Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[po18guy]

However, the descriptions used to describe physical fleshly birth do not include water. They are blood, flesh, and the will of man. Spiritual birth (regeneration) occurs with water and spirit. Would you not agree that one is not regenerated upon physical birth?

Curious that some who teach the amniotic “water” regeneration do not adhere to the teaching or concept of original sin. No re-generation is needed if one never suffered de-generation (original sin).

 

[po18guy]

Are you saying that the church existed before the bible?

Choose one: A. “And on this Rock I found my bible” - or- B. “And on this Rock I found my church”

Are you saying that we can pick and choose different passages that fit our own personal beliefs?

That has become the hallmark of certain denominations. The cherrypicking of scripture, many times out of context, can lead one astray. Scripture OT+NT is a seamless garment, a continuum of God’s covenants with man. Thus, it must be examined and considered in light of its entirety.

 

[po18guy]

That is simply an exercise of ones freedom to do whatever he likes with his fingers. But that would not change the fact that baptism, in the manner taught by the Church, is still necessary.

To some degree, greater or lesser, we are all Pharisees. They certainly didn’t enjoy hearing the Truth, and neither do we.

Christ’s peace.

 

[NonDenom]

mercygate;
Believers’ only baptism did not appear until the 17th century. The ancient Churches accept the consistent practice of the Church rather than a novel reading of Scripture that emerged 1600 years after the Holy Spirit descended upon the Church at Pentecost.

Really, the Bible is chalked full of “Believers Baptisms”

 

[mercygate]

Really, the Bible is chalked full of “Believers Baptisms”

Of COURSE it is. The first converts were, necessarily, adults. Churches that baptize infants also baptize adults. This is a non-question.

This thread is not about believer’s versus infant baptism. It is about whether WATER is necessary.

 

[agangbern]

To some degree, greater or lesser, we are all Pharisees. They certainly didn’t enjoy hearing the Truth, and neither do we.

Christ’s peace.

That still does not prove anything that water is not necessary in baptism.

 

[tabcom]

This thread is . . . about whether WATER is necessary.

mercygate, this point is why I’ve been on this subject for months now.

My wife and I went to the doctor’s yesterday, here are the results of that visit:
i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/tabcom/baby/img224.jpg
i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/tabcom/baby/img232.jpg

Sometime around March 11th, Elijah Bush is going to be born.

It is my belief that, if he is the Elect of God, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire has already happened.

After participating in this forum for all these months, I have learned much. I’ve changed my opinion on a few things along the way.

To quote Alfred Edersheim, “Only those who have made study of it can have any idea how large, and sometimes bewildering, is the literature on the subject of Jewish Proselytes and their Baptism”.

At first, I believed water baptism was an empty ritual. I have now changed my opinion of it. I believe water baptism is an evolution of the Jewish Proselyte Baptism.

By that I mean,** water baptism is a public demonstration of ones desire to belong to a Christian\Catholic community.**

For some, that can be as good as any starting point for a lifetime commitment to serving God.

 

[Church_Militant]

It is my belief that, if he is the Elect of God, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire has already happened.

Can you provide any scriptural support for that belief, specifically, that this occurs in the womb?

By that I mean,** water baptism is a public demonstration of ones desire to belong to a Christian\Catholic community.**

Only partially correct. In context see Acts 2:38 and 22:16 to see that the Word of God teaches that it is necessary for the forgiveness of and washing away of sins. That is specifically what the New Testament teaches and the Gospel that the Apostles themselves preached.

 

[mercygate]

mercygate, this point is why I’ve been on this subject for months now.

My wife and I went to the doctor’s yesterday, here are the results of that visit:
i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/tabcom/baby/img224.jpg
i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/tabcom/baby/img232.jpg

Sometime around March 11th, Elijah Bush is going to be born.

It is my belief that, if he is the Elect of God, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire has already happened.

After participating in this forum for all these months, I have learned much. I’ve changed my opinion on a few things along the way.

To quote Alfred Edersheim, “Only those who have made study of it can have any idea how large, and sometimes bewildering, is the literature on the subject of Jewish Proselytes and their Baptism”.

