Baptismal Regeneration - Excerpts by Charles Spurgeon

[SarahM777]

But is it that the act of baptism does all of that?
Or is it that since they baptized so close to conversion, that they could say these types of things about baptism, because for them conversion and baptism were basically the same thing due to doing them so close together?

This is a major part of Lutheranism my "discernment" just won't let me accept.
I've really tried to get my mind around an act of water hitting the skin, causing regeneration.

It's not the baptism itself it is by FAITH. I think when the church separated the two into two distinct things something got left out. The apostles saw them as being tied so closely together. You believed and were then baptized almost right away. I am more convinced the biggest reason we have this misunderstanding is that from their point of view they saw baptism as being part of the whole and not something that can really be separated from believing. We can't leave out faith or the working of the Holy Spirit in it.

I think we try way to hard to explain one as being something distinct from the other,whereas they saw it as part of and not so distinct from the other.

And again it's not the water itself,if we leave out faith and the Holy Spirit working it's nothing,if it's just the water all your doing is getting wet. If all one is doing is getting wet what's the point? And again why would Paul go through all the things he did about the rituals being done away and then Jesus Himself setting something up that is only just another ritual? HUHHH????? Does that make any sense? Isn't that a contradiction?

I have met far too many Christian's who were baptized very young or as infants whose faith is very very strong,one of my pastors grew up in Germany during WWII and was baptized as an infant,(He has been through far more then most in here) can I ever say that God did not do a work through his baptism? His faith is rooted and grounded. There is no question what so ever he believes and he is a living breathing example of the love of Christ.

 

[SarahM777]

But is it that the act of baptism does all of that?
Or is it that since they baptized so close to conversion, that they could say these types of things about baptism, because for them conversion and baptism were basically the same thing due to doing them so close together?

This is a major part of Lutheranism my "discernment" just won't let me accept.
I've really tried to get my mind around an act of water hitting the skin, causing regeneration.

Just one question for you Still? Does Jesus death and resurrection do anything by itself without faith and the working of the Holy Spirit?

 

[zone]

But is it that the act of baptism does all of that?
Or is it that since they baptized so close to conversion, that they could say these types of things about baptism, because for them conversion and baptism were basically the same thing due to doing them so close together?

this may be true.
so why and when did we stop "doing them so close together"?
when we decided baptism had nothing to do with The Trinity working in our salvation?
when we decided it was symbolic?
when we decided it was for adult professors only (how many years in a New Covenant family of believers before someone decides the believer has the "right" confession? -5? 10? 20? 30?)
who decides it's time to baptize? the believer? or the pastor?

i don't think anyone has said the act of baptism does anything.
the idea is.....it is God who is working.

if He can heal the Israelites from poison snake bites by having them simply look upon the brazen serpent...what can't He do?

This is a major part of Lutheranism my "discernment" just won't let me accept.

LCMS is not for everyone
we all decide.

I've really tried to get my mind around an act of water hitting the skin, causing regeneration.

again, is it water, or is it God?
we have no problem rightly accepting that The Holy Spirit convicts and convinces - through the miracle of the Living Word preached....no problem (for many) believing faith itself is a gift given....no problem believing God does know who is taking His Lord's Supper, and what condition their hearts are in....no problem believing God hears our prayers....and for many - absolutely no issue with claiming God is speaking through prophets and raising people from the dead.

yet for some reason, the simple commandment to baptize we just can not accept God is involved in that

maybe He is just watching the public ceremony? to see who really had faith and obedience?
if that's the case, what's the difference?

He is involved, and it matters to Him. way more than people seem to think.

 

[zone]

simplified for a moment: is baptism said anywhere in scripture to be connected to the forgiveness of sins?

........

(i realize it isn't stated in every verse of the Bible - but is it connected to the forgiveness of sins anywhere? if it is, we have an issue to deal with.)

Christ's shed blood is the ground for forgiveness of sins...we know that. the ONLY thing making the forgiveness of sins possible.

the question is: is baptism said anywhere in scripture to be connected to the forgiveness of sins? in whatever mysterious way that might be....

