True Baptism

[hornetguy]

Baptism is a sign of ones belief only,

Again.... where does scripture state this?

Did Jesus say, go into all the world, teaching them, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as a sign of their belief" ??

Did Peter answer the crowd at Pentecost with 'Repent and be baptized, only as a sign of your belief, and then you'll receive the Holy Spirit?'

did the eunuch say.... Look! Here's some water... what would prevent me from being baptized, only to show my belief to you, Philip!

the Gentiles who had heard and believed, and were baptized with John's baptism, but had not received the Holy Spirit yet, were they told to be baptized in Jesus name, 'only to show that you believe, of course'...?

Cornelius' family was baptized, only to show they believed?

Paul, when he regained his sight, immediately jumped up and said 'I need to go be baptized, but only as a sign of my belief'

I don't know who started this "it's only a sign of belief" silliness, but baptism is much more than that.

If all it is is a sign, then why don't people just wear t-shirts that say "I BELIEVE IN JESUS" for a couple of days after their acceptance of his saving grace?

 

[mailmandan]

Taking verses individually and pointing out that baptism is not in this certain scripture does not negate its importance.

Those verses negate the false teaching that water baptism (instead of/or in addition to repentance) obtains the remission of sins.

All your verses relate to others scriptures that tie in baptism as a command for the remission of sins.

After properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture, we discover that it's faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) which brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

I could do the same with these verses.

Luke 24:47 - What happened to faith?
Acts 3:19 - What happened to faith?
Acts 5:31 - What happened to faith?

In all of these verses, where repentance is in regards to salvation/receiving remission of sins, faith is implied or assumed. In verses where faith is mentioned yet not repentance, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one, you must have the other. Repentance and faith are two sides to the same coin of receiving Christ.

The Bible sometimes only mentions repentance as a condition for salvation. One example of this would be Luke 13:3, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." See also Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19 etc.. A few times both repentance and believe/faith are mentioned in the same verse (Matthew 21:32; Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). There are many, many verses which only mention belief/faith as the condition for salvation (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 10:4; Ephesians 2:8; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

Again, when only repentance is mentioned, belief/faith is implied or assumed. When only belief/faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other. If we believe the gospel, then we already repented in the process of changing our mind and choosing to believe the gospel/place faith in Christ for salvation. Not so with baptism. You can repent and believe the gospel but NOT YET BE WATER BAPTIZED (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18).

Acts 11:18 - What happened to faith?

Notice in Acts 11:17, "If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" This is referred to as repentance unto life (Acts 11:18) and repentance/faith was established BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:43-47).

If we are to use this reasoning, what about James 1:27?

Here we go with more of your faulty human logic.

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

That is religion that God accepts, in CONTRAST to vain, useless religion. James 1:26 - If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless. This man's religion is vain, empty, devoid of power, lacking in content, nonproductive, dead and of no eternal value.

There is nothing wrong with "pure and undefiled religion" but there is certainly something wrong with impure and defiled religion. Also, looking after orphans and widows in their distress and keeping oneself from being polluted by the world is not how one becomes saved, but is how the saved are to live their lives, so your argument is moot.

No mention of any faith, repentance or baptism yet these works are labeled as a religion that is "pure and faultless".

News flash: *We are not saved by works, so religion that perverts the gospel is not "pure and faultless."

Baptism for the remission of sins is clearly commanded, not in every single verse but still commanded.

Baptism is for "in regards to/on the basis of" (and not in order to obtain) remission of sins that is received upon repentance (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38) and "faith is implied or assumed" -- Repent (change your mind) new direction of this change of mind (faith in Christ for salvation).

You are just fighting the obvious to protect a theology.

That statement is the epitome of irony.

 

[preacher4truth]

Again.... where does scripture state this?

Did Jesus say, go into all the world, teaching them, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as a sign of their belief" ??

Did Peter answer the crowd at Pentecost with 'Repent and be baptized, only as a sign of your belief, and then you'll receive the Holy Spirit?'

did the eunuch say.... Look! Here's some water... what would prevent me from being baptized, only to show my belief to you, Philip!

the Gentiles who had heard and believed, and were baptized with John's baptism, but had not received the Holy Spirit yet, were they told to be baptized in Jesus name, 'only to show that you believe, of course'...?

