C
Church_Militant
Guest
Am wondering essentially that same thing myself…Ngakk! What does that answer trying to say?
Am wondering essentially that same thing myself…Ngakk! What does that answer trying to say?
In mathematics, a transitive relationship occurs when the following are equivalent.Ngakk! What does that answer trying to say?
Yes, in mathematics there is that so-called transitive relationship. But how is that mathematical relationship applicable to the question raised by Church Militant? Are you trying to say that: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?
In mathematics, a transitive relationship occurs when the following are equivalent.
For instance, A = B and B = C, then also A = C.
What I was pointing out, through the use of a transitive relationship, is that the Holy Spirit is present in the child, in the womb.
btw, the word disciple means Mathetes (math-ay-tes) – a learner.
Now that this thread has drifted to page 3, I can assume that my statement is widely accepted by all that have participated.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.**
Baptism is necessary.Now that this thread has drifted to page 3, I can assume that my statement is widely accepted by all that have participated.
In conclusion, to answer the original question, ‘is immersion into water baptism necessary’?
My answer remains, as it has from the beginning, no.
None taken.No offense there tabcom, but I think I will stick with what the church has always taught on this one.
Do you still stick with fasting for one or two days before the baptism?The Didache
. . . Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).
Yes, Baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessary.Baptism is necessary.
Total immersion is not.
Is that what you are saying in the above quote?
With respects to the list you provided, in your own words, how does any of it refute what I stated.No offense there tabcom, but I think I will stick with what the church has always taught on this one.
By that I mean, water baptism is a public demonstration of ones desire to belong to a Christian\Catholic community.
No, no. Tabcom thinks that Christian baptism has NOTHING to do with water, and the reason that people get water baptized is because of arrogance and not understanding the Bible. He translated the relevant passages himself from the Greek, and says that Acts really should read “forbid water” to those who received the Spirit when Peter preached to them.Baptism is necessary.
Total immersion is not.
Is that what you are saying in the above quote?
It depends upon the Rite. Most of the Eastern Rites do, yes. However, all the Apostolic Churches have baptized infants since the beginning, and no one expects a baby to “fast”. those instructions are for adult converts.None taken.
When you say, ‘always taught’ . . .
Do you still stick with fasting for one or two days before the baptism?
With respects to the list you provided, in your own words, how does any of it refute what I stated.
Certainly baptism is a public demonstration, but there is much more to it than that. It may well be an evolution of proselyte baptism. It washes away sins, and it is administered to infants because we are born with original sin. It is regenerative, in the sense that the HS enters the heart of the baptized, and dwells there, making the heart able to learn of God. If necessary, I suppose we can go through the fathers one by each on these matters.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.
Agreed. For Catholics the Holy Spirit comes WITH water baptism. This distinguishes Christian baptism from the Baptism of John. Is this “fire”? Yes. Christ came to “cast fire upon the earth” – That’s us.Yes, Baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessary.
What first got me curious about the ambiguity of the meaning of baptism was when I first read John the Baptist account of what kind of Baptism Jesus is going to bring in Mt 3:11 -
"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Also, when I first read Eph 4:5 -
one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
OK, so I compiled a list that looks like this:
- There is only one baptism.
- John the Baptist says Jesus is going to Baptize in something other than water.
- That something other is the Holy Spirit.
4, Conclusion, Baptism = Holy Spirit.
Thank you for stating this as you did. I disagree because I believe it confuses the proselyte. By that I mean the proselyte is led to believe, falsely, that the act of being dipped in water is a switch that ‘turns on the Holy Spirit’ and now they are saved without having to do anything.For Catholics the Holy Spirit comes WITH water baptism.
Keep studying your family history there, tabcom, and you will realize two things:Thank you for stating this as you did. I disagree because I believe it confuses the proselyte. By that I mean the proselyte is led to believe, falsely, that the act of being dipped in water is a switch that ‘turns on the Holy Spirit’ and now they are saved without having to do anything.
The HS is not “subjected” to humans, however, Jesus ordained that our participation in His spirit of fire would be accomplished in a certain manner. Note that He did not tell the Apostles to baptize unbelievers, but persons who had been made disciples. Sometimes the outpouring of the HS does occur before water, as it did in the case of the house of Cornelius, but the Apostles taught and modelled that the two should never be separated from each other. That is why Peter stated that water should not be forbidden to the Gentiles.I believe the Holy Spirit’s presents is not subjected to the outwardly movement of, or sincere desire of the participant in water baptism. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a permanent change in the believer that precedes the believer’s desire to publicly be immersed in water.
amen! now we got someone on the right track.Yes, Baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessary.
What first got me curious about the ambiguity of the meaning of baptism was when I first read John the Baptist account of what kind of Baptism Jesus is going to bring in Mt 3:11 -
"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Also, when I first read Eph 4:5 -
one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
OK, so I compiled a list that looks like this:
- There is only one baptism.
- John the Baptist says Jesus is going to Baptize in something other than water.
- That something other is the Holy Spirit.
4, Conclusion, Baptism = Holy Spirit.
tabcom,Yes, Baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessary.
What first got me curious about the ambiguity of the meaning of baptism was when I first read John the Baptist account of what kind of Baptism Jesus is going to bring in Mt 3:11 -
"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Also, when I first read Eph 4:5 -
one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
OK, so I compiled a list that looks like this:
- There is only one baptism.
- John the Baptist says Jesus is going to Baptize in something other than water.
- That something other is the Holy Spirit.
4, Conclusion, Baptism = Holy Spirit.