Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

[francisdesales]

Amen to Pogo, and I'm still waiting to hear from Francisdesales regarding his "one on one." In good faith, Duval

I already told you how to begin, if that is your desire. The ball is in your court.

Regards

 

[duval]

No Francisdesales, you DID NOT tell me how to begin, please go back and read. You also said we would begin with "sola scriptur." I asked you to define your subject. I want to know what you mean "sola scriptura." For one who claims to have handled such things for years and all will attest to that you have offered nothing but slurs. I shall have nothing to do with that. dadof10 came right out and put forth his subject as a man. Be a man Francis--you chose the subject not I. Have a good nights rest---Duval

 

[Pogo]

duval -

In my view, it is a waste of your good time to verbally wrest with some few members here.

I'm thinking that your wardrobe lacks all of the necessary elements that some here require to seriously consider any point that you may make.

Of course, others here may profit fron your view, but the very ones who need to hear the truth most, will reject it.

May God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[francisdesales]

No Francisdesales, you DID NOT tell me how to begin, please go back and read.

I suspect if you can't even figure out what I wrote today, you will have further difficulty what the Scriptures from 2000 years ago say...

Here it is again.

The "process" is easy. You just start a new thread and invite the other to participate. The debate thread is different in that only two people can post to the thread. But in the Apologetic thread, anyone can post. Go to the bottom of the page, either "Apologetic and Theology" or "Debates", and click on "New Topic" button, and fill out a topic and your comment. This is the process for starting any new thread, by the way.

I asked you to define your subject. I want to know what you mean "sola scriptura."

When have you asked me that? And please remember, you are claiming to be able to correct what the Church "wrongly" teaches. I think you are going to have to clue me in on what your "discovery" has led you to believe...

For one who claims to have handled such things for years and all will attest to that you have offered nothing but slurs.

Which slurs are you speaking of? Please repost the samples...

Questioning my manhood? :P

Is that your childish way to begin a debate? I have told you to choose a subject, if you desire, I have told you how to execute the process. Pot, meet kettle...

I ask you to PM me if you want to debate me. Otherwise, I can see this will just be a name-calling fest and I don't have a desire to do that.

Since you claim to judge the Catholic Church, I would like, again and again, to ask you for your authority. Where is it found in Scriptures? If this is not asking for a subject matter, I don't know what more you want...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

duval -

In my view, it is a waste of your good time to verbally wrest with some few members here.

I'm thinking that your wardrobe lacks all of the necessary elements that some here require to seriously consider any point that you may make.

Yes, such as Scripture. I haven't seen any, yet. Meanwhile, you and Duval ignore mine...

Wonderful way to push your point of view across. Name calling and dribble.

 

[duval]

Francisdesales---I see you are still browsing. Whether we discuss this under topics or one on one is of no importance to me. Just answer the question about "church" in Matt.18:17 ( or any other passage ). What scripture or scriptures do you have to offer that "chiurch" means the Roman Catholic church. Thats ALL you have to do!!!!!

 

[Rick W]

Could ya'll please swing the topic from opinions of person/s back to the matter at hand please?
thanks 8-)

 

[duval]

Yes sir, Potluck, for my part we can. Thank you----Duval

 

[dadof10]

AAhhh...dadof10 -

The REAL you has returned to the threads!

The one, who, as a good Catholic, has to believe that he isn't worthy to interpret the scriptures for his own self, but rather, must rely on men wearing head coverings during prayers, and dresses, to tell him what to believe!

I know that you don't have a choice, you have to believe this because a man wearing a dress told you that this is what it means.

But, you don't think that other adults will swallow this do you?

I realize that you don't come to these threads to study the scriptures in an effort to learn the truth, you come to this forum with an agenda. You come to parrot dogma from outside the scriptures at every turn.

A bit of an overreaction to this: "You mean no mainstream church agrees fully with your infallible intrepretation of Scripture?"

Your anti-Catholic bigotry was boiling just under the surface, and I guess my benign post was just enough heat to bring it to full boil. This says more about you than it does about me or my Church.

OK, back to the OP.

Thayers is exactly right! You've posted it! Read it!

Baptize truly DOES mean - to immerse, to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to overwhelm.

To wash with a sprinkle of water in no way comes close, and is no way simular to being overwhelmed by immersion or the washing by submerging!

http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, "went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).

But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner."

Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptismâ€â€but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Churchâ€â€as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidenceâ€â€indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.

Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person.

AAhhh...dadof10 -The REAL you has returned to the threads!

Since you think you know me so well, you must have known this question was coming, so I'm sure you have all the verses that defend your position at hand.

