirit speaking in Sacred Scripture taught me that your conclusions are indeed incorrect. That is why I am now a completed Christian: fully in union with the Catholic Church.

If you want to learn, study in detail the Catechism of the Catholic Church, making use of all the references.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Laura-

Look again at the passages I quoted. The scriptures are clear.

Jesus commanded baptism at the beginning of His ministry (John 3:5) and at the end (Matthew 28:20).

Why was this so important? The Bible tells us:

“Baptism now saves you.”
“[Through baptism you] wash away your sins.”
“Baptism is the circumcision of Christ” - and circumcision was for adults and infants, yes?

You’ll hear all sort of nonsense on this topic in this thread - especially from the Calvinists. Calvinism is a twisted theology that most Protestants reject.

I’ll post a bit more on water baptism in a separate post.

Laura, Notice the sound bites, you will see more & more as this moves along. Rather than disproving; it becomes “one is just wrong”, whereas those of us that understand what God meant by what He said will show this through Scripture, not from sound bites and other sources from men. Again, it is not any fault of any one’s it is as Scripture said it would and will be. Also, those that do understand will admit when they are mistaken and we embrace the mistake as a blessing because we have gained more knowledge from above and rejoice in the correction.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

That comment was uncalled for.

Above you said that 1 Peter 3:21 “Specifically puts away the notion of water baptism”, even though that’s not at all what it says and what it does say doesn’t mean that.

You also said that the intent of Mark 16:16 "is to put emphasis on the HS ", but the passage doesn’t say that either, and there is no passage of Scripture that says that that’s the intent of Mark 16:16.

I can go on. The issue is that you take passages of scripture and say “this means that yadda yadda yadda”, when there’s nothing in the passage that says “yadda yadda yadda” and there’s nothing anywhere in the bible that says that the passage in question means what you claim it means. These are all conclusions that you draw based on your own understanding, but they aren’t sacred scripture and you have no authority to bind anyone to submit to your conclusion.

I was raised a Protestant, I studied these questions deeply myself and as I said, the Holy Spirit speaking in Sacred Scripture taught me that your conclusions are indeed incorrect. That is why I am now a completed Christian: fully in union with the Catholic Church.

If you want to learn, study in detail the Catechism of the Catholic Church, making use of all the references.

How is one suppose to learn from one that actually knows the word of God and has the Holy Spirit speaking to them; yet you just say “that’s not at all what it says and what it does say doesn’t mean that”? Is there something of substance that can enhance my understanding and show the error?

1 Peter 3 “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;” - Is this a command?

 

[neophyte]

How is one suppose to learn from one that actually knows the word of God and has the Holy Spirit speaking to them; yet you just say “that’s not at all what it says and what it does say doesn’t mean that”? Is there something of substance that can enhance my understanding and show the error?..

I’m pretty sure I suggested that you study the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That’s a substantive suggestion, just as if you asked me how you could learn physics and I directed you to the foremost expert in the field.

If you really want to understand stuff, then you ought not expect to get everything you need on a forum like this. It’s not really the best medium for serious study.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

I’m pretty sure I suggested that you study the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That’s a substantive suggestion, just as if you asked me how you could learn physics and I directed you to the foremost expert in the field.

If you really want to understand stuff, then you ought not expect to get everything you need on a forum like this. It’s not really the best medium for serious study.

So although we are commanded, and it is a command, we are to be able to give an account of the Hope that is in us; your answer would be go “study the catechism”? What if Philip said that to the Ethiopian “you study the Catechism of the Catholic Church”? You said the Holy Spirit spoke to you and said I was incorrect. What does the Holy Spirit say is correct or does the Holy Spirit just tell you what is not correct?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So although we are commanded, and it is a command, we are to be able to give an account of the Hope that is in us; your answer would be go “study the catechism”?

It’s a reasonably good place to start to learn basic theology. It’s obvious enough from this thread what happens when people simply pick up the Bible and try to work out a theology for themselves from scratch.

What if Philip said that to the Ethiopian “you study the Catechism of the Catholic Church”?

The Ethiopian might have said, “Silly person, the Catechism won’t be promulgated for another nineteen and a half centuries.” Or he might have said, “Look! Here is WATER…what is to prevent me from being BAPTIZED IN THIS WATER TO WASH AWAY MY SINS, REGENERATE MY SPIRIT AND ENABLE ME TO RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT? Phil, this is too important…my eternal salvation is on the line. I’m not waiting till I get back to my home Church in Ethiopia. Get out of the truck and baptize me NOW!”

