True Baptism

[DJ2]

Mt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

So as scripture teaches the water baptism of Jesus was symbolic and not efficacious. It was for the fulfillment of righteousness before the Pharisees and the religious rules of Judaism.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Jesus does not label His baptism as symbolic or efficacious but as a "must".

You cannot see this because you are blinded by your esoteric knowledge. You are using these labels because you think you are somehow above the simple words of Matthew, your holy spirit baptism does not give you a higher or special understanding of scripture then the Bereans.

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. It was not an option for Him but a must.

 

[hornetguy]

Mt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

and in real English....

[SUP]15 [/SUP]But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he *permitted Him. [SUP]16 [/SUP]After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and [SUP][i][/SUP]he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and [SUP][j][/SUP]lighting on Him, [SUP]17 [/SUP]and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is [SUP][k][/SUP]My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

So, Jesus HAD to be baptized. To fulfill all righteousness. He could have told God, "well, I'll do it someday, maybe.... because it's not really essential"

WDJD what DID Jesus do?

 

[Prov910]

Jesus does not label His baptism as symbolic or efficacious but as a "must".

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. It was not an option for Him but a must.

So baptism was a must for Jesus? If he hadn't been baptized he would not have gone to heaven? Heh. Who knew? lol

 

[notuptome]

Jesus does not label His baptism as symbolic or efficacious but as a "must".

You cannot see this because you are blinded by your esoteric knowledge. You are using these labels because you think you are somehow above the simple words of Matthew, your holy spirit baptism does not give you a higher or special understanding of scripture then the Bereans.

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. It was not an option for Him but a must.

So Jesus lacked some righteousness?

Here's one that will really twist your knickers. Jesus could not die a physical death. On the cross Jesus willed His Spirit to leave. Death did not conquer Jesus but by His determinate will He cause His Spirit to leave His body. Why and how can this be? Jesus never had any sin so He could not die. Jesus was fully God and fully man. He was the righteousness of God in the flesh.

Jesus never had to do anything but He willed to do all before ever He created man.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

and in real English....



So, Jesus HAD to be baptized. To fulfill all righteousness. He could have told God, "well, I'll do it someday, maybe.... because it's not really essential"

WDJD what DID Jesus do?

So the Father was not pleased until after the water baptism?

Jesus was not baptized for the Father but to signify the start of His earthly ministry. Jesus lacked nothing for the sake of righteousness.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[DJ2]

So Jesus lacked some righteousness?

Here's one that will really twist your knickers. Jesus could not die a physical death. On the cross Jesus willed His Spirit to leave. Death did not conquer Jesus but by His determinate will He cause His Spirit to leave His body. Why and how can this be? Jesus never had any sin so He could not die. Jesus was fully God and fully man. He was the righteousness of God in the flesh.

Jesus never had to do anything but He willed to do all before ever He created man.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Jesus did not die a physical death on the cross? Your Gnostism is exposed.

 

[graceNpeace]

So Jesus lacked some righteousness?

Here's one that will really twist your knickers. Jesus could not die a physical death. On the cross Jesus willed His Spirit to leave. Death did not conquer Jesus but by His determinate will He cause His Spirit to leave His body. Why and how can this be? Jesus never had any sin so He could not die. Jesus was fully God and fully man. He was the righteousness of God in the flesh.

Jesus never had to do anything but He willed to do all before ever He created man.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Roger, sorry

I think you have overcooked the goose here....
You need to seriously consider the implications of what you are asserting!

 

[mailmandan]

This post is nothing more then a straw man. What the Mormon or Roman Catholic churches believe on this subject is moot. We are not debating their dogma but the bible's stand on baptism. A number of "trust only" sects have bizarre teachings as well but this is not part of the discussion.

Is your special discernment telling you that this is a valid point?

It's not a straw man argument at all. It's a fact that the Roman Catholic church along with the Mormon church and other churches that teach salvation by works (including the church of Christ) are strong advocates of salvation by water baptism, which should raise a red flag!

I have also shown how the church of Christ and the Roman Catholic church incorrectly define faith and teach that we are saved by faith AND works, even though both churches claim they don't teach salvation by works. Another red flag!

Those who correctly teach that salvation is by grace through faith, not works, do not pervert the gospel of Christ, regardless of what other doctrines (in which salvation is not at stake over) that they may or may not agree on.

 

[mailmandan]

and in real English....

So, Jesus HAD to be baptized. To fulfill all righteousness. He could have told God, "well, I'll do it someday, maybe.... because it's not really essential"

WDJD what DID Jesus do?

By Jesus getting baptized, WHO did He fulfill all righteousness FOR? Did Jesus get baptized for the exact same reason WE get baptized?

 

[hornetguy]

By Jesus getting baptized, WHO did He fulfill all righteousness FOR? Did Jesus get baptized for the exact same reason WE get baptized?

Of course not. He did it to fulfill righteousness, and to fulfill prophesy (IIRC)

Don't shoot the messenger... it's what HE said he did it for. Argue with him, if you wish.

HE was the one who said he MUST be baptized. Otherwise, I don't think John would have done it. (my opinion only)

 

[mailmandan]

Of course not. He did it to fulfill righteousness, and to fulfill prophesy (IIRC)

Don't shoot the messenger... it's what HE said he did it for. Argue with him, if you wish.

HE was the one who said he MUST be baptized. Otherwise, I don't think John would have done it. (my opinion only)

I was merely asking you a simple question. I'm not arguing with Jesus. My point is that Jesus was not baptized for the exact same reason that we are baptized. Believers do not get baptized to fulfill all righteousness or prophecy and believers are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:5). Getting water baptized is not about must or else for believers, but will, unless you experience a death bed conversion with no opportunity to get water baptized, like the thief on the cross who was saved through faith but was unable to receive water baptism prior to his death.