Cornelius' family was baptized, only to show they believed?

Paul, when he regained his sight, immediately jumped up and said 'I need to go be baptized, but only as a sign of my belief'

I don't know who started this "it's only a sign of belief" silliness, but baptism is much more than that.

If all it is is a sign, then why don't people just wear t-shirts that say "I BELIEVE IN JESUS" for a couple of days after their acceptance of his saving grace?

It appears Campbellism is getting the best of you? Were you, are you coC?

When a person is baptized in water there is a statement being made publicly in doing so.

I'm not calling it "a sign of belief" because that turns you off somehow. Yes, I know, you said it isn't biblical, no need to go over that again. But we don't always need a proof text for things that are implicit.

It is, however most definitely a public profession of faith and also of repentance. Not that it is actual proof of true belief or conversion, mind you as I'm sure you'd agree. No one need find a proof text to support this when the obvious is there; the person is being baptized because the person is believing the Gospel and is doing this in demonstration of belief and in obedience.

This is why we practice believers baptism.

The person therefore is being baptized, publicly, because the person is showing forth belief in the Gospel of Christ.

I hope this doesn't drive a wedge between us.

 

[mailmandan]

The question was why would you baptize a unbeliever?

If someone states they do not believe why would anyone wish to baptize them? We all are baptized with different levels of understanding but to baptize in a state of unbelief is absurd.

If someone states they do not believe what? Do not believe in the existence of God? Of course nobody would wish to baptize an atheist. Yet it still takes more than simply believing "mental assent" in the existence and historical facts about Christ to go from being an unbeliever to being a genuine believer "in the Biblical sense of the word," which means that person is now a child of God (John 1:12; 3:18; 10:43; Acts 16:31 etc..).

Again, many unbelievers in various false religions and cults (Roman Catholicism and Mormonism for example..) still end up getting water baptized because they trust in water baptism (along with other works to save them) yet are not "genuine believers" who have placed their faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation.

 

[notuptome]

No, what I'm saying is that I wasn't saved until I heard the good news, believed it, accepted Jesus into my life, and was baptized.

Just as scripture teaches us.

Listen to yourself and ask if you had not been water baptized would you still be saved?

The Holy Spirit is conveyed by God at the moment we believe and receive Christ. The Holy Spirit is not dependent upon water baptism. Salvation is buy grace not by water baptism or grace and water baptism. Saved by grace alone through faith alone wholly apart from works.

Water baptism follows salvation but salvation is never dependent upon water baptism. Water washes the outside but the Holy Spirit cleanses the inside. The blood of Christ effaces sin not water.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

The knowledge that the blood of Jesus Christ saves is meaningless without the understanding of how to come in contact with it. Knowing something exist does not grant the reward of its existence. Proclaiming "only the blood saves" has no effect on the salvation of anyone, it is the response to His gospel that saves.

Proclaiming "penicillin cures staph" is true but is useless without the proper administering of the medicine. Those who proclaim the cure but deny the proper administering of the cure are leading many to their doom.

All the blood on every door post in Egypt would not save without the first born safely under its shadow. Any first born not obedient to this command died. The blood only saved the obedient.

You state, "Water cannot save." If God chooses, it most certainly can.

Baptism, which is like that water now saves you. (1 Peter 3:21a)

Who are we to debate Him?

Who are you to proof text 1 Pet 3:21? You take the verse out of context to prove a false concept regarding salvation.

You aversion to the blood of Christ is telling.

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[garee]

Not meaning to sound rude, but you are talking about a lot of OT traditions and priestly practices... this is NOT what Jesus' baptism is about. It's fine, if you want to see spiritual comparisons, but nowhere in scripture did Jesus (or even the apostles) say that baptism is simply a shadow, or a sign, symbolizing a priest's ritual cleansing, yada yada....