So, Phil did just that, and the Eunuch got saved the Bible way right there.

 

[neophyte]

So although we are commanded, and it is a command, we are to be able to give an account of the Hope that is in us; your answer would be go “study the catechism”? What if Philip said that to the Ethiopian “you study the Catechism of the Catholic Church”? You said the Holy Spirit spoke to you and said I was incorrect. What does the Holy Spirit say is correct or does the Holy Spirit just tell you what is not correct?

As the Westminster Confession says: “The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate…It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience;…Isa 9:6-7; Mat 28:18-20; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Cor 12:28; 1 Thes 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17, 24; Mat 18:17-20; Acts 15:15, 19, 24, 27-31; 16:4”

So when there’s a controversy of faith, for example, over what baptism is and what it does, then it’s given to the teaching authority of the Church to determine the answer. So on the authority of Christ, if I disagree with the Church then the Church is correct, not me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since water baptism as an ordinance or in the Catholic world, a sacrament, was not instituted at this point; so it cannot reference water baptism

This is correct. The sacrament of baptism was instituted after the resurrection when Jesus commanded the Apostles to “make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This baptism does not refer to baptism in the Holy Spirit but to water baptism. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be baptized, and Jesus commanded the Apostles to baptize the nations. The two passages are part of a harmonious whole.

plus Nicodemus was a Jewish authority and the only “water baptism” he may have been familiar with was John the Baptist’s baptism. So we have a real problem here.

The only problem seems to be your presuppositions. Yes, Nicodemus was a Jew. So was Jesus, all the Apostles and all the earliest converts. So what? Peter stood up in front of a large crowd of Jews on the day of Pentecost and proclaimed loudly what Jesus had whispered to Nicodemus privately: You must be baptized, and you will receive the Holy Spirit. These are two separate but closely related things. The OT passages which you love to dismiss clearly tie the presence of the Spirit with the passage through water. This is no coincidence. The OT passages pre-figure the passage from death to life that we take when we go down into the baptismal waters and come up a new creation.

However, since Scripture does not contradict itself; what would the Jew, Nicodemus, have immediately thought of, the OT purification ceremony. How does that relate to salvation, you must be purified, cleansed from all unrighteousness by Faith, which in turn you will receive & be sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Nicodemus may have thought of the baptism of John , but so did those in the NT who only knew of John’s baptism. Here is the passage:

Acts 19:4-7
4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

These men were baptized with John’s baptism; however, Paul baptized them into the name of the Lord Jesus just as he himself had been baptized by Ananias (cf. Acts 9), then Paul also laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. This latter is the sacrament of Confirmation. Baptism and Confirmation. Water and Spirit.

Water and Spirit. Water and Spirit. Water and Spirit.

Over and over and over again from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[panevino]

…
Again, notice the order, make disciples (saved) and (or) then baptize them, this is at least speaking of water baptism. Plus you must look at the previous versus to really get the context.

Mark 16:16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

christian water baptism is shown in acts 8:36 after declaration of belief in jesus.
it also only called baptism after being in the water.

acts 8:36 kjv - And 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? 37 And 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. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him

Mark 16:16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
prerequisite to be saved is belief and baptism
prerequisite to be condemed is no belief. (note ‘no belief’ would make baptism bear no fruit even if it was carried out)
inother words the second half of mark 16:16 does not negate need for baptism to be saved. second half of 16:16 reinforces that you must believe. and in turn reinforces that baptism is only valid if you believe.

CCC - “…fruits of sacraments depend on disposition of recipient…” (ie: no faith = no fruits…per mark 16:16 whoever believes and…)

it is the submission of heart/body to being baptised in water and born again.
per jesus words in john 3:5 ‘born of water and spirit’

regarding 1 peter 3:20

…eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledgee of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

I assume your view about the meaning of “not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledgee of a good conscience toward God” is essentially that water is meaningless. (sorry if I have this wrong - too many different views from protestants on what water means)

if so, in your view why does Peter bother to mention water at all and say the words ‘saved through water’ if it is only the belief of noah that saved him and saves us. I assume you have an answer, I am not posting this to stump you, I am interested to hear it.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

christian water baptism is shown in acts 8:36 after declaration of belief in jesus.
it also only called baptism after being in the water.

acts 8:36 kjv - And 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? 37 And 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. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him

Mark 16:16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
prerequisite to be saved is belief and baptism
prerequisite to be condemed is no belief. (note ‘no belief’ would make baptism bear no fruit even if it was carried out)
inother words the second half of mark 16:16 does not negate need for baptism to be saved. second half of 16:16 reinforces that you must believe. and in turn reinforces that baptism is only valid if you believe.

CCC - “…fruits of sacraments depend on disposition of recipient…” (ie: no faith = no fruits…per mark 16:16 whoever believes and…)

it is the submission of heart/body to being baptised in water and born again.
per jesus words in john 3:5 ‘born of water and spirit’

regarding 1 peter 3:20

I assume your view about the meaning of “not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledgee of a good conscience toward God” is essentially that water is meaningless. (sorry if I have this wrong - too many different views from protestants on what water means)

if so, in your view why does Peter bother to mention water at all and say the words ‘saved through water’ if it is only the belief of noah that saved him and saves us. I assume you have an answer, I am not posting this to stump you, I am interested to hear it.

It is a portrait of Salvation, which is clearly apart from a drop of water. How much water hit Noah and the other seven? What does the water represent; clue it killed everything on earth except for eight? The prior verses are the salvation message and the portrait of the 8 being saved from judgment is pictured with the flood & Ark, the flood water of judgment being poured out on all of creation, in the safety of the Ark, which is the safety of being “immersed into Christ”. Who sealed the Ark door? The Holy Spirit. Who seals the Christian into Christ? The Holy Spirit. What is the true “immersion/baptism”? See John 1 and what John the Baptist told us in no uncertain terms.

I’m starting to believe that when Jesus said he would only talk in parables at a certain point in His ministry, which was a judgment, because a parable that is not explained is meaningless to the hearer. I believe this water baptism works in a similar manner; those that get the salvation message and actually receive the free Gift of God; don’t go around thanking God for water baptism or ritual or tradition. Not only that, but if people just read what John the Baptist said about water baptism; they should have a clue. If people would see how God saved the OT saints, which is the same as the NT saints; they would have a clue. I am beginning to see why God said it is hard to be saved, which is why the disciples asked Jesus “Are only a few being saved Lord?” In essence and sadly the Lord implicitly said yes.

Anytime you see water baptism in relation to a salvation message it is always hear the message, believe the gospel on faith, receive the HS, then water baptized. At what point is the person saved? The only apparent exception is Acts 2:38 because the way it is rendered in English does not give the context. But there are at least 3 other examples, two from Peter in Acts 10 & Acts 11 that clearly state when one is saved and it is before a single person was immersed in water. Then the evidence of the true baptism, which is that of the Holy Spirit, which seals the Christian into Christ. He is referred to as the Spirit of Promise, the word is the same word we use for earnest or down payment for what is guaranteed for later. The power of religions are incredible.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

This is correct. The sacrament of baptism was instituted after the resurrection when Jesus commanded the Apostles to “make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This baptism does not refer to baptism in the Holy Spirit but to water baptism. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be baptized, and Jesus commanded the Apostles to baptize the nations. The two passages are part of a harmonious whole.

Trying to have it both ways again.

The only problem seems to be your presuppositions. Yes, Nicodemus was a Jew. So was Jesus, all the Apostles and all the earliest converts. So what? Peter stood up in front of a large crowd of Jews on the day of Pentecost and proclaimed loudly what Jesus had whispered to Nicodemus privately: You must be baptized, and you will receive the Holy Spirit. These are two separate but closely related things. The OT passages which you love to dismiss clearly tie the presence of the Spirit with the passage through water. This is no coincidence. The OT passages pre-figure the passage from death to life that we take when we go down into the baptismal waters and come up a new creation.

Twist; you have no idea what pre-figured means in it context. Read the versus dealing with death burial and resurrection and connect it with Romans 4. Ask, how much water hit Noah and his family? What does the water represent then? How is that prefigure water baptism? It does pre-figure the immersion into Christ at the movement one believes by faith and then sealed by the Holy Spirit, just as the Holy Spirit sealed the 8 in the Ark.

However, since Scripture does not contradict itself; what would the Jew, Nicodemus, have immediately thought of, the OT purification ceremony. How does that relate to salvation, you must be purified, cleansed from all unrighteousness by Faith, which in turn you will receive & be sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Nicodemus may have thought of the baptism of John , but so did those in the NT who only knew of John’s baptism. Here is the passage:

Acts 19:4-7
4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

Proof positive that water doesn’t save, but the Holy Spirit baptism is the true baptism; you prove the point right here. What else you do not see is the bigger picture in this scene, this is the only place where people believed, but did not receive the holy Spirit right away; why? What was God’s purpose for the delay? There is a great purpose, but there is no way can understand but might want to look and see if can determine what the purpose was; it is quite fascinating, but it is solid meat as well.

These men were baptized with John’s baptism; however, Paul baptized them into the name of the Lord Jesus just as he himself had been baptized by Ananias (cf. Acts 9), then Paul also laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. This latter is the sacrament of Confirmation. Baptism and Confirmation. Water and Spirit.

Another good example of the order of salvation, where water baptism is the ordinance and not the means of salvation; like I said the only time it is not consistent with the order is Acts 2:38, which should be a big fat red flag to the reader that something is not right or the Bible is wrong. “Repent for the forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit, then be baptized in the Name of the Lord” (paraphrased) It can be rendered in this way in Acts 2:38 and not effect the grammatical structure of the Greek and then and only then be in accordance with the rest of Scripture. But people bent on water saving cannot be swayed to the truth no matter how the other explicit evidence of Scripture is given; this is not limited to Catholic teaching, but also many Protestant denominations.

Water and Spirit. Water and Spirit. Water and Spirit. Cannot save; Christ and Him alone; no water added.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Thank for for the multiple blessing and I pray God will bless you one day in like manner

I presented a well laid out Biblical based, using Scripture as proof, and you just pointed multiple fingers.

What you presented is YOUR twist on scripture. You cherry picked SOME verses from scripture that seem to support YOUR theories and ignored others. Why do you even labor to do any of this. WHY do you think you must go out and find new meaning to the scriptures as if there has been a 2000 year old mistake in the handed down teachings of The Church on HOW Christians baptised and WHAT they believed? We KNOW already what our early Christian brothers did and believed since it is handed DIRECTLY down to us in the Catholic Church for 2000 years. It is an open record of simple historical fact. Go read some early church history – we have an abundance of ECF historical records.

There was NEVER any belief in the new neo-Christian ideas concerning baptism of the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism that have “come out” very recently in the last 200 or so years from the so called evangelical and fundamentalist Christian traditions. In fact NONE of these traditions or teachings have ANY genesis in apostolic teaching. There is NO MYSTERY here on what early Christians believed and what Catholics still preach and practice. So WHY on earth are you trying to re-engineer from a strange collage of scripture a new theology and belief? You are on extremely spiritually dangerous ground here and in direct conflict with the teachings that we Catholics have handed down for 2000 years. You have not a single case of any believer in your “system of conjecture” of a SINGLE soul being saved. Not one. So why do you feel compelled to invent something new???

Let me ask you to explain away the following passages that Peter gave us:
Acts 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 …

When does one become a Christian? When they believe by faith, then are sealed immediately by the HS? Are they Christians here or not?

You can’t see the workings of the authority of Peter here? It is Peter as head of the Church using his AUTHORITY to bring forth a sign to PROVE to the Jews that He spoke with the authority of Christ himself. This is a simple sign of PETERS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY as HEAD OF CHURCH to RULE in one of his very first UNIVERSAL (i.e. CATHOLIC) dogmas - namely salvation for all mankind and NOT just the Jewish converts. These men who were empowered by the Holy Spirit were NOT baptised by The Holy Spirit here but were rather living instruments to demonstrate the ecclesial authority of St. Peter to speak for the entire Church and to convince the Jewish converts that they had to submit to a universal salvation AND Peter’s authority. You see right away that Peter THEN commands they be baptised – which is a sacrament as well as a formal recognition and acceptance into The Body of Christ - The Catholic Church. This verse POWERFULLY demonstrates the importance of baptism as NOT mere ritual. Peter’s ordering the baptism is the directed purpose and objective behind the demonstration of Peter’s authority to speak for The Church.

Acts 11:13-18
And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 **Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. **17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 18 …
Are these people Christians? Is there a single drop of water anywhere? Where is it; was it left out by accident?

Again we have a profound demonstration of Peter’s ecclesial AUTHORITY where God used a vision (no water in visions btw) to impress on Peter His pleasure in granting BAPTISM for the Gentiles. Don’t you think if baptism were not important God would have gone to so much trouble to bring Peter into this as His spokesperson on the necessity of baptising the gentiles? The principal lessons in these verses are the absolute authority of Peter to speak as the Vicar of Christ’s Church. The necessity of baptism is already an establised requirement and practice from The Lord’s very own example He himself did in being baptised.

The bottom line here is that you seem fixated on reinventing what the Church has always believed and done relative to baptism. Do YOU really think that YOU from a distance of 2000 years from the early church can reverse engineer what We full apostolic Catholic-Christian have always believed and taught since Pentecost? WHY are you trying to reinvent the wheel? Did God appear to you in a dram and tell you to go correct 2000 years of erroneous teachings? Who gave you YOUR authority to teach a new gospel?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

It is a portrait of Salvation, which is clearly apart from a drop of water. How much water hit Noah and the other seven? What does the water represent; clue it killed everything on earth except for eight?

I suppose you imagine Noah and his family escaped the **sprinkling **of rain?

The prior verses are the salvation message and the portrait of the 8 being saved from judgment is pictured with the flood & Ark, the flood water of judgment being poured out on all of creation, in the safety of the Ark, which is the safety of being “immersed into Christ”. Who sealed the Ark door? The Holy Spirit. Who seals the Christian into Christ? The Holy Spirit. What is the true “immersion/baptism”? …

This all “interesting” spiritualizing but does not hold water with respect to deeper theology. The Arc has deeper theological dimension. It both The Church as the Body of Christ AND the Bride of Christ being purified and brought safely through the deluge.

You are disordered in trying to draw parallels between the word “seal” viz the the door to the Arc. The seal of the Holy Spirit is a MARK (as in a signet ring’s seal) NOT a seal in the sense of virginity as you would attempt to make it here (although there are valid theological connections to Mary here as the Arc of the Covenant). You are mixing too many metaphors and cross-wiring semantics because you completely lack any apostolic context and are trying to reverse engineer the bible to fit to your preconceived and externally taught private revelations that somone without any biblical scholarship or apostolic teaching has put into your head.

I’m starting to believe that when Jesus said he would only talk in parables at a certain point in His ministry, which was a judgment, because a parable that is not explained is meaningless to the hearer. I believe this water baptism works in a similar manner; those that get the salvation message and actually receive the free Gift of God; don’t go around thanking God for water baptism or ritual or tradition…

This is complete hooey. Christ came to save not to judge and condemn. The second coming is when He comes as Just Judge. When Christ spoke in parables He ALWAYS gave an explanation. The parables were used to silence and confound the wise and to silence and humble them. They immediately put Jesus in the role of teacher-student relationship since none could fathom divine wisdom without his teachings. And this is another reason why you should not try to invent your own interpretations of scripture outside of the apostolic teaching context.

It sounds to me like your modus operandi here is all based on a gnostic like search for hidden wisdom and mysteries locked away in hidden scripture meaning. But the core gospel message is very simple really - repent - be baptised - love God and neighbor (charity) – pray - be merciful to each other - stay true to teachings and the authority of The Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth.

You are using these forums as a sounding board to flesh out a new theology that works for you. But Christianity while highly compatible with reason is not premised on head knowledge but rather the law of love written on each man’s heart. God has a plan for The children and the mentally handicapped who lack the intellectual facilities - its called baptism.

Anytime you see water baptism in relation to a salvation message it is always hear the message, believe the gospel on faith, receive the HS, then water baptized. At what point is the person saved? The only apparent exception is Acts 2:38 because the way it is rendered in English does not give the context. But there are at least 3 other examples, two from Peter in Acts 10 & Acts 11 that clearly state when one is saved and it is before a single person was immersed in water…

This is just not so. The very first message we hear is “REPENT for the kingdom of God is at hand.” Before Christ even chose any apostles it was just John the Baptist BAPTISING a baptism of repentance. Christ kicked it up a notch when he entered the waters and sanctified them by his Holy presence and preached that we must be baptised. But the BREATH of God, the very same breath that danced over the oceans of earth in Genesis before there was land was AGAIN breathed on ADAM and AGAIN on The Apostles when Chrsist gave the apostolic authority to forgive sins and baptise in his name and teach His gospel. No one but the apostolic Church, the Catholic Church has this God breathed authority and guarantee of guidance by the Holy Spirit.

