Baptism

  • Thread starter eternally-gratefull
  • Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
loveschild

loveschild

Banned
#21
May 21, 2009
3,955
25
0
#21
  1. Matthew 3:6
    And they were baptized in the Jordan by him, confessing their sins.
    Matthew 3:5-7 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Matthew 3:13
    Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him.
    Matthew 3:12-14 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
  3. Matthew 3:14
    But John protested strenuously, having in mind to prevent Him, saying, It is I who have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?
    Matthew 3:13-15 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
  4. Matthew 3:16
    And when Jesus was baptized, He went up at once out of the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he [John] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on Him.
    Matthew 3:15-17 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
  5. Matthew 20:22
    But Jesus replied, You do not realize what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink and to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized ? They answered, We are able.
    Matthew 20:21-23 (in Context) Matthew 20 (Whole Chapter)
  6. Mark 1:5
    And there kept going out to him [continuously] all the country of Judea and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, as they were confessing their sins.
    Mark 1:4-6 (in Context) Mark 1 (Whole Chapter)
  7. Mark 1:8
    I have baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
    Mark 1:7-9 (in Context) Mark 1 (Whole Chapter)
  8. Mark 1:9
    In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
    Mark 1:8-10 (in Context) Mark 1 (Whole Chapter)
  9. Mark 10:38
    But Jesus said to them, You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism [of affliction] with which I am baptized?
    Mark 10:37-39 (in Context) Mark 10 (Whole Chapter)
  10. Mark 10:39
    And they replied to Him, We are able. And Jesus told them, The cup that I drink you will drink, and you will be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized,
    Mark 10:38-40 (in Context) Mark 10 (Whole Chapter)
Results from Gospel.com
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#22
#22
Laodicea said:
Mark 1:4
(4) John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:8
(8) I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

The baptism of the HS is performed by Jesus. Just as in water baptism we are fully immersed into the water so the Baptism of the HS we are fully immersed into the HS by Jesus. Also water Baptism is a symbol of repentance.
Click to expand...
This was the point I was making. Water baptism is a symbol. We can not replace HS baptism with water. (like many want to do)

and since HS baptism is what saves us. we can not say a person who is already saved needs to ask for the baptism of the Spirit (like many others want to do). if they have not been baptized by the spirit. they are not saved. plain and simple.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#23
#23
loveschild said:
  1. Matthew 3:6
    And they were baptized in the Jordan by him, confessing their sins.
    Matthew 3:5-7 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Matthew 3:13
    Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him.
    Matthew 3:12-14 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
  3. Matthew 3:14
    But John protested strenuously, having in mind to prevent Him, saying, It is I who have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?
    Matthew 3:13-15 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
  4. Matthew 3:16
    And when Jesus was baptized, He went up at once out of the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he [John] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on Him.
    Matthew 3:15-17 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
  5. Matthew 20:22
    But Jesus replied, You do not realize what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink and to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized ? They answered, We are able.
    Matthew 20:21-23 (in Context) Matthew 20 (Whole Chapter)
  6. Mark 1:5
    And there kept going out to him [continuously] all the country of Judea and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, as they were confessing their sins.
    Mark 1:4-6 (in Context) Mark 1 (Whole Chapter)
  7. Mark 1:8
    I have baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
    Mark 1:7-9 (in Context) Mark 1 (Whole Chapter)
  8. Mark 1:9
    In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
    Mark 1:8-10 (in Context) Mark 1 (Whole Chapter)
  9. Mark 10:38
    But Jesus said to them, You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism [of affliction] with which I am baptized?
    Mark 10:37-39 (in Context) Mark 10 (Whole Chapter)
  10. Mark 10:39
    And they replied to Him, We are able. And Jesus told them, The cup that I drink you will drink, and you will be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized,
    Mark 10:38-40 (in Context) Mark 10 (Whole Chapter)
Results from Gospel.com
Click to expand...
Ok these show many different types of baptisms. I am not sure what you mean by this post. which are you supporting?
 
superdave5221

superdave5221

Senior Member
#24
Jul 28, 2009
1,409
31
48
#24
eternally-gratefull said:
In order to understand what baptize means, we must go to the gree, for the word is not native to the english language, in fact before the english translators transliterated the word (why I have no clue) it was not even a word.
Click to expand...
The reason baptizo was transliterated was because the translators did not want to lose their heads, literally. The word means "immerse". However, the Catholic church had begun to "sprinkle". The Church of England, an offshoot of Catholicism, also practiced "sprinkling".

The scholars who were translating the KJV of the bible did not want to offend King James, who had been "sprinkled". They also did not want to appear as incompetent by mistranslating the word, so they compromised, and transliterated it instead.
 
Last edited:
L

Laodicea

Guest
#25
#25
eternally-gratefull said:
This was the point I was making. Water baptism is a symbol. We can not replace HS baptism with water. (like many want to do)

and since HS baptism is what saves us. we can not say a person who is already saved needs to ask for the baptism of the Spirit (like many others want to do). if they have not been baptized by the spirit. they are not saved. plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Luke 3:21-22
(21) Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
(22) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

I agree the baptism of the HS is separate to water baptism, Jesus was first baptized by water then prayed then received the HS, it is Jesus who baptizes us with the HS it is not given any other way.

 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#26
#26
superdave5221 said:
The reason baptizo was transliterated was because the translators did not want to lose their heads, literally. The word means "immerse". However, the Catholic church had begun to "sprinkle". The Church of England, and offshoot of Catholicism, also practiced "sprinkling".

The scholars who were translating the KJV of the bible did not want to offend King James, who had been "sprinkled". They also did not want to appear as incompetent by mistranslating the word, so the compromised, and transliterated it instead.
Click to expand...
I believe satan had a hand in this. and this goes to show that "translations" are not inspired. but only the origional autographs as penned by the writers themselves.
 
superdave5221

superdave5221

Senior Member
#27
Jul 28, 2009
1,409
31
48
#27
eternally-gratefull said:
I believe satan had a hand in this. and this goes to show that "translations" are not inspired. but only the origional autographs as penned by the writers themselves.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Translations are NOT inspired. However, when teams of scholars, from varied backgrounds and doctrinal beliefs get together to translate the best documents available, it is likely that the results are going to be very close to the original.

We can be confident in good translations, as long as we take their limitations into account. This can be done by checking and considering alternate translation choices for difficult passages, as well as considering all levels of context, within a given subject.
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
#28
#28
eternally-gratefull said:
I believe satan had a hand in this. and this goes to show that "translations" are not inspired. but only the origional autographs as penned by the writers themselves.
Click to expand...
God can speak all languages and can translate His word from one language to the next. It means that people need to diligently search the scriptures
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#29
#29
Laodicea said:
God can speak all languages and can translate His word from one language to the next. It means that people need to diligently search the scriptures
Click to expand...
yes. we should not use our definition, or our own belief system to translate Gods word. for it will only lead to mistakes if we are not careful!!
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#30
#30
superdave5221 said:
You are correct. Translations are NOT inspired. However, when teams of scholars, from varied backgrounds and doctrinal beliefs get together to translate the best documents available, it is likely that the results are going to be very close to the original.

We can be confident in good translations, as long as we take their limitations into account. This can be done by checking and considering alternate translation choices for difficult passages, as well as considering all levels of context, within a given subject.
Click to expand...
also I believe that when we translate, we translate in a way that does not cause contradiction. if our translation causes a contradiction with another aspect of scripture. one ot the translation we have believed in is in error. we must change our translation so as the contradiction is removed.

ie. paul says we are saved by faith with no works.

james says we are saved by faith with work.

they both can't be right. so we must translate in a way they agree with each other!
 
superdave5221

superdave5221

Senior Member
#31
Jul 28, 2009
1,409
31
48
#31
eternally-gratefull said:
also I believe that when we translate, we translate in a way that does not cause contradiction. if our translation causes a contradiction with another aspect of scripture. one ot the translation we have believed in is in error. we must change our translation so as the contradiction is removed.

ie. paul says we are saved by faith with no works.

james says we are saved by faith with work.

they both can't be right. so we must translate in a way they agree with each other!
Click to expand...
AMEN BROTHER! I am glad that at least one other person in CC has recognized this fact! Many, not all, but many of the so called "contradictions" in the bible can be eliminated, if all passages on a given subject are compared in the proper context. It will be found that most "complement" each other, rather than contradict.

It is only by considering all passages on a given subject and how they relate to and complement each other, that we can assimilate a correct interpretation of the message on a given subject.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#32
#32
superdave5221 said:
AMEN BROTHER! I am glad that at least one other person in CC has recognized this fact! Many, not all, but many of the so called "contradictions" in the bible can be eliminated, if all passages on a given subject are compared in the proper context. It will be found that most "complement" each other, rather than contradict.

It is only by considering all passages on a given subject and how they relate to and complement each other, that we can assimilate a correct interpretation of the message on a given subject.
Click to expand...
yes, I believe it is one of Gods predetermined checks and balances of his word.

The whole of the word is called the "logos" it is one main idea, even though it is composed of many seperate books. Which means the "whole" must agree with each other.

the problem is many look with blind eyes, just trying to look for things which make their beliefs come true. and ignore things which would show their belief system is flawed. May God open our eyes!
 
Megatron

Megatron

Banned
#33
May 6, 2011
640
2
0
#33
eternally-gratefull said:
I think you should care. If your adding a work of man and expecting because of this work you will be saved, your believing in a works based Gospel. Not a gospel of faith.

Also. Stating the baptism performed by men in water replaces the baptism performed by God through the HS is attributing to man the work of God. Jesus said, when men attributed the work of the HS in him to Satan that they risked committing blasphemy of the HS. and if they did not change they would commit the unpardonable sin. This is no different. Except people attribute the work of God (the HS) to man.

Paul makes it clear in his letter to the colossians

Col 2:
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[a] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

OT circumcision represented a person who was clean (vs an unclean gentile who was not circumcised)

Paul is telling people it is not the circumcision by the hands of men which makes us clean, it is the one done by the hands of God. We are cleansed by being buried with him in baptism, and are raised to a new life. (this baptism is performed by God, who raised him from the dead, namely the HS)

Before we were saved, we were unclean, and dead to Christ. After we are saved, Through this "baptism of the HS" we are "made alive" because God has forgiven us all sin.

The new church had trouble with jews wishing to add circumcision to faith to the Gospel. Paul fought this in Galatians when he said if anyone teaches a different gospel. let that gospel be accursed (damned)

Water baptism is the modern day work of men which people are trying to add to the gospel of Christ. and Just like paul had to condemn jews who were teaching we must add circumcision to the gospel., we should condemn the false teaching of baptismal regeneration which is performed in water by man, and not which is performed by God the HS himself. because they were adding the work of men to the work which is supposed to be done by God, and saying this is what saves you (a gospel of works)
Click to expand...
I mean I was baptised because i wanted to follow what the Bible said to do. But I dont think its necessary for salvation. However I just dont see the point of arguing over it. Its just a baptism...belief in it as more than obedience isnt going to ruin anyone.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#34
#34
Megatron said:
I mean I was baptised because i wanted to follow what the Bible said to do. But I dont think its necessary for salvation. However I just dont see the point of arguing over it. Its just a baptism...belief in it as more than obedience isnt going to ruin anyone.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Belief that it will save you. or has a part in your salvation is placing faith in your own work, and rejecting the work of God. (like the jews did with circumcision) and will lead many straight to hell!!

by the way. I am glad you don't believe water baptism saves you :)
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
#35
#35
Megatron said:
I mean I was baptised because i wanted to follow what the Bible said to do. But I dont think its necessary for salvation. However I just dont see the point of arguing over it. Its just a baptism...belief in it as more than obedience isnt going to ruin anyone.
Click to expand...
Who said we are arguing? We are discussing the Bible which is what this is a Bible discussion forum.
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
#36
#36
Mark 16:16
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
John 3:5
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:36
(36) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#37
#37
Laodicea said:
Mark 16:16
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
John 3:5
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:36
(36) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your trying to say with this?

John 3: 36 seems to counter Mark 16: 16. why is that?

John 3: 5 has nothing to do with water baptism.
 
C

Consumed

Guest
#38
#38
Good points made both sides of the debate, we have Phillip and the eunuch just to add to it. Anyway, it's symbolic of washing away the old being resurrected in the new creation, not as works, but by faith.
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#39
#39
Laodicea said:
  1. Mark 16:8 NU-Text and M-Text omit quickly.
  2. Mark 16:18 NU-Text reads and in their hands they will.
  3. Mark 16:20 Verses 9–20 are bracketed in NU-Text as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them.
This is a footnote in the New King James Version, they are lacking in the Catholic versions of the Bible. The King James is not translated from these 2 sources.
Click to expand...
Catholic versions of the Bible do indeed have these verses in them, in fact all Catholic Bibles are required to contain these verses, since the Bible was canonized with these verses they are inspired. The Vulgate also has these verses and Jerome had access to older manuscripts for the NT than we do today.

But I don't know why you keep saying the Codex Vaticanus is a Catholic source. Is it because it's held in the Vatican library?
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#40
#40
superdave5221 said:
The reason baptizo was transliterated was because the translators did not want to lose their heads, literally. The word means "immerse". However, the Catholic church had begun to "sprinkle". The Church of England, an offshoot of Catholicism, also practiced "sprinkling".

The scholars who were translating the KJV of the bible did not want to offend King James, who had been "sprinkled". They also did not want to appear as incompetent by mistranslating the word, so they compromised, and transliterated it instead.
Click to expand...
Baptizo can also mean a ritual washing, or a simple washing with water. Baptizo like many words in English has multiple meanings and we do not know which definition the author meant. Also the Catholic Church has never sprinkled we always pour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.