No rudeness taken just sharing some observations putting the emphasis on that which does give us the spiritual unseen understanding. (parables) .

When we follow the prescription for our souls found in 2 Corinthians 4:18 for rightly dividing the word of God. It is one of the valuable keys needed to understanding parables. Seeing without parable used as figures of speech Christ, the word of God spoke not.

It is clear that the Old Testament ordinances like this purifying tradition spoken of in John 3:25 were used in ceremonies to preach the gospel in respect to the suffering of Christ beforehand. Without parables the spiritual understanding hid will not be found.

This tradition of God was in respect to a new priest entering the ministry just as Jesus did. Today all of Christianity is considered as kingdom of Priest sent from a foreign land where Christians have their birth rites. it would seem the tribe of Levi was meant to represent all believers as a kingdom of priest. .

Since we are lovingly instructed to study seeking the approval of God I think we should look for the tools that can give us His spiritual understanding hid from the lost.

2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

That principle of faith(the unseen) is not subject to change.

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Getting wet, whether a person splashes water on themselves or immerses themselves is only used as a sign indicating a desire in this case to enter the ministry as a sign to the world a person has the gospel in a hope the Holy Spirit will baptize them (wash away their si the word baptize simply means to wash .It van be use when describing washing the dishes it of its self has no religious value....

Following the prescription found in 2 Cor, 4:18 for understanding parables water as that seen the temporal, symbolizes the Holy Spirit not seen the eternal. All the water in the world will not replace eternal God not seen. There is no sign we can perform that would prove a person has the anointing Spirit of Christ, represented by H20. The Jews required a a sign before they would believe taking away the spiritual understanding many today do the same trusting in a experience by the hand of man as the things of men not distinguishing between the things of God.


From my experiences many Christian do not even recognize the first century reformation as to its purpose of using the ceremonial laws. Most will say that Old testament as if the word of God was divided and the new make the old obsolete. For some reason the idea of God being finished uses Jews as shadows and types were no longer needed and men are still putting some hope in the flesh as if they were not used in ceremonial laws. makes me wonder that when he does come will he find faith as a spiritual understanding or just the letter of the law . and comparing the spiritual understanding to the spiritual will be a thing of the past..

Scripture even compares the waters of baptism to the fact that Noah and his family were saved through the cleansing of the waters of the flood.

That parable using Noah signifies the work of the Holy Spirit washing away sin and not the ceremonial law in respect to a new priest desiring to enter the ministry..

Jesus told the disciples to go and teach, and baptize believers in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit...

Name as an authority (not H20) God is not water. Yes in the authority of that not seen the gospel, the water of the word.. As in all things when comparing the spiritual word not seen to the same spiritual understanding the interpretation prescription 2 cor.4:18 must be applied or a person could miss the spiritual application..


And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office. Exo 40:12

The apostles taught baptism by immersion, and expected it to occur at the belief in, and the acceptance of Jesus...

Christ accepts us, first things first. We who have form don't show him a sign as if we were invisible and he had form . The outward Jew that did not have the Spirit of Christ performed that turning things upside down .It why he has signified that which he has given to us, His word so that he could hide the spiritual meaning.

Again the Jews sought after a sign in the same way... before they would believe making perceived human experience the vaildator of truth .This caused them to stumble over the cross being satisfied with the work they performed as a ceremonial law.(shadow) therefore no need for the cross.

All of Christianity practiced baptism as an essential part of salvation for over a thousand years, and then, suddenly, it becomes "not important" ?

There are many traditions of men that have been occurring for a thousand years. Finding the spiritual understanding is what is important.

No one said not important, shadows, types are important they point as a sign (seen) to the wonder not seen ( the faith principle). They are time sensitive in respect to a future fulfillment. Many ignore the work of the first century reformation as if the ceremonial laws were more than just shadows.

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure (parable) for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.Heb 9:8

We must continue to look at the ceremonial laws today. There are two I can think of . The baptism that symbolizes a person is ready to go out into the word with the gospel and the Lord’s supper a precursor of the wedding feast when we His bride receive our new Bodies, this to include the head uncovering for men and covering of the hair for woman as one ceremonial law .