A prayer that is said daily in Catholic masses world wide has a passage from Zacharias’s Prophecy:
*Luke 1:76-77 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
For you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO PREPARE HIS WAYS; 77 To give to His people the knowledge of salvation By the forgiveness of their sins, *

Did you see and hear that? BY THE FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SINS is what ushers in the teaching of salvation. And it all starts with John the Baptist doing what? Teaching salvation by repentance and baptism and Christ ratifying it be submitting to baptism also.

Your other SERIOUSLY flaw here is imagining that salvation is a one time event and done deal after speaking some magical words (sinner’s prayer???) or after gaining some head knowledge (it’s just too bad for the out of luck and grace children and mentally handicapped huh?).

You have So many errors and poor assumptions in your thinking and personal theology that its very hard to even know where to start to help get you sorted out here.

We need to take your zeal and get in harnessed to a true apostolic teaching framework and directed toward building up Christ’s Church.

James

 

[panevino]

Originally Posted by panevino
christian water baptism is shown in acts 8:36 only called baptism after being in the water…
…Mark 16:16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but but whoever does not believe will be condemned. -------prerequisite to be saved is belief and baptism
CCC - “…fruits of sacraments depend on disposition of recipient…” (ie: no faith = no fruits…per mark 16:16 whoever believes and…)…
regarding 1 peter 3:20
…
if so, in your view why does Peter bother to mention water at all…

posted by Timothy Piper
It is a portrait of Salvation, which is clearly apart from a drop of water. How much water hit Noah and the other seven? What does the water represent; clue it killed everything on earth except for eight?

problem I have is Peter says ‘saved through water’…he is using it as a positive example of the new baptism, he is not refering tho the death of the waters - why would he be saying the death prefigures baptism that now saves…
i guess your interpretation (ie: …killed everything…) may also suggest the water acted as a cleansing of humanity, saving humainity so we could read the water as being a symbol of salvation through cleansing of conceince and removal of non belief
then ontop of this jesus says born of water and spirit in jn 3:5
what is the water in john 3:5 for you?
does it have a different meaning to you than the death in the noah story (I assume it does)
do you say water in john 3:5 is

1. holy spirit 2. people/physical birth/water in womb 3. word of god
   perhaps the water is a symbol of the cleansing of the conscnenice, but i believe the action of submitting to being baptised in water is required per mark 16:16 and as shown in the story of the eunach/philllip acts 8:36
   (I mean it is actually called ‘baptised’ when he gets out of the water…after he declares belief in jesus… i dont see it getting much more clearer than that, apart from Jesus being baptised in water and the HS descending after getting out of water)
   So if the eunachs christian baptism in water is called baptism … then is it not somewhat clear that when john says ‘He will baptise with the HS’, that christian baptism involves water and spirit, like jesus says in John 3:5.
   you appear to be against ritual/sacrament… but is not jesus sacrafice one of the biggest fullfillments of ritual there is… (something that atleast protestants recall in the lords supper symbolically ) it was a required physical submission of himself.
   dont we walk in his path (in some limited way) by submitting to being born again in water/spirit?have you also seen the action between jesus and Peter regarding the washing of Peter feet…(I am not saying this is a sign of baptism) but Jesus says to Peter that unless he does it Peter can have not part with him…john 13:8 … ignoring the use of water in this story, this is definately a ritual (in positive sense of the word)….john 13:15 For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you…

, The prior verses are the salvation message and the portrait of the 8 being saved from judgment is pictured with the flood & Ark, the flood water of judgment being poured out on all of creation, in the safety of the Ark, which is the safety of being “immersed into Christ”. Who sealed the Ark door? The Holy Spirit. Who seals the Christian into Christ? The Holy Spirit. What is the true “immersion/baptism”? See John 1 and what John the Baptist told us in no uncertain terms.

correct true immersion/conversion is in the heart/consience/beilief, but I beilieve this also reveals itself in the actual/required submission of self to the act of being submersed/sprinkled in water. just as jesus literally had to go through with all he endured…

I’m starting to believe that when Jesus said he would only talk in parables at a certain point in His ministry, …; don’t go around thanking God for water baptism or ritual or tradition.

see above

Not only that, but if people just read what John the Baptist said about water baptism; they should have a clue.

per above - plus - johns baptism in water is superseded by the christian baptism in water as highlighted by john himself, illustrated by jesus in his baptism, and by Paul when he differentiates the christian baptism from Johns in Act 19:2-5, with christian water baptism shown with eunach in acts 8:36

If people would see how God saved the OT saints, which is the same as the NT saints; they would have a clue.

