Do you believe in Baptism ????

[stovebolts]

Ok I'll bite ;)

You say that Paul never entered the baptismal pool in Acts 9. Lets take a look.

Going back to John's baptism, we see that he baptized in the Jordan and as such, I don't think you'll dispute that water was present.

John's baptism was for the remission of sin for those who confessed their sin. Now then, we all know that neither John nor water are able remit sins, only God can remit sins. So we see early on that John's baptism was not his own work, but he was doing the work of the Lord and he did it through the agency of water. (Baptism)

In John's account, we see Jesus entering into the water. And when Jesus comes out of the Water, John the baptist sees the spirit coming down. Matthew 3:16 After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him.

Now then, Hebrew 101. A disciple was one that the Rabbi hand picked because the Rabbi believed that the disciple would among other things, be able to receive and do the things of the Rabbi. Clearly, it is shown that "After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him".

Not to trail off, but every good jewish boy knew this, and Peter knew this too, which is why he gets out of the boat.... because for a moment, he believes he can do what his Rabbi is doing and we learn that the Rabbi has faith that the disciple can do it... What you are saying, is that we cannot receive the Holy Spirit when we come out of the baptismal waters and that we cannot be like Jesus, or receive the things Jesus receives (Spirit)

Moving forward, we see this.
John 3:25 Now a dispute came about between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew concerning ceremonial washing. 3:26 So they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, the one who was with you on the other side of the Jordan River, about whom you testified – see, he is baptizing, and everyone is flocking to him!â€

It was his disciples, not Jesus. But never the less, they were baptizing with water...

And later, after his resurrection Jesus states,
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I see nothing in the teaching of Jesus in between that would show that the disciples would stop using water to baptize.

Jesus went into the baptismal waters and John saw the spirit descend upon him. How can we be followers of Christ if we won't even follow him into the water?

Lets start here, then we'll move to the baptism of Paul

 

[Mysteryman]

Ok I'll bite ;)

You say that Paul never entered the baptismal pool in Acts 9. Lets take a look.

Going back to John's baptism, we see that he baptized in the Jordan and as such, I don't think you'll dispute that water was present.

John's baptism was for the remission of sin for those who confessed their sin. Now then, we all know that neither John nor water are able remit sins, only God can remit sins. So we see early on that John's baptism was not his own work, but he was doing the work of the Lord and he did it through the agency of water. (Baptism)

In John's account, we see Jesus entering into the water. And when Jesus comes out of the Water, John the baptist sees the spirit coming down. Matthew 3:16 After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him.

Now then, Hebrew 101. A disciple was one that the Rabbi hand picked because the Rabbi believed that the disciple would among other things, be able to receive and do the things of the Rabbi. Clearly, it is shown that "After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him".

Not to trail off, but every good jewish boy knew this, and Peter knew this too, which is why he gets out of the boat.... because for a moment, he believes he can do what his Rabbi is doing and we learn that the Rabbi has faith that the disciple can do it... What you are saying, is that we cannot receive the Holy Spirit when we come out of the baptismal waters and that we cannot be like Jesus, or receive the things Jesus receives (Spirit)

Moving forward, we see this.
John 3:25 Now a dispute came about between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew concerning ceremonial washing. 3:26 So they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, the one who was with you on the other side of the Jordan River, about whom you testified – see, he is baptizing, and everyone is flocking to him!â€

It was his disciples, not Jesus. But never the less, they were baptizing with water...

And later, after his resurrection Jesus states,
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I see nothing in the teaching of Jesus in between that would show that the disciples would stop using water to baptize.

Jesus went into the baptismal waters and John saw the spirit descend upon him. How can we be followers of Christ if we won't even follow him into the water?

Lets start here, then we'll move to the baptism of Paul

Hi Jeff

I do my best to avoide long drag out conversations that actually accomplish nothing. So in order to cut to the chase, lets go right to the source shall we ?

John the baptist was a prophet of God who spoke for God. His prophecy was that he shall baptize you with Holy Spirit and fire - Matt. 3:11

Now, Jesus tells his disciples on the day that he ascended up into heaven. That John truely baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with Holy Spirit not many days hence - Acts 1:5

The word "baptize" does not mean water ! It means to cleanse. We were baptized into Christ's death. By his shedding of his blood we were cleansed from all unrighteousness.

Christ now does the baptizing, and no one else !

John baptized with water, and not joe blow or sam the shame snead, nor Peter , nor any of the disciples were to baptize with water, only John the baptist.

When Paul said that Christ did not send him to baptize. It means that Christ sent him to preach the gospel of Christ,which is much more important. That is because all has been accomplished in the shed blood of Christ. Baptizing is for the receiving the Holy Spirit into manifestation. The only act would be, if needed is the laying on of hands. Some will just believe and receive, as was the case of Cornelius and his family.

Paul was never water baptized, nor did he water baptize anyone ! This can not be found in scripture anywhere ! And if someone claims that he did water baptize, then they would be assuming . As the scriptures are clear, and concise, that it was John who water baptized. And it was for the fulfilling of the law of water cleansing ! John even thought he needed to be baptized by Christ. But Christ basically said no. Then Christ suffered him ! This act of Christ being water baptized was to fulfill the righteousness of the law.

If you can show with clarity, that Paul was baptized with water, and that he baptized others with water, and that he taught that they should baptize with water, please by all means bring the scriptures forward for our discussion.

Bless

 

[Mysteryman]

It should also be made perfectly clear, that God, and that means the apostle Paul as well. Never , ever asked the gentiles to do as the Jews did !

Water cleansing was of the law, and John's baptism , which was water cleansing, was brought about for Jesus to fulfill the law of water cleansing.

The gentiles were never - ever asked to do as the Jews did !

In fact, and it is a fact,that this is the reason that the book of Galatians was written.

Bless

 

[westtexas]

What is so funny ? Show scripture where the apostles water baptized, and also taught water baptism !

It appears that Cornelius already has cited Acts 8. Unless you think Philip was some rogue proto- protester going against what the Apostles were doing 'cause he wanted to start his own church, it seems that Philip, a student of the Apostles, was doing what he was taught - baptizing people in water and the Spirit of God.

Regards

MM, you didn't give C. an answer here. They went down to the water and he baptized him looks pretty clear. Acts 8:38

 

[westtexas]

Paul was never water baptized, nor did he water baptize anyone ! This can not be found in scripture anywhere ! And if someone claims that he did water baptize, then they would be assuming .

1 Cor. 1:14-16 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas (KJV)

I think I'll assume that Paul baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas since he said he did. Let me know what you assume that it means.

Westtexas

 

[Mysteryman]

What is so funny ? Show scripture where the apostles water baptized, and also taught water baptism !

It appears that Cornelius already has cited Acts 8. Unless you think Philip was some rogue proto- protester going against what the Apostles were doing 'cause he wanted to start his own church, it seems that Philip, a student of the Apostles, was doing what he was taught - baptizing people in water and the Spirit of God.

Regards

MM, you didn't give C. an answer here. They went down to the water and he baptized him looks pretty clear. Acts 8:38

Hi

Clear to whom ?

Was Philip doing the will of God, or the will of the eunuch ?

And my point or question to C. was about an apostle. Philip was not an apostle ! I asked him to show me where an apostle water baptized, or taught water baptism or even suggested water baptism. Even Philip didn't suggest water baptism !

And the question then would be, what does water baptism do or what need does it fulfill ? If it does nothing,nor fulfills nothing, then why does one want to be water baptized ? Tradition ?

 

[Mysteryman]

Paul was never water baptized, nor did he water baptize anyone ! This can not be found in scripture anywhere ! And if someone claims that he did water baptize, then they would be assuming .

1 Cor. 1:14-16 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas (KJV)

I think I'll assume that Paul baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas since he said he did. Let me know what you assume that it means.

Westtexas

Hi Westtexas

I will guarantee you that Paul baptize them with Holy Spirit and fire by the name of Jesus Christ. But it was Jesus actually doing the baptizing. Paul might have laid hands on them, but that is it !

No Water !

Read the book of Galatians, which btw Paul wrote/spoke/preached !

God never asked the gentiles to do as the Jews did ! < Never !

 

[Mysteryman]

What is so funny ? Show scripture where the apostles water baptized, and also taught water baptism !

It appears that Cornelius already has cited Acts 8. Unless you think Philip was some rogue proto- protester going against what the Apostles were doing 'cause he wanted to start his own church, it seems that Philip, a student of the Apostles, was doing what he was taught - baptizing people in water and the Spirit of God.

Regards

Hi francis

What makes you think that the eunuch received the baptism of the Holy Spirit ? There is no mention of this in the scripture ! And we know that he did not speak in tongues either !

If you read this record very carefully, and not allow your religious beliefs to interfere with your judgement. You will see that Philip never mentions water baptism. He only mentions the salvation and acceptance of Jesus Christ and the accomplishments of the cross. Acts 9:35. He did not preach unto him John's baptism ! He preached Jesus unto him. Again Philip tried to preach Jesus unto him in verse 37. = "believe in thine heart" <<

Water (John's baptism) has nothing to do with receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit ! Read Acts 19:1 - 7

 

[francisdesales]

I will guarantee you that Paul baptize them with Holy Spirit and fire by the name of Jesus Christ. But it was Jesus actually doing the baptizing. Paul might have laid hands on them, but that is it

No Water !!

Where does it say that Paul did not use water? It is amazing that you "guarantee" something based upon absolutely no evidence but your own opinions. You are adding to what is not there.

"baptism" is immersion. To the man of the day, it meant being immersed in water, not mud or dung. The idea that one is spiritually cleansed is ritually done by being immersed in water, since that symbol calls to mind what happens spiritually.

Without the water, baptism becomes a purely speculative and subjective declaration. One that will be declared null and void if the Christian backslides. Your mistake is centered upon OSAS. Notice how these two errors build upon one another. Since "your" baptism is subjective and speculative, you can later declare it null if there is a falling away. There is no such indication in Scriptures that baptism is speculative. We KNOW. How? By the water and the actions of the Church. By faith, we KNOW we are buried with Christ and have risen with Him OUT OF THE WATER...

 

[francisdesales]

Hi francis

What makes you think that the eunuch received the baptism of the Holy Spirit ? There is no mention of this in the scripture ! And we know that he did not speak in tongues either !

There is no other baptism performed by a Christian mentioned. Only John and his followers performed a different, incomplete baptism.[/quote]

If you read this record very carefully, and not allow your religious beliefs to interfere with your judgement. You will see that Philip never mentions water baptism.

Here we go again. Perhaps you should take your own advice and stop preaching to me without reading the Bible... It is incomprehensible the amount of gall you have to make such comments...

And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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? 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. 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. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8:35-39

If you have come this far in reading this passage, and are a follower of Jesus Christ, you will admit your error most promptly and drop your denominational and unscriptural notion that baptism does not utilize water.

 

[Rick W]

Without letting my beliefs interfere with my judgment I'm going to have the gall to remind everyone that if a civil discussion can't happen then this thread will be locked.

 

[Mysteryman]

I will guarantee you that Paul baptize them with Holy Spirit and fire by the name of Jesus Christ. But it was Jesus actually doing the baptizing. Paul might have laid hands on them, but that is it

No Water !!

Where does it say that Paul did not use water? It is amazing that you "guarantee" something based upon absolutely no evidence but your own opinions. You are adding to what is not there.

"baptism" is immersion. To the man of the day, it meant being immersed in water, not mud or dung. The idea that one is spiritually cleansed is ritually done by being immersed in water, since that symbol calls to mind what happens spiritually.

Without the water, baptism becomes a purely speculative and subjective declaration. One that will be declared null and void if the Christian backslides. Your mistake is centered upon OSAS. Notice how these two errors build upon one another. Since "your" baptism is subjective and speculative, you can later declare it null if there is a falling away. There is no such indication in Scriptures that baptism is speculative. We KNOW. How? By the water and the actions of the Church. By faith, we KNOW we are buried with Christ and have risen with Him OUT OF THE WATER...

Hi francis

Christ was risen from the dead out of water ? ? Where in the scriptures does it show that Christ was buried in water, and that he rose from the dead out of water ?

 

[francisdesales]

Where does it say that Paul did not use water? It is amazing that you "guarantee" something based upon absolutely no evidence but your own opinions. You are adding to what is not there.

"baptism" is immersion. To the man of the day, it meant being immersed in water, not mud or dung. The idea that one is spiritually cleansed is ritually done by being immersed in water, since that symbol calls to mind what happens spiritually.

Without the water, baptism becomes a purely speculative and subjective declaration. One that will be declared null and void if the Christian backslides. Your mistake is centered upon OSAS. Notice how these two errors build upon one another. Since "your" baptism is subjective and speculative, you can later declare it null if there is a falling away. There is no such indication in Scriptures that baptism is speculative. We KNOW. How? By the water and the actions of the Church. By faith, we KNOW we are buried with Christ and have risen with Him OUT OF THE WATER...

Hi francis

Christ was risen from the dead out of water ? ? Where in the scriptures does it show that Christ was buried in water, and that he rose from the dead out of water ?

The act of baptism simulates rising from the dead, since we are under water, buried by water. Then we rise again, with Christ, to a new life.

Now, you may admit you are wrong on Acts 8...

 

[Sinthesis]

• Act 10:44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
  Act 10:45 - 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.
  Act 10:46 - For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
  Act 10:47 - Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
  Act 10:48 - And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Hmm...

Here we have Peter (an Apostle) sharing the Gospel with gentiles, who then receive the Holy Spirit just as the believing Jews, at which point Peter commands them to be water baptized.

 

[Mysteryman]

• Act 10:44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
  Act 10:45 - 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.
  Act 10:46 - For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
  Act 10:47 - Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
  Act 10:48 - And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Hmm...

Here we have Peter (an Apostle) sharing the Gospel with gentiles, who then receive the Holy Spirit just as the believing Jews, at which point Peter commands them to be water baptized.

He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. <<

 

[Cornelius]

He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. <<

which was done by going into the water : Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Act 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.

 

[westtexas]

Water baptism does not save, nor are we suppose to be water baptized. If you do, you are going back to the law of water cleansing ! And this will bring upon you and others the Law , and blindness ( the vail ) in so doing !

Act 8:35 And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Act 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.

Hi C.
2. What Philip did, was it according to the will of God, or the will of the enuch ?

It was according to the will of God. Philip was chosen as one of the 7 to assist the 12 because he was "FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND WISDOM" (Acts 6:3) I think you are going to have a hard time supporting scripturally that this man who was full of the Spirit would go against the teaching of Christ and the original 12 just to please the will of a worldly man.

Westtexas

 

[Cornelius]

Yes , obviously the will of God.The eunuch did not have a clue about anything he was reading let alone baptism. How on earth would he even have brought the two together, if Philip did not tell him?

I cannot believe I am even explaining this to a grown up man. .....well I presume you are more than a teenager ? If you are a youngster : you are then off the hook but you still then have to work on your attitude and please get help with your doctrine

Just for the record : This argument is way up there when it comes to being stubbornly refusing the truth, even when clearly seen in the Bible if indeed you are an adult.

 

[Mysteryman]

[

Hi C.
2. What Philip did, was it according to the will of God, or the will of the enuch ?[/quote]

It was according to the will of God. Philip was chosen as one of the 7 to assist the 12 because he was "FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND WISDOM" (Acts 6:3) I think you are going to have a hard time supporting scripturally that this man who was full of the Spirit would go against the teaching of Christ and the original 12 just to please the will of a worldly man.

Westtexas[/quote]





Hi Westtexas

Many men of God were full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom. And they also came short of their calling. Such was the case with the apostle Peter, when Paul said that he was to blame for not holding forth the gospel of Christ uprightly - Read Galatians chapter 2. In fact the dissimulation was so strong, that this is when Paul lost Barnabas, and Barnabas went with the dissimulation of those who did not walk uprightly, which included the apostle Peter !

Philip never, and when I say never, I mean never once taught water baptism ! He preached Jesus and the resurrection and salvation by grace. And not of works ! Acts 8:35

The water baptism was the will of the eunuch, not the will of the Holy Spirit !

The eunuch did not speak in tongues, and there is no mention of the Holy Spirit coming upon the eunuch and being filled with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism does not save, nor does it accomplish anything after the death of John the baptist. Water baptism was John's ministry and calling of God, to fulfill the law of Moses of water cleansing. When John the baptist died, so ended his ministry of water baptizing. Others tried to keep this from dying with the death of John. So they turned it into a ritual. A ritual is not a calling of God. It is a man made tradition that does not have the acceptance , nor the power of God !

 

[Mysteryman]

Yes , obviously the will of God.The eunuch did not have a clue about anything he was reading let alone baptism. How on earth would he even have brought the two together, if Philip did not tell him?

I cannot believe I am even explaining this to a grown up man. .....well I presume you are more than a teenager ? If you are a youngster : you are then off the hook but you still then have to work on your attitude and please get help with your doctrine

Just for the record : This argument is way up there when it comes to being stubbornly refusing the truth, even when clearly seen in the Bible if indeed you are an adult.

Hi C.

It was not a secret that John baptized with water for the remission of sins. Why do you believe that the eunuch didn't have a clue ? This eunuch was a well educated and highly responsible man who , because of his status (being the treasurer in charge of the queen of Ethioppia) was allowed to travel freely, and worship in Jerusalem as well. As you can see by reading the record here in Acts 8:27 <<

And what are these childish comments of yours good for ? Still speaking as a child C. ?