Where does Scripture forbid sprinkling or pouring? Where is it written that the only valid baptism is by immersion?

 

[francisdesales]

Where does Scripture forbid sprinkling or pouring? Where is it written that the only valid baptism is by immersion?

What I find ironic is this slavish adherence to form from people who would argue about sacramentalism and whether there are any spiritual effects. To them, I suppose baptism is a magical trick.

Very good post, dad.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales---I see you are still browsing. Whether we discuss this under topics or one on one is of no importance to me. Just answer the question about "church" in Matt.18:17 ( or any other passage ). What scripture or scriptures do you have to offer that "chiurch" means the Roman Catholic church. Thats ALL you have to do!!!!!

I have told you what is necessary to debate. If you want to debate, start by showing me from Scriptures your warrant of authority over the Church. We aren't defining what Church "IS" in this passage - but whether YOU PERSONALLY have authority over this "CHURCH"...

Since you continue to ignore me on the meaning of Mt 18:16-17, I see you aren't really interested in truth or in debate.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

so long as 'one group' believes that IT has a monopoly on 'truth', then is understandable that 'their' view would be that 'any' that disagree would simply be offering their 'own' interpretation of it.

but the truth is much more definable in that there IS the Word. And we have been told that it was offered so that 'we' could be able to discern the truth for ourselves through IT and The Spirit.

Some have simply bought into and accepted that 'they' are unworthy or unable to discern for themselves and have placed this responsibility in the hands of "other men". That is NOT what was was originally accepted by those that trully followed Christ through Word and Spirit.

That ONE church has discerned that 'water Baptism' is ONLY what THEY believe does NOT make it a universal truth except in the minds and hearts of those that CHOOSE to accept what they offer. For we have been granted the ability to join in a 'personal relationship' with The Father THROUGH His Son and that was offered to ALL regardless of ''A'' church or churches, (organizations).

Water Baptism was offered as a covenant to which those that adhere are able to openly make a vow to follow in belief and obedience to God through His Son. Nothing more, nothing less. but just as circumcision was NOTHING but an 'outward sign' of one's obedience, water Baptism too is NOT able to bring one a bit closer to God through His Son ON IT'S OWN. for there were many that were circumcised that were NOT pleasing to God in their nature other than in the MOTION of the act itself. we have the words that explain EXACTLY what I am saying here. That it is NOT the OUTWARD sign of circumcision that is able to bring one into the 'family of God'. it is the INWARD accomplishment of one's HEART being changed that is able to accomplish this. For the outward 'sign' is JUST THAT. Water Baptism is NO DIFFERENT.

Can it make a diffence in the life of one that chooses to participate in this 'ritual'? i'm quite sure that it CAN. But does it, by the simple performance of it MAKE one a 'new creature in Christ'? I don't believe that this is SO. For i have witnessed the impotence of the 'ritual' in the lives of many that are NO different AFTER 'water Baptism' than they were BEFORE. this is a pure and simple sign that it is NOT the 'cure all' or 'end all' ritual that many have been LED to believe.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Rick W]

Is this a discussion about water baptism or a debate centered around the Catholic church?
Thanks MEC for getting back to the topic.

 

[stovebolts]

Amen Mec, it's all about the heart as God does not judge from outward appearances.

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

Water Baptism, like Circumcision has never been enough. Like with Abraham, it has always been God's grace working through our faith and obedience which glorifies God.

When a believer comes to the baptismal water in faith, he is immersed in God's grace, having been buried in the likeness of Christ, and also raised in the likeness of Christ. What a beautiful picture.

 

[dadof10]

What I find ironic is this slavish adherence to form from people who would argue about sacramentalism and whether there are any spiritual effects. To them, I suppose baptism is a magical trick.

No kidding!!! It seems like form only matters when there is a precieved error by the Catholic Church. The form of "accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" can be any way or at any time they want. It can be alone in their room, at an altar call, in a small group, etc. and it is still valid, but BAPTISM must be done in a certain way or it's not??? OK.

Very good post, dad.

Thanks, Fran. That means a lot coming from you.

God Bless, Mark

 

[dadof10]

I'm thinking that your wardrobe lacks all of the necessary elements that some here require to seriously consider any point that you may make.

More "men in dresses" smack? Sheesh, this is getting laughable.

 

[Rick W]

Could ya'll please swing the topic from opinions of person/s back to the matter at hand please?
thanks 8-)

I was hoping references to persons would be dropped after the above quote.
I don't think the above post would go by without rebuttal and that's what is going to be prevented along with all other ensuing personal remarks.

Thread locked pending staff discussion.