At first, I believed water baptism was an empty ritual. I have now changed my opinion of it. I believe water baptism is an evolution of the Jewish Proselyte Baptism.

By that I mean,** water baptism is a public demonstration of ones desire to belong to a Christian\Catholic community.**

For some, that can be as good as any starting point for a lifetime commitment to serving God.

WOW! Great pictures! Is it any wonder that these machines are the nemesis of the pro-abortion movement?

So in your mind, Elijah (my favorite OT Saint), may not be among the elect. I would counsel you to take heart, my friend, and repose in I Tim 2:4 “God our Savior . . . desires all men to be saved”.

Catholics believe in free will. That predestination is not “double” as you seem to understand it here. All are predestined to Christ but may in the exercise of their free will turn away. Free will is an essential component of love. Without free will we cannot love. God desires us to love him freely.

Catholics agree with you that Baptism is a public demonstration. Secret baptism may be performed only under highly limited circumstances, in times of danger or duress. We also believe, however, that it DOES what it signs when it is done in faith.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe Mathew 3:11 has overwhelmed him so much as to be obsessed about it to the point of trying to dismiss historical records which shows that the early Christians used water in the rite of baptism.

As I recall, he has not yet moved on to the early fathers. He was about to get to them when he got interrupted by summer.

I gather that his take on it would be that they missed the mark, and that Jesus NEVER meant for them to water baptize. Instead, they forsook grace,and falling back into their own pride they began within one generation to believe that they could save themselves using water. I am just guessing, based on what I have learned so far. Perhaps when he is through with this thread, which he says will be soon, we can move on to the fathers.

And he thinks that the baptism performed by John the Baptist’s is such “proselyte” baptism also performed upon Jesus! That belief would be very incredible because then, before John the Baptist arrived, there would have been no “proselyte” baptism.

Oh, yes, there was. In fact, many types of ablutions were performed in various sects, including the Essenes. What is curious is his reasoning about why Jesus is a proselyte. Scripture tells us that Jesus was born a Jew, under the covenant. He was circumcised on the 8th day, and at age 12, was found in the temple, conversing with the elders. None of these things happen to a proselyte. Proselytes (especially before circumcision) are considered Gentiles and were not allowed beyond the Court of the Gentiles in the temple. However, his belief is that Jesus, since he was born outside of Jerusalem, woudl be considered a Gentile.

Good for him! But then one would have to wonder: Who appointed or authorized him to do such very delicate undertaking? The Lord said, “Apart from me, you can do nothing.”

Tabcom believes that he is walking with God, and that the HS enlightens his studies. He is working hard to understand the meaning of the texts, which is difficult when you have to reject 2000 years of faith and scholarship!

 

[guanophore]

Alfred Edersheim first published his book in 1883. He has extensive historical records through out the book – its over 1000 pages long!

Rereading the passage about Nicodemus, There is an interesting footnote on p. 264 regarding the original of the idea of ‘born of water’. If you are interested, PM me and I’ll try to scan the footnote and send it to you. I warn you though – the book is so big that I’m not sure if it will scan properly.

Why don’t you post it here in parts? If not, and you can scan, send it to me too!

 

[guanophore]

The following question is off topic – sort of.

Can anyone cite where the expression ‘she broke her water’ came from? I know when my wife’s water breaks in three months, we’ll be off to the delivery room at the hospital.

I don’t think it is off topic, since we are trying to discern what Jesus meant by “born from above by water and spirit”. The NT writers described physical birth using the terms “blood, flesh, and will of man”. We know that Jesus was not talking about water in relation to baptism because this is an “again” birth of water and spirit, not the first birth. Nicodemus understood it to be an “again” birth, because he asked “how shall I enter again into my mother’s womb”? He was taking Jesus literally, which he should do, as Jesus meant it literally.

 

[guanophore]

google: ‘dr. abbott tubingen school’.

To summarize the google search, Dr. Abbott would argue that the Gospel of John was written after the Christian Church was established and water baptism was instituted.

I concur with Dr. Abbott on this point. Baptism with water was prefigured in the OT in several areas, and validated by John. Jesus sanctified the waters when He was baptized, and taught His disciples to baptize for repentance. When the HS was poured out, it was then possible to baptize with spirit and fire, and this became incorporated into the water baptism. Just prior to His resurrection, Jesus instructed his disciples to baptize all in His name. Therefore, this practice was at least 3 years old when He ascended to heaven, and then was followed by the early church for as much as 60 years (depending on when you date John) prior to the gospel.