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Again you continue to avoid explaining verses like these

Romans 6

6 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

How do you deal with those passages? Paul flat out says IN BAPTISM we are baptized INTO Christ's death,and BURIED with Him. Paul plainly says something HAPPENS in baptism. No matter how hard you try you can't get around it that it is NOT just an outward sign of an inward change.

I was baptized in water - I did not literally die into his death, was not literally buried with him nor was I literally raised - but being baptized in water symbolized my baptism into death, my being buried with him, and my being raised to new life.

Never mind that Paul goes through all the things about the rituals that CAN DO NOTHING only for Jesus then to command something that in and of itself that would be just another ritual. How does that make sense to remove all the other rituals only to replace with something that is nothing more then a NEW RITUAL?

Paul says somethings happens in baptism so that we CAN LIVE A NEW LIFE,if that is NOT REGENERATION THEN WHAT IS IT? Please explain.

The holy Spirit enables us to live a new life.

John 4
If thou knewest the gift of God, (what is the gift of God? - the gift of holy Spirit)
and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. . . . 11) from whence hast thou that living water? . . . 13) Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water (from the well) shall thirst again: 14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I give him shall be in him a well of water springing up to everlasting life.

John 7:37-39 In the last day that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the holy Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The holy Spirit is often spoken of in terms of water - being "poured out", being "filled" with, baptized in". There are a few changes that came about with Jesus death and resurrection. He wasn't clear on any of them changing which caused disagreements throughout the early church. i.e. - Levitical laws of washings and sacrifices - God no longer requires sacrifices and washings to be considered clean(Hebrews 9:1, 9, 10) - circumcision was an OT practice but changed when Paul received revelation of the church epistles - circumcision of the flesh vs circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29) - it would have been a lot easier if Jesus had just told them this while on earth. Also - no more separation between Jew and Gentile - Peter wouldn't have argued with the Lord about going to Cornelius (Acts 10) and the Jews would not have questioned his actions (Acts 11).

And John bear record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Spirit. John 1:32,33

One baptism

 

[zone]

I was baptized in water - I did not literally die into his death, was not literally buried with him nor was I literally raised - but being baptized in water symbolized my baptism into death, my being buried with him, and my being raised to new life.

The holy Spirit enables us to live a new life.

John 4
If thou knewest the gift of God, (what is the gift of God? - the gift of holy Spirit)
and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. . . . 11) from whence hast thou that living water? . . . 13) Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water (from the well) shall thirst again: 14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I give him shall be in him a well of water springing up to everlasting life.

John 7:37-39 In the last day that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the holy Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The holy Spirit is often spoken of in terms of water - being "poured out", being "filled" with, baptized in". There are a few changes that came about with Jesus death and resurrection. He wasn't clear on any of them changing which caused disagreements throughout the early church. i.e. - Levitical laws of washings and sacrifices - God no longer requires sacrifices and washings to be considered clean(Hebrews 9:1, 9, 10) - circumcision was an OT practice but changed when Paul received revelation of the church epistles - circumcision of the flesh vs circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29) - it would have been a lot easier if Jesus had just told them this while on earth. Also - no more separation between Jew and Gentile - Peter wouldn't have argued with the Lord about going to Cornelius (Acts 10) and the Jews would not have questioned his actions (Acts 11).

And John bear record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Spirit. John 1:32,33

One baptism

why......do.....we......cast aside the Holy Spirit when it comes to water baptism?

why?

take a look at this scenario:

2 Kings 5
Naaman Healed of Leprosy
1Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master and in high favor, because by him the LORD had given victory to Syria. He was a mighty man of valor, but he was a leper.a 2Now the Syrians on one of their raids had carried off a little girl from the land of Israel, and she worked in the service of Naaman’s wife. 3She said to her mistress, “Would that my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.” 4So Naaman went in and told his lord, “Thus and so spoke the girl from the land of Israel.” 5And the king of Syria said, “Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel.”

So he went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekelsb of gold, and ten changes of clothing. 6And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, which read, “When this letter reaches you, know that I have sent to you Naaman my servant, that you may cure him of his leprosy.” 7And when the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his clothes and said, “Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man sends word to me to cure a man of his leprosy? Only consider, and see how he is seeking a quarrel with me.”

8But when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his clothes, he sent to the king, saying, “Why have you torn your clothes? Let him come now to me, that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel.” 9So Naaman came with his horses and chariots and stood at the door of Elisha’s house. 10And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.”

11But Naaman was angry and went away, saying, “Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper. 12Are not Abanac and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage.

13But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, it is a great word the prophet has spoken to you; will you not do it? Has he actually said to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?” 14So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.


look at Naaman in v. 11 & 12

could Elisha have said dip yourself once and be clean? probably.
could he have said, "okay - the rivers of Damascus are fine...go there and dip yourself? he could have...but is that what he said? no the instructions were simple, and clear.

was it Elisha who cleansed the leprosy?
was it the Jordan?
was it the 7 times-dip?

or was it God?

 

[peacefulbeliever]

why......do.....we......cast aside the Holy Spirit when it comes to water baptism?

why?

take a look at this scenario:

2 Kings 5
Naaman Healed of Leprosy
1Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master and in high favor, because by him the LORD had given victory to Syria. He was a mighty man of valor, but he was a leper.a 2Now the Syrians on one of their raids had carried off a little girl from the land of Israel, and she worked in the service of Naaman’s wife. 3She said to her mistress, “Would that my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.” 4So Naaman went in and told his lord, “Thus and so spoke the girl from the land of Israel.” 5And the king of Syria said, “Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel.”

So he went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekelsb of gold, and ten changes of clothing. 6And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, which read, “When this letter reaches you, know that I have sent to you Naaman my servant, that you may cure him of his leprosy.” 7And when the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his clothes and said, “Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man sends word to me to cure a man of his leprosy? Only consider, and see how he is seeking a quarrel with me.”

8But when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his clothes, he sent to the king, saying, “Why have you torn your clothes? Let him come now to me, that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel.” 9So Naaman came with his horses and chariots and stood at the door of Elisha’s house. 10And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.”

11But Naaman was angry and went away, saying, “Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper. 12Are not Abanac and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage.

13But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, it is a great word the prophet has spoken to you; will you not do it? Has he actually said to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?” 14So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.


look at Naaman in v. 11 & 12

could Elisha have said dip yourself once and be clean? probably.
could he have said, "okay - the rivers of Damascus are fine...go there and dip yourself? he could have...but is that what he said? no the instructions were simple, and clear.

was it Elisha who cleansed the leprosy?
was it the Jordan?
was it the 7 times-dip?

or was it God?

Why should we go back to Levtical laws of ceremonial washings and sacrifices? It was God that cleansed Naaman of leprosy because that is what God told him to do. And yes, Jesus told the disciples to go - and baptize - and he meant water - but there was something coming that was greater - living waters - John truly baptized with water but he shall baptize you with holy Spirit. Hey, its okay to have both - Jesus was baptized in water and with holy Spirit symbolized by the dove upon him. But since scripture says "one baptism" there can only be one - not two.

Wonder which baptism Jesus was talking about here:

But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

Why would he ask them that if he was talking about John's baptism? Why does scripture specify the two different baptisms - one John's and one which baptizes in holy Spirit? which came later? I believe this is speaking of being baptized in holy Spirit as he was.

 

[notuptome]

why......do.....we......cast aside the Holy Spirit when it comes to water baptism?

why?

We don't. Can't say for others.

could Elisha have said dip yourself once and be clean? probably.
could he have said, "okay - the rivers of Damascus are fine...go there and dip yourself? he could have...but is that what he said? no the instructions were simple, and clear.

was it Elisha who cleansed the leprosy?
was it the Jordan?
was it the 7 times-dip?

or was it God?

Could he have been cleansed without water? Was the water there to provide visible evidence of faith? It has often been noted and more often ignored that one can say they have faith or they believe but only God can see into the heart. Us folks on the outside can only see what they does as evidence of what they believes. What I see can be deceiving but what God sees cannot be hidden.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[SarahM777]

Why should we go back to Levtical laws of ceremonial washings and sacrifices? It was God that cleansed Naaman of leprosy because that is what God told him to do. And yes, Jesus told the disciples to go - and baptize - and he meant water - but there was something coming that was greater - living waters - John truly baptized with water but he shall baptize you with holy Spirit. Hey, its okay to have both - Jesus was baptized in water and with holy Spirit symbolized by the dove upon him. But since scripture says "one baptism" there can only be one - not two.

Wonder which baptism Jesus was talking about here:

But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

Why would he ask them that if he was talking about John's baptism? Why does scripture specify the two different baptisms - one John's and one which baptizes in holy Spirit? which came later? I believe this is speaking of being baptized in holy Spirit as he was.

UMMM Then if as you say there is but one baptism then why were you water baptized? Did the apostles get it wrong when they baptized the believers with water? Why then did they do that?

 

[BradC]

simplified for a moment: is baptism said anywhere in scripture to be connected to the forgiveness of sins?

........

(i realize it isn't stated in every verse of the Bible - but is it connected to the forgiveness of sins anywhere? if it is, we have an issue to deal with.)

Christ's shed blood is the ground for forgiveness of sins...we know that. the ONLY thing making the forgiveness of sins possible.

the question is: is baptism said anywhere in scripture to be connected to the forgiveness of sins? in whatever mysterious way that might be....

The question of the thread is this, 'Is water baptism an act that provides regeneration for those baptized?' 'Is the Holy Spirit involved in an act of regeneration when the infant, child or adult is baptized by water?' The Lutherans and some others believe this to be the case, but the scriptures do not. When Moses was told by the Lord to lift up a brazen serpent and to have the people who were bitten to look upon it so that they might live, there was a promise attached to the mandate for those who looked. What you folks are doing is attaching a promise of regeneration to the act of water baptism and you try to justify that act with faith because there is no word from God or promise of scripture to base it upon.

There is no promise of scripture that regeneration is given to those who are baptized by water. Instead water baptism is a simple act of faith in obedience to a mandate we have been given in the name of Christ and it's for all those who have been regenerated when believing upon Christ who was lifted up on a cross. The promise of regeneration is through the cross of Christ when we were washed by the shed blood for the remission of sins through the Holy Spirit. When we believe we can be baptized immediately under conviction of the Spirit or later when we come under conviction. Water baptism by immersion has no effect on our positional standing with God through justification, whereby we have been cleansed and forgiven of all sin. If anything it would apply to the believer's progressive sanctification as they are set apart from the world and the old man Adam and unto Christ, the second Adam. Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is a declaration of our identification with the Lamb of God through the new birth provided through his death, burial and resurrection.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

UMMM Then if as you say there is but one baptism then why were you water baptized? Did the apostles get it wrong when they baptized the believers with water? Why then did they do that?

Like everyone else, it is long time tradition - it is what my church taught and I've learned a lot since I was 9 yrs old!

I never said the apostles had it wrong - they could only baptize in water - Jesus baptizes with holy Spirit and that was only available after he ascended. Did they get it wrong because they baptized in the name of Jesus and not - Father, Son and of the Holy Spirit?

It all boiled down to tradition - the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were still endeavoring to keep the Law

Acts 21:20 - And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him (Paul), thou seest brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

The newly converted Jews had faith in Jesus Christ but it was hard to let go of how they had been living for years observing the things in the law - that is why they were still having disputes concerning circumcision, what to eat or what not to eat, etc.

 

[SarahM777]

Like everyone else, it is long time tradition - it is what my church taught and I've learned a lot since I was 9 yrs old!

I never said the apostles had it wrong - they could only baptize in water - Jesus baptizes with holy Spirit and that was only available after he ascended. Did they get it wrong because they baptized in the name of Jesus and not - Father, Son and of the Holy Spirit?

It all boiled down to tradition - the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were still endeavoring to keep the Law

Acts 21:20 - And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him (Paul), thou seest brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

The newly converted Jews had faith in Jesus Christ but it was hard to let go of how they had been living for years observing the things in the law - that is why they were still having disputes concerning circumcision, what to eat or what not to eat, etc.

UMMM But what about Cornelius and his family? They were gentiles. And how do you deal with that first they received the spirit and then were baptized UNLESS they had already received John's baptism? And didn't Paul also baptize some gentiles?

 

[1still_waters]

It's not the baptism itself it is by FAITH. I think when the church separated the two into two distinct things something got left out. The apostles saw them as being tied so closely together. You believed and were then baptized almost right away. I am more convinced the biggest reason we have this misunderstanding is that from their point of view they saw baptism as being part of the whole and not something that can really be separated from believing. We can't leave out faith or the working of the Holy Spirit in it.

I think we try way to hard to explain one as being something distinct from the other,whereas they saw it as part of and not so distinct from the other.

And again it's not the water itself,if we leave out faith and the Holy Spirit working it's nothing,if it's just the water all your doing is getting wet. If all one is doing is getting wet what's the point? And again why would Paul go through all the things he did about the rituals being done away and then Jesus Himself setting something up that is only just another ritual? HUHHH????? Does that make any sense? Isn't that a contradiction?

I have met far too many Christian's who were baptized very young or as infants whose faith is very very strong,one of my pastors grew up in Germany during WWII and was baptized as an infant,(He has been through far more then most in here) can I ever say that God did not do a work through his baptism? His faith is rooted and grounded. There is no question what so ever he believes and he is a living breathing example of the love of Christ.

It's not the baptism itself it is by FAITH

Do babies really have the ability to have faith in a concept such as the atonement being applied to them as water is poured over their head at the young age of one to three months?

have met far too many Christian's who were baptized very young or as infants whose faith is very very strong,one

This is probably because the parents followed through on the baptism ceremony, and brought their child up in the instruction of God. I doubt it's because as a one month old baby they had water poured on their head, and as a one month old they understood the theology of the cross and how it's being administered through a sacrament. At that stage of life they can't even say momma, let alone understand grace/faith being applied through the means of baptism.

 

[jag1977]

4*These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the*Lord*God made the earth and the heavens,

5*And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the*Lord*God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6*But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7*And the*Lord*God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[SarahM777]

Do babies really have the ability to have faith in a concept such as the atonement being applied to them as water is poured over their head at the young age of one to three months?



This is probably because the parents followed through on the baptism ceremony, and brought their child up in the instruction of God. I doubt it's because as a one month old baby they had water poured on their head, and as a one month old they understood the theology of the cross and how it's being administered through a sacrament. At that stage of life they can't even say momma, let alone understand grace/faith being applied through the means of baptism.

Again can you say for sure that a child CAN NOT be child of God while the womb? Remember John the Baptist was FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT BEFORE he was even born? Remember Jesus also said let the LITTLE children come to me. So when does faith become active in God's eyes in the life of a child? Then too when does faith become active for an autistic adult? They can't articulate it the same way,so do you not baptize them? Is it faith in all the theological aspects of Christianity or is it faith in JESUS? Big difference there.

 

[1still_waters]

Again can you say for sure that a child CAN NOT be child of God while the womb? Remember John the Baptist was FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT BEFORE he was even born? Remember Jesus also said let the LITTLE children come to me. So when does faith become active in God's eyes in the life of a child? Then too when does faith become active for an autistic adult? They can't articulate it the same way,so do you not baptize them? Is it faith in all the theological aspects of Christianity or is it faith in JESUS? Big difference there.

All I know is that in the Bible, there is NO clear, absolutely clear instances of a baby being water baptized.
None whatsoever.
Yes there are verses that seem to imply it possibly happening.
But if one is going off of what the Bible clearly speaks to, then one can't build a solid biblical teaching that favors baptizing babies.

There are ways to piece together various scriptures that imply infant baptism, but you end up with a doctrine/teaching whose foundation is mere implication, and NOT clear revelation.

We see adults clearly being baptized, hence adult baptism rests on a clear foundation of clearly revealed truth. The same can't be said of infant baptism teaching. To me that's concerning.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Again can you say for sure that a child CAN NOT be child of God while the womb? Remember John the Baptist was FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT BEFORE he was even born? Remember Jesus also said let the LITTLE children come to me. So when does faith become active in God's eyes in the life of a child? Then too when does faith become active for an autistic adult? They can't articulate it the same way,so do you not baptize them? Is it faith in all the theological aspects of Christianity or is it faith in JESUS? Big difference there.

On this I agree with 1still_waters. I believe that John the Baptist is the ONLY record of one having holy Spirit in the womb. Aren't we to confess Jesus as Lord, and believe in our hearts that God hath raised him from the dead to be saved? Does sprinkling or immersion with water do that for an infant or small child?

My grandson just turned 9 and he said something about getting baptized (must have heard other kids talking about it) - I asked him did he know what it meant to be baptized - he said "no". I talked with him and of course I explained that getting baptized does not save you, that it symbolizes his flesh dying and his being raised to new life - then I explained Romans 10:9,10 and that he could do that without being baptized in water BUT I did tell him if after he thought about it - if he still wanted to be baptized so everyone would know that he had given his life to Christ - then by all means be baptized.

 

[zone]

Could he have been cleansed without water?

uh...ya...he could have been.
but what does it actually say happened?
i think you're missing my point. i didn't post that passage as a proof text for water baptism.

Was the water there to provide visible evidence of faith?

uh...he didn't have much faith from what i can see.
he grumbled and doubted the whole thing.
he expected a waving of the hand and the spectacular.
or he wondered why other rivers weren't as "good" (as in - he thought WATER - not GOD)

none of that is the real point of that passage anyway - so i prolly shouldn't even have posted it.
lol

It has often been noted and more often ignored that one can say they have faith or they believe but only God can see into the heart. Us folks on the outside can only see what they does as evidence of what they believes. What I see can be deceiving but what God sees cannot be hidden.

uh...okay.

does Jesus say to baptize people or doesn't He?
is God looking into your heart when you get baptized - to see your faith in action-type thing? isn't that salvation by works?
or is He happily seeing others greet you as a member of the local church? your outward display of your inward faith?

what is God doing with baptism? anything?

 

[zone]

Why should we go back to Levtical laws of ceremonial washings and sacrifices?

maybe we should...sometime.

It was God that cleansed Naaman of leprosy

right.
so why the dipping in the river (this is not a proof text for water baptism), when he didn't have to?

because that is what God [through Elisha] told him to do.

And yes, Jesus told the disciples to go - and baptize - and he meant water - but there was something coming that was greater - living waters - John truly baptized with water but he shall baptize you with holy Spirit[/COLOR]. Hey, its okay to have both - Jesus was baptized in water and with holy Spirit symbolized by the dove upon him. But since scripture says "one baptism" there can only be one - not two.

well, i agree....so what's "it's nice to have both" for?
God is not the Author of confusion.

this Baptism with the Holy Ghost teaching is new you realize, right?

Wonder which baptism Jesus was talking about here:

But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:[/COLOR]

suffering and death.

Why would he ask them that if he was talking about John's baptism? Why does scripture specify the two different baptisms - one John's and one which baptizes in holy Spirit? which came later? I believe this is speaking of being baptized in holy Spirit as he was.

but peaceful...you weren't AT PENTECOST.

anyways....

 

[homwardbound]

1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ


[h=3]home is there some problem with wanting to be sure what Peter actually said?
it's better to quote directly if you want to refute water baptism (whatever you think he meant, best to say what he actually said).

so this, is a cop-out:

So what did Peter come to see and realize here in Acts?[/h][h=3]Acts 11:14-17[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

[SUP]14 [/SUP]who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. [SUP]15 [/SUP]And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. [SUP]16 [/SUP]Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. [SUP]17 [/SUP]Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?





Here it is Sister in Black and white for you to see the difference in water Baptism and Spiritual
For John the Baptist has said the very same thing that he only Baptized with water but that Christ who comes after him and has already through the cross came and done, we are to receive Holy Ghost Baptism

[h=3]Acts 1:5[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


[SUP]5 [/SUP]For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


[h=3]Acts 19[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, [SUP]2[/SUP]he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [SUP]3 [/SUP]And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [SUP]5 [/SUP]When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [SUP]6 [/SUP]And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. [SUP]7 [/SUP]And all the men were about twelve.





Do you see the difference, may God show you, praying so and if not so be it, right there in black and white.