 

[hornetguy]

It appears Campbellism is getting the best of you? Were you, are you coC?

When a person is baptized in water there is a statement being made publicly in doing so.

I'm not calling it "a sign of belief" because that turns you off somehow. Yes, I know, you said it isn't biblical, no need to go over that again. But we don't always need a proof text for things that are implicit.

It is, however most definitely a public profession of faith and also of repentance. Not that it is actual proof of true belief or conversion, mind you as I'm sure you'd agree. No one need find a proof text to support this when the obvious is there; the person is being baptized because the person is believing the Gospel and is doing this in demonstration of belief and in obedience.

This is why we practice believers baptism.

The person therefore is being baptized, publicly, because the person is showing forth belief in the Gospel of Christ.

I hope this doesn't drive a wedge between us.

No... no wedges between us, brother...

The only thing that bothers me is for people to minimize the necessity of baptism, by saying, "well, it's ONLY a public sign of accepting Jesus".... I believe it is much more than simply a sign. It is obedience... a necessary act of obedience, that is our response to the free gift of salvation. It is our physical acceptance of, and entrance into, the new covenant... Christ's church, or body.

Any man wanting to become a Jew, that said, "well, I accept all the benefits of being one of God's chosen, but I am just gonna skip that old circumcision thing".... would not become a Jew. He was unwilling to fulfill his part of the covenant.

The reason I ask for a proof text on "it's only a sign" is because there are so many scriptures that indicate otherwise. For someone to go against all of those scriptures with their opinion that "it's only a sign" is not good enough for me. I need to see scriptural proof that the "sign" belief is what Jesus intended, when what he said indicates nothing of the sort.

 

[hornetguy]

Listen to yourself and ask if you had not been water baptized would you still be saved?

The Holy Spirit is conveyed by God at the moment we believe and receive Christ. The Holy Spirit is not dependent upon water baptism. Salvation is buy grace not by water baptism or grace and water baptism. Saved by grace alone through faith alone wholly apart from works.

Water baptism follows salvation but salvation is never dependent upon water baptism. Water washes the outside but the Holy Spirit cleanses the inside. The blood of Christ effaces sin not water.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Listen to myself? LOL.... I SAID it...

If I refused to be baptized, I don't believe I would be saved... because I would be refusing to do my part in joining in the new covenant. That would be an act of rebellion, or refusal to obey God... so could I say I had truly repented and given my life to Him? "If you love me, you will keep my commandments"....

I am saying that baptism is an essential part of our acceptance of the free gift of salvation.. it is our outward showing, proof, if you will, that we have joined in the new covenant. I believe that was Jesus' intent when he commanded us to teach and baptize people into his name.

It seems that all the "faith only" people are trying to make any excuse they can to NOT follow Jesus' command to be baptized into his name. They say "we highly recommend it".... but Jesus didn't say to teach people, and then I recommend they be baptized. In his commandment, and in the apostles understanding of it, belief and acceptance ALWAYS included baptism, in water. It is that important. Essential, in my understanding.

 

[preacher4truth]

No... no wedges between us, brother...

The only thing that bothers me is for people to minimize the necessity of baptism, by saying, "well, it's ONLY a public sign of accepting Jesus".... I believe it is much more than simply a sign. It is obedience... a necessary act of obedience, that is our response to the free gift of salvation. It is our physical acceptance of, and entrance into, the new covenant... Christ's church, or body.

Any man wanting to become a Jew, that said, "well, I accept all the benefits of being one of God's chosen, but I am just gonna skip that old circumcision thing".... would not become a Jew. He was unwilling to fulfill his part of the covenant.

The reason I ask for a proof text on "it's only a sign" is because there are so many scriptures that indicate otherwise. For someone to go against all of those scriptures with their opinion that "it's only a sign" is not good enough for me. I need to see scriptural proof that the "sign" belief is what Jesus intended, when what he said indicates nothing of the sort.

I agree.

Many things are mitigated in attempt to make everything simple and easy, and then it all becomes superficial. Some go as far as to make this buffoonery. "All I need is Jesus, I don't need theology!" Utterly ridiculous and shallow! One cannot talk of Jesus, the true Jesus without theology.

Scriptural terms and doctrines should be held in a more solemn fashion. Enduring sound doctrine, which is really what you are implying above, is paramount!

Yes, salvation is simple (hate using that term) only because God authored it and completes it. Many say the Gospel "is so easy" - yet they don't know what they're talking about which is why few ever plunge its depths. The book of Romans is in order here, in it we see the complexities of the Gospel of Christ.

Ask the pew goer what the Gospel is and you'll see many a person totally confused on this issue.

Is it any wonder why all this is taking place when we have so many self professed prophets telling others of their multitudes of personally received "divine revelations"? Truth is being cheapened by these outright lies.

People would rather listen to that than to properly exegeted Scripture and Gospel.

Anyhow, good points, sir. Let us stand against the deluge of simpleton theology and the downgrade of solemn truths.

 

[garee]

Originally Posted by DJ2

The knowledge that the blood of Jesus Christ saves is meaningless without the understanding of how to come in contact with it. Knowing something exist does not grant the reward of its existence. Proclaiming "only the blood saves" has no effect on the salvation of anyone, it is the response to His gospel that saves.

Proclaiming "penicillin cures staph" is true but is useless without the proper administering of the medicine. Those who proclaim the cure but deny the proper administering of the cure are leading many to their doom.

All the blood on every door post in Egypt would not save without the first born safely under its shadow. Any first born not obedient to this command died. The blood only saved the obedient.

You state, "Water cannot save." If God chooses, it most certainly can.

Baptism, which is like that water now saves you. (1 Peter 3:21a)

Who are we to debate Him?

God is not H20, as if we did or could know Him after the rudiments as elements and molecules of this world (DNA) and He could be discovered in a science lab..

Water is used to represent blood through the Bible. Blood is used to represent spirit life not seen . The spirit life of the flesh is in the blood but spirit life is not literal blood, without the spirit not seen.

2 Corinthians 4:18 must be applied if we are to find the spiritual meaning hid from natural unconverted men in those parables. Like the parable in the garden when Christ was alone to be tried as was Adam .Adam gave it over to His wife like a hot potato.

Christ came to give a demonstration of the lamb of God who was slain from the foundation of the world. His corruptible flesh profits for nothing. The promise was that He would pour out His Spirit not seen which is not the literal blood seen that was used to represent the unseen work .

The Catholic who must walk by sight would say literal blood is spirit.

Many look at the demonstration as if it was the actual work which was performed during the six days he did work to provide salvation resting on the seventh, our rest we do have because he completed the work. and some do not look to it at Calvary as simply a outward demonstration of that not seen.

I believe it can effect the way we see the gospel. Because of it many view it upside down are drawn to walk by sight as if God was a man as us. Because of that misunderstanding the Jehovah Witness forbid blood transfusion looking at what is seen (corrupted flesh and blood that ages in a work of decay leading toward destruction and returning to the lifeless spiritless dust it was taken from.) as if it was the eternal .

1Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

 

[hornetguy]

I agree.

Many things are mitigated in attempt to make everything simple and easy, and then it all becomes superficial. Some go as far as to make this buffoonery. "All I need is Jesus, I don't need theology!" Utterly ridiculous and shallow! One cannot talk of Jesus, the true Jesus without theology.

Scriptural terms and doctrines should be held in a more solemn fashion. Enduring sound doctrine, which is really what you are implying above, is paramount!

Yes, salvation is simple (hate using that term) only because God authored it and completes it. Many say the Gospel "is so easy" - yet they don't know what they're talking about which is why few ever plunge its depths. The book of Romans is in order here, in it we see the complexities of the Gospel of Christ.

Ask the pew goer what the Gospel is and you'll see many a person totally confused on this issue.

Is it any wonder why all this is taking place when we have so many self professed prophets telling others of their multitudes of personally received "divine revelations"? Truth is being cheapened by these outright lies.

People would rather listen to that than to properly exegeted Scripture and Gospel.

Anyhow, good points, sir. Let us stand against the deluge of simpleton theology and the downgrade of solemn truths.

amen to that...

I agree that salvation is simple... straight truth...

 

[Bogadile]

Your full quote is correct but not to your previous post.

You see if by your definition of the word "for" as in the previous thread is concern, then it's a mess up. For how Jesus Baptism is "for the remission of sins"? Are you not inferring Christ a sinner? and not a Saviour?

This needs to weigh your perspective.

God bless

I would want an answer to this. Interesting point friend.

 

[notuptome]

Listen to myself? LOL.... I SAID it...

Quite common for our nature to deceive us. We say things without really comprehending what we are saying. We all do it.

If I refused to be baptized, I don't believe I would be saved... because I would be refusing to do my part in joining in the new covenant. That would be an act of rebellion, or refusal to obey God... so could I say I had truly repented and given my life to Him? "If you love me, you will keep my commandments"....

I am saying that baptism is an essential part of our acceptance of the free gift of salvation.. it is our outward showing, proof, if you will, that we have joined in the new covenant. I believe that was Jesus' intent when he commanded us to teach and baptize people into his name.

It seems that all the "faith only" people are trying to make any excuse they can to NOT follow Jesus' command to be baptized into his name. They say "we highly recommend it".... but Jesus didn't say to teach people, and then I recommend they be baptized. In his commandment, and in the apostles understanding of it, belief and acceptance ALWAYS included baptism, in water. It is that important. Essential, in my understanding.

Baptism in water is not a consideration when we are under conviction of the Holy Spirit over our sin. We only learn of water baptism after we are converted. Water baptism is not part of the gospel message.

Water baptism is part of sanctification but not part of salvation.

Gal 3:1 ¶ O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

I suspect where you see water it is really Holy Spirit baptism. Belief and acceptance always includes Holy Spirit not water for we are not made complete by water which would be akin to the works of the law.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[garee]

I am saying that baptism is an essential part of our acceptance of the free gift of salvation.. it is our outward showing, proof, if you will, that we have joined in the new covenant. I believe that was Jesus' intent when he commanded us to teach and baptize people into his name.

It seems that all the "faith only" people are trying to make any excuse they can to NOT follow Jesus' command to be baptized into his name. They say "we highly recommend it".... but Jesus didn't say to teach people, and then I recommend they be baptized. In his commandment, and in the apostles understanding of it, belief and acceptance ALWAYS included baptism, in water. It is that important. Essential, in my understanding.

LOL...No excuses needed...And faith is a work, can't separate the planning of faith from the execution, the work, or labor of Christ love

I would think the faith people of God should walk by faith.(the unseen eternal) And not as the apostate Jew requiring a sign that they provide as a work they could do that seen the temporal . Signs point to the unseen eternal. To be baptized in a name or an authority of power has nothing to do with the rudiments of this world as if we did no Christ after the rudiments ..

We as Christians have that treasure as the Holy Spirit in us but is never to be assumed it is of us as the walk by sight people hope it could. Christian walk by the unseen .The literal or letter of the word as that seen kills.the spiritul understanding must be sought out.

2Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

Comparing the spiritual word a a meaning not seen (eternal) to the same, or faith to faith as the gospel requirement was made to no effect with those who required a sign that they could perform like splashing water on oneself as evidence outward showing, proof, if you will, that they have joined in the new covenant....it provided a false hope a stumbling block .

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a "stumblingblock", and unto the Greeks foolishness;1Co 1:21

Because they insisted that the laws that were to govern ceremonies became moral laws outward showing, proof, if you will, that they could perform. Christ spoke to that kind of ideology in regard to the words I am offering below.

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. Joh 5:39

They were uses outwardly to testify to themselves they had eternal life. Same as some today with the baptism ceremonial law that are subject to ceremonies and never become the substance the baptism of the Holy Spirit.(not seen) the one faith of God that works in us to both will and perform His good pleasure (imputed righteousness ). Not one that assumes it is our outward showing, proof, if you will, that men have joined in the new covenant.

The gospel principle is found in Roman 1 and again is not subject to change after a ceremonial law (shadow of the good things to come. )

So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.Rom 1:15

No man could be found with a righteousness of their own by obeying a shadow as a ceremonial law.The time of reformation has come .The sound of bleeding sheep has been reformed and a un-torn veil to represent he did come, the veil remains rent as the Son of man who came for a demonstration of a unseen work is long gone

 

[Muzungu256]

Again.... where does scripture state this?

Did Jesus say, go into all the world, teaching them, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as a sign of their belief" ??

Did Peter answer the crowd at Pentecost with 'Repent and be baptized, only as a sign of your belief, and then you'll receive the Holy Spirit?'

did the eunuch say.... Look! Here's some water... what would prevent me from being baptized, only to show my belief to you, Philip!

the Gentiles who had heard and believed, and were baptized with John's baptism, but had not received the Holy Spirit yet, were they told to be baptized in Jesus name, 'only to show that you believe, of course'...?

Cornelius' family was baptized, only to show they believed?

Paul, when he regained his sight, immediately jumped up and said 'I need to go be baptized, but only as a sign of my belief'

I don't know who started this "it's only a sign of belief" silliness, but baptism is much more than that.

If all it is is a sign, then why don't people just wear t-shirts that say "I BELIEVE IN JESUS" for a couple of days after their acceptance of his saving grace?

hi again hornetguy. who is allowed to baptize another believer? are women allowed to baptize men?

 

[garee]

hi again hornetguy. who is allowed to baptize another believer? are women allowed to baptize men?

A priest like Christ from the tribe of Judah that needed a Levi before he could enter the priestly ministry and also ceremonially baptize. . The new testament tore down the wall that separated man from woman as prophets (those who declare the written law of God.) Today whosoever has the Spirit of Christ can baptize welcoming them in the kingdom of priest the believers.

 

[hornetguy]

hi again hornetguy. who is allowed to baptize another believer? are women allowed to baptize men?

I don't know of any scriptural "instruction" about women baptizing... in that culture, I'm fairly sure they didn't, as women were viewed as "lesser" people than men.

If the only believer that was available to baptize someone was a woman, I don't see how that would be a deal-breaker. It's not (in my opinion, of course) the person that is performing the baptism that's all that important. It is the event... what is being done, that's important.

Again, in my opinion, I'm not even sure that it would have to be a believer, but that could be a whole discussion in itself...

Scripture shows that the apostles and disciples were baptizing... I wonder who baptized Paul? Probably Ananias, who was called a "disciple"... so, personally, I would prefer to have a male believer do it, but I don't think that is a hard, fast rule...

 

[Rainrider]

Well you are wrong.
They were to make disciples, that is leading them to Christ as Savior, that is when the baptism of the Holy Spirit takes place.
Those who are saved are the be baptized with water.
Than they are to be taught.

May I ask you why you refuse to be baptized with water?

I wish to first state that this is not true of all church's. However I have seen in more than one church, (denominations will not given, as I do not wish to do any harm to any) where water Baptism, must be preceded by an acknowledgment of Allegiance to the church, rather than to HaShem. In a case like this, one would well off to say NO THANK YOU.
Also, when one looks at just how baptism is seen today, they may not ask for this allegiance, yet if one wants to be seen as a true believer in another denomination, and become a member of said church, they must be baptized into that church. SO does this not show the meaning of baptism? Does this not show that in the minds of the church leaders, baptism doesn't show your faith in HaShem, rather it shows your entry into their denomination.
With that in mind, I can't help but ask, Why do more people not refuse this form of baptism?

 

[Rainrider]

Well, there's this.....


Direct from Jesus before his ascension.... that's pretty plain, to me. Of course, I don't have a "grace only, no works allowed" agenda, either. I like to simply read and accept the scriptures at face value, without all the twisting, parsing, etc that is necessary to get their eisigesis correct...

If one wished to become literal with your passage, they can say it doesn't say a word about water baptism, and there for may be rightly seen as Spiritual baptism.