What Is Baptism?

[Jim Parker]

Quite the opposite. I would like to bring out into the light that which has been hidden in darkness.

HAH!

So you think your speculations are bringing something to light.

The only thing that you have brought to light is your aversion to water baptism as it is explained by Paul.

 

[Nathan]

HAH!

So you think your speculations are bringing something to light.

The only thing that you have brought to light is your aversion to water baptism as it is explained by Paul.

John 3
20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."

My posts are simply putting forth the truth I've learned. I am not ashamed of them because they can be seen to be true.

However, you keep leveling false accusations against me, when I repeatedly deny my aversion to water baptism. I think it's(water baptism) a wonderful thing that believers should participate in.

 

[Jim Parker]

My posts are simply putting forth the truth I've learned.

Right. That's what Arius said too.

I repeatedly deny my aversion to water baptism. I think it's(water baptism) a wonderful thing that believers should participate in.

But you don't think that Believers are required to be baptized in obedience to Jesus command. Right?

 

[Nathan]

Right. That's what Arius said too.

But you don't think that Believers are required to be baptized in obedience to Jesus command. Right?

I honestly have no idea who Arius is. Is this a way to try and make others think I am not who I am?

I think believers should be baptized, and especially how Jesus commanded. That's my whole point really. We have lost the truth of what that baptism is.

 

[Jim Parker]

I honestly have no idea who Arius is. Is this a way to try and make others think I am not who I am?

I think believers should be baptized, and especially how Jesus commanded. That's my whole point really. We have lost the truth of what that baptism is.

In what manner should baptism be performed according to what Jesus commanded?
What is "the truth of what baptism is"?

 

[Nathan]

In what manner should baptism be performed according to what Jesus commanded?
What is "the truth of what baptism is"?

The truth is baptism is an immersion into something else.

The baptism Jesus commands is that of a disciple into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jim Parker]

The truth is baptism is an immersion into something else.

What else.
Be specific and quit dancing around the answer. State what you believe.

The baptism Jesus commands is that of a disciple into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

That is NOT what the scripture says.
It says "baptizing them in (not "into") the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

 

[Nathan]

What else.
Be specific and quit dancing around the answer. State what you believe.

That is NOT what the scripture says.
It says "baptizing them in (not "into") the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

"In" or "into" is not a matter of difference. Different translations use the words interchangeably.

I have been Specific.

 

[Jim Parker]

"In" or "into" is not a matter of difference. Different translations use the words interchangeably.

That is false.
The words "in" and "into" have different meanings; they are not interchangeable.
The VUL, HNV, WEB, DBY, YLT, RSV, NET, NASB, RVR60, HCSB, ESV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and KJV ALL use translate the Greek word εἰς (eis) as "IN".
Specifically which "different translations" use "into"?

By what Koine Greek grammatical rule would it be proper to translate that verse as meaning the disciple was to be baptized into names?

I have been specific.

You have been evasive.

 

[Nathan]

That is false.
The words "in" and "into" have different meanings; they are not interchangeable.
The VUL, HNV, WEB, DBY, YLT, RSV, NET, NASB, RVR60, HCSB, ESV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and KJV ALL use translate the Greek word εἰς (eis) as "IN".
Specifically which "different translations" use "into"?

By what Koine Greek grammatical rule would it be proper to translate that verse as meaning the disciple was to be baptized into names?

You have been evasive.

ESV uses it. You have to read the foot notes.

Some use "to" instead.

 

[Jim Parker]

Some use "to" instead.

Which ones use "to".

ESV uses it. You have to read the foot notes.

Post the footnote.

Do you accept the scriptural and historical church teaching that water baptism in the name of the trinity is required of the believer?

 

[Nathan]

Which ones use "to".

Post the footnote.

Do you accept the scriptural and historical church teaching that water baptism in the name of the trinity is required of the believer?

YLT and DBY

I do not accept it is required the way you posted it.

Which is greater, God who made the water, or the water itself? Which one has eternal life?

 

[th1b.taylor]

YLT and DBY

I do not accept it is required the way you posted it.

Which is greater, God who made the water, or the water itself? Which one has eternal life?

Good Nathan! The one thing I desired as soon as I was saved was to be obedient but it was my public testimony to the truth that I would do my best to follow Jesus, always.

 

[Jim Parker]

YLT and DBY

I asked you to post the footnote.
YLY and DBY are not footnotes, They are the abbreviations of Bible translations.
Once again, you have evaded giving an answer.

I do not accept it is required the way you posted it.

You do not accept it the way scripture posted it.

Which is greater, God who made the water, or the water itself? Which one has eternal life?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
Though I do not think you did so intentionally, it is a redirection to another topic; a "Red Herring"
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

 

[Nathan]

I asked you to post the footnote.
YLY and DBY are not footnotes, They are the abbreviations of Bible translations.
Once again, you have evaded giving an answer.

You do not accept it the way scripture posted it.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
Though I do not think you did so intentionally, it is a redirection to another topic; a "Red Herring"
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

I think you are letting your emotions get the best of you. I was answering a previous question with the YLT and DBY - they are the ones that use the word "to".

As far as the footnote goes, it quite literally says "FN" and then "into". So I am not sure what more could be said about that or posted. There is not a long discourse on the footnote.

I do not accept the way you post it. Do not tell me I do not accept the way Scripture posts it unless you have a passage that says the exact thing you posted. I was very specific in what I said, and I meant that I do not accept it the way you posted it.

It is not a redirection. It is very relevant to the conversation. If you do not want it to be relevant then so be it. Those are two very relevant questions a person should have to ask themselves if they want to understand baptism.

 

[Jim Parker]

I think you are letting your emotions get the best of you. I was answering a previous question with the YLT and DBY - they are the ones that use the word "to".

I stand corrected.
However, "TO" is not "INTO" and you stated that some translations use "into". You have not shown one which uses "into."
You are deviating from your argument to another argument. That's the Red Herring again.

As far as the footnote goes, it quite literally says "FN" and then "into". So I am not sure what more could be said about that or posted. There is not a long discourse on the footnote.

The Koine Greek word "eis" is a preposition which is used with the accusative and can be translated: into, to, in, at, on, upon, by, near, among, against, concerning, or as.
The following translations use the word "in": VUL, HNV, WEB, RSV, NET, NASB, RVR60, HCSB, ESV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and KJV
The use of the word "to" by the YLT and DBY is confusing to the reader of modern, western English as it is an odd construction of unclear meaning.

I do not accept the way you post it. Do not tell me I do not accept the way Scripture posts it unless you have a passage that says the exact thing you posted.

See my posts under "Water Baptism Outline Part 1" and "Water Baptism Outline Part 2" in the "Bible Study" forum.
It is a more extensive rendering of exactly what I have posted that scripture says.

It is not a redirection. It is very relevant to the conversation.

It is a DIFFERENT conversation of a tangential topic. It is NOT the same conversation and is, therefore, a Red Herring which would redirect the conversation to another topic.

I was very specific in what I said, and I meant that I do not accept it the way you posted it.

Yes, you specifically redefined water baptism as being "washed in the word" which is a totally heterodox view with absolutely no support from scripture or from the documents of historical Christianity. You also attempted to re-frame water baptism as something "good to do" rather than the command of the Lord.

I see those comments as symptomatic of a tendency to "adjust" the teaching of scripture to fit one's personal or denominational views. I believe that is a dangerous behavior which could lead to a false confidence in ones position in grace. It suggests what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called, "Cheap Grace."
“Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession...Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”
I find that too much of what passes for Christianity in our modern, western, hedonistic society plays far too fast and loose with Scripture and the teaching of the historic Church.
To me, your comments reflect that tendency.

Do as you will.

You certainly do not answer to me and I will certainly not be your judge.

iakov the fool

 

[Nathan]

I stand corrected.
However, "TO" is not "INTO" and you stated that some translations use "into". You have not shown one which uses "into."
You are deviating from your argument to another argument. That's the Red Herring again.

The Koine Greek word "eis" is a preposition which is used with the accusative and can be translated: into, to, in, at, on, upon, by, near, among, against, concerning, or as.
The following translations use the word "in": VUL, HNV, WEB, RSV, NET, NASB, RVR60, HCSB, ESV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and KJV
The use of the word "to" by the YLT and DBY is confusing to the reader of modern, western English as it is an odd construction of unclear meaning.

See my posts under "Water Baptism Outline Part 1" and "Water Baptism Outline Part 2" in the "Bible Study" forum.
It is a more extensive rendering of exactly what I have posted that scripture says.

It is a DIFFERENT conversation of a tangential topic. It is NOT the same conversation and is, therefore, a Red Herring which would redirect the conversation to another topic.

Yes, you specifically redefined water baptism as being "washed in the word" which is a totally heterodox view with absolutely no support from scripture or from the documents of historical Christianity. You also attempted to re-frame water baptism as something "good to do" rather than the command of the Lord.

I see those comments as symptomatic of a tendency to "adjust" the teaching of scripture to fit one's personal or denominational views. I believe that is a dangerous behavior which could lead to a false confidence in ones position in grace. It suggests what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called, "Cheap Grace."
“Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession...Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”
I find that too much of what passes for Christianity in our modern, western, hedonistic society plays far too fast and loose with Scripture and the teaching of the historic Church.
To me, your comments reflect that tendency.

Do as you will.

You certainly do not answer to me and I will certainly not be your judge.

iakov the fool

I actually have never tried to redefine water baptism as being washed in the word. I am stating that the passage in Matthew 28 speaks of baptism in this manner - not in water.

If you want to view my position as cheap grace so be it. I assure you, I do not believe in it. I want to do quite the opposite and not cheapen what baptism is, and what it does for a disciple of Christ.

You have already been my judge, that is something you cannot deny. You have repeatedly leveled false accusations against me. I know in Who I believe and what His commands are.

If I believed for a moment that my understanding of Matthew 28 was false I would still be seeking the truth. However, it was through a true humility that I sought the Lord for the truth of that passage and I received it - therefore I cannot deny it.

 

[Cygnus]

Yes, you specifically redefined water baptism as being "washed in the word" which is a totally heterodox view with absolutely no support from scripture or from the documents of historical Christianity. You also attempted to re-frame water baptism as something "good to do" rather than the command of the Lord.

What if one fails to follow Jesus' commands?

 

[Jim Parker]

What if one fails to follow Jesus' commands?

Then one is not His disciple.

 

[Jim Parker]

I actually have never tried to redefine water baptism as being washed in the word. I am stating that the passage in Matthew 28 speaks of baptism in this manner - not in water.

Based on what?
Where in the Gospels does anyone use the word "baptize" to mean anything other than immersion in water?