 

[guanophore]

Whether the Church existed before the New Testament was written is not the point. It did. When the flames descended upon those gathered in the Upper Room – the point most Christians agree is the “birthday of the Church” – not a syllable of the New Testament had yet been penned. But that is why tabcom’s position is so hard to understand. Baptism is associated all over the NT with water, not just in the Nicodemus passage.

That is the only conclusion that could be derived from saying that baptism with water is a late insertion into the text.

I think the Catholic church teaches that the She was born when water and blood flowed from the side of Christ at the Crucifixion. However, I think even Protestants would agree that she was empowered upon Pentecost.

 

[guanophore]

Really, the Bible is chalked full of “Believers Baptisms”

Yes, but the idea that one could ONLY be baptized as an adult after a confession of faith was very recent. The ancient Church has been baptizing babies, children, and disabled persons since Pentecost.

 

[Church_Militant]

Really, the Bible is chalked full of “Believers Baptisms”

And what does the Word of God say about those baptisms (bringing this back onto topic)?
Acts 2:38 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Go ahead…read those passages and tell us what they say the imperative reason for being baptized was.

Of COURSE it is. The first converts were, necessarily, adults. Churches that baptize infants also baptize adults. This is a non-question.

Exactly! Moreover, there is more than ample scripture to support that adult baptism wasn’t the only kind practiced. But you can’t run Sola Fide and do both, so when n-Cs embrace it they lose the truth of what the Word of God really teaches about baptism.

This thread is not about believer’s versus infant baptism. It is about whether WATER is necessary.

Yes, but the idea that one could ONLY be baptized as an adult after a confession of faith was very recent. The ancient Church has been baptizing babies, children, and disabled persons since Pentecost.

 

[tabcom]

WOW! Great pictures!

Thank you. Today’s my wifes birthday – what a great present those pictures are to her.

So in your mind, Elijah (my favorite OT Saint), may not be among the elect?

I Tim 2:4 “God our Savior . . . desires all men to be saved”.

That predestination is not “double” as you seem to understand it here.

To answer your first question – no.

Regarding 1 Tim 2:4 and ‘double’ predestination, I was the author of a lengthy disccusion on predestiation. In that thread, I outline in much detail that the English word ‘all’ does not mean every human being that ever lived for all time. Also, in those threads, I go into much detail as to why I don’t believe in double predestination, nor OSAS either.

 

[Church_Militant]

Thank you. Today’s my wifes birthday – what a great present those pictures are to her.

Best wishes to that lady. She, like my youngest son, shares her birthday with St. Augustine of Hippo.

To answer your first question – no.

Regarding 1 Tim 2:4 and ‘double’ predestination, I was the author of a lengthy disccusion on predestiation. In that thread, I outline in much detail that the English word ‘all’ does not mean every human being that ever lived for all time. Also, in those threads, I go into much detail as to why I don’t believe in double predestination, nor OSAS either.

This has nothing to do with this topic.Better to send such via PM.

 

[tabcom]

Can you provide any scriptural support for that belief, specifically, that (Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire) occurs in the womb?

Holy Spirit = Truth (John 14:16,17- John 15:26 – John 16:13- I John 5:6)
Doing Truth = coming to the Light (John 3:21)
Those that are in the Light where predestinated (1 John 1:5-7)
Those that were predestinated; God foreknew (Rom 8:29)
That foreknowledge occurred before birth (Rom 9:11)

 

[agangbern]

tabcom:
Originally Posted by Church Militant View Post
Can you provide any scriptural support for that belief, specifically, that (Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire) occurs in the womb?

Holy Spirit = Truth (John 14:16,17- John 15:26 – John 16:13- I John 5:6)
Doing Truth = coming to the Light (John 3:21)
Those that are in the Light where predestinated (1 John 1:5-7)
Those that were predestinated; God foreknew (Rom 8:29)
That foreknowledge occurred before birth (Rom 9:11)

Ngakk! What does that answer trying to say?