how were the OT saints saved to you…would be better to understand b4 trying to respond here

I am beginning to see why God said it is hard to be saved, which is why the disciples asked Jesus “Are only a few being saved Lord?” In essence and sadly the Lord implicitly said yes.
Anytime you see water baptism in relation to a salvation message it is always hear the message, believe the gospel on faith, receive the HS, then water baptized.

sure sounds right, does not mean water baptism is not also required At what point is the person saved? ignoring requirements to abide in him after baptism, i say it is per jesus words in jn 3:5 water and spirit, and mark 16:16 (incl water baptism) with exceptions as god not bound by sacrament per thief on cross, martyrdom etc…The only apparent exception is Acts 2:38 because the way it is rendered in English does not give the context. can you elaborate, if you have time…

But there are at least 3 other examples, two from Peter in Acts 10 & Acts 11 that clearly state when one is saved and it is before a single person was immersed in water. … The power of religions are incredible.

power of religions? - are you against religion? are you saying that religion/tradition corrupt the message…
james 1:26-27

 

[Timothy_Piper]

What you presented is YOUR twist on scripture. You cherry picked SOME verses from scripture that seem to support YOUR theories and ignored others. Why do you even labor to do any of this. WHY do you think you must go out and find new meaning to the scriptures as if there has been a 2000 year old mistake in the handed down teachings of The Church on HOW Christians baptised and WHAT they believed? We KNOW already what our early Christian brothers did and believed since it is handed DIRECTLY down to us in the Catholic Church for 2000 years. It is an open record of simple historical fact. Go read some early church history – we have an abundance of ECF historical records.

There was NEVER any belief in the new neo-Christian ideas concerning baptism of the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism that have “come out” very recently in the last 200 or so years from the so called evangelical and fundamentalist Christian traditions. In fact NONE of these traditions or teachings have ANY genesis in apostolic teaching. There is NO MYSTERY here on what early Christians believed and what Catholics still preach and practice. So WHY on earth are you trying to re-engineer from a strange collage of scripture a new theology and belief? You are on extremely spiritually dangerous ground here and in direct conflict with the teachings that we Catholics have handed down for 2000 years. You have not a single case of any believer in your “system of conjecture” of a SINGLE soul being saved. Not one. So why do you feel compelled to invent something new???

You can’t see the workings of the authority of Peter here? It is Peter as head of the Church using his AUTHORITY to bring forth a sign to PROVE to the Jews that He spoke with the authority of Christ himself. This is a simple sign of PETERS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY as HEAD OF CHURCH to RULE in one of his very first UNIVERSAL (i.e. CATHOLIC) dogmas - namely salvation for all mankind and NOT just the Jewish converts. These men who were empowered by the Holy Spirit were NOT baptised by The Holy Spirit here but were rather living instruments to demonstrate the ecclesial authority of St. Peter to speak for the entire Church and to convince the Jewish converts that they had to submit to a universal salvation AND Peter’s authority. You see right away that Peter THEN commands they be baptised – which is a sacrament as well as a formal recognition and acceptance into The Body of Christ - The Catholic Church. This verse POWERFULLY demonstrates the importance of baptism as NOT mere ritual. Peter’s ordering the baptism is the directed purpose and objective behind the demonstration of Peter’s authority to speak for The Church.

Again we have a profound demonstration of Peter’s ecclesial AUTHORITY where God used a vision (no water in visions btw) to impress on Peter His pleasure in granting BAPTISM for the Gentiles. Don’t you think if baptism were not important God would have gone to so much trouble to bring Peter into this as His spokesperson on the necessity of baptising the gentiles? The principal lessons in these verses are the absolute authority of Peter to speak as the Vicar of Christ’s Church. The necessity of baptism is already an establised requirement and practice from The Lord’s very own example He himself did in being baptised.

The bottom line here is that you seem fixated on reinventing what the Church has always believed and done relative to baptism. Do YOU really think that YOU from a distance of 2000 years from the early church can reverse engineer what We full apostolic Catholic-Christian have always believed and taught since Pentecost? WHY are you trying to reinvent the wheel? Did God appear to you in a dram and tell you to go correct 2000 years of erroneous teachings? Who gave you YOUR authority to teach a new gospel?

James

I stand on my first assertion that you are good at pointing fingers and have shown no ability to refute error and teach the truth as presented in Scripture. Again, I thank God for the blessing you give and do pray He will return the same toward you.