If water baptism was absolutely required for salvation, then God would not make so many statements in which He promises eternal life to those who BELIEVE (John 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 3:22-28; 4:5; 10:4 etc..).

Certainly, water baptism is an important act of obedience. Any one professing to have placed their faith in Jesus for salvation and yet has refused to be water baptized is of questionable sincerity. It's unthinkable that anyone who truly believes in Jesus for salvation would refuse to be water baptized, yet there may be some who will not have the opportunity to receive water baptism after their conversion, yet the Bible clearly states those who believe will be saved (John 3:15,16,18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 etc..). *NOWHERE does the Bible say "water baptized or condemned," but the Bible DOES say that whoever "does not believe" is condemned already (John 3:18).

 

[fredoheaven]

Excepts from post #262 where colored black is originally post by malimandan and colored green is hornetguy

Salvation through faith is not a step by step process that culminates in water baptism. Actually, according to scripture, and the direct instruction from Jesus, it is.

I have to note it here that:

Nowhere in the scripture could we ever find that water baptism is a direct instruction from Jesus in order to save. On the contrary, in the lips of the Lord Jesus said:

“Repent ye, and believe the gospel.” There’s no baptism at all.

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

 

[fredoheaven]

1st Peter 3:21 clearly states that it is the water that is symbolized as baptism not the ark. It is this baptism that now saves you.

If you cannot see this, I suggest you tone down your esoteric knowledge a bit. It may be clouding your judgement.

Is this the way you draw at symbolism? That the judgment by flood of waters is a means that saves you? No it was the Ark of safety the 8 were saved. If this baptism pictures your salvation, then it needs the ark to be immersed in the floods of water and then rise at the top with all the eight including the animal collections would be dead by then but this is not so. The ark was kept by the power of God so that there’s no shipwrecked. That’s poor demonstration of using symbolism in the Bible.

 

[hornetguy]

yet there may be some who will not have the opportunity to receive water baptism after their conversion, yet the Bible clearly states those who believe will be saved

While that is certainly true, I imagine the instances of it are truly rare. If we actually TAUGHT scripture the way Jesus and the apostles did, we would teach the gospel, and tell people that if they believe, and accept Jesus, you should be baptized, right now. The eunuch was brought to Jesus while riding down a dusty road in the desert.... and God provide water for him to be baptized, as soon as he believed.

Instead, what we see is people minimizing the importance of it, to the point of triviality. You can say all day long that "we absolutely recommend a believer be baptized", but if it's not taught as being an expected part of accepting Jesus, it's dumbed down to "not really important". (I'm not saying YOU, MMDan, I'm speaking in generalities.... the general "you")

If you are honest with yourself, you will know that what I'm saying is true. We see it all the time on this forum... people saying, "it's really not all that important, it's just a shadow, a sign, an indication...blah, blah".... which is teaching people who know no better that baptism is purely optional.

That approach is completely unscriptural.

 

[garee]

Mt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

So as scripture teaches the water baptism of Jesus was symbolic and not efficacious. It was for the fulfillment of righteousness before the Pharisees and the religious rules of Judaism.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Exactly it is an old testament ceremonial law performed in a ceremony when requesting to enter the priesthood as a kingdom of priest.

It is not a moral law and therefore is not efficacious. It is coming under the law which was required for a new priest to enter the teaching ministry so that they could go out and preach the gospel doing the work of evangelism. John the Levi baptized the Son of man from the tribe of Judah and then Jesus could also baptize as a member of the priesthood..

Its foundation has its roots in Exodus 29


Exo 29:1 And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto me in the priest's office: Take one young bullock, and two rams without blemish,


Christ did away with the animal sacrifices the priestly office continues to the end, the great commission sending out his kingdom of Priest two by two


Exo 29:4 And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.

 

[mcubed]

True baptism is not by water but by the Spirit itself. So we ought not to think that water baptism can save us,
or is necessary for salvation. Our salvation comes from believing the word, that is when we are truly baptized.
That is the difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus.
Water baptism was a picture and shadow of the true baptism. I think though that if a person believes that they need to be water baptized, then they should do it for conscious sake.

This is honestly great! I dated a member of Church of Christ for a second. He said because I was not baptized before salvation I was not saved. So I asked a leader in the Church to baptize me, I was told no because she did not know if I was sincere about salvation and she could not rush into things. So i sat down and wrote a 10 page paper about Salvation and gave it to them. I am so glad I am not church of Christ I would not be saved. I received Messiah at age 18 got baptized in my 20's in the Gordon River. Sad for him he missed out on the goodness of G-d (me) but G-d is good I have been saved since 18 and loving Him, growing in Him every day!!!!

 

[fredoheaven]

I never said why He was baptized just that He was water baptized.

Understand this, the water baptism of Jesus Christ was not a option, it was a must.

Water baptism for whatever the reason is a must!

It is a must for the saved not a must in order to be save.

 

[fredoheaven]

Instead, what we see is people minimizing the importance of it, to the point of triviality. You can say all day long that "we absolutely recommend a believer be baptized", but if it's not taught as being an expected part of accepting Jesus, it's dumbed down to "not really important". (I'm not saying YOU, MMDan, I'm speaking in generalities.... the general "you")

That approach is completely unscriptural.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Accepting or receiving Jesus is only by believing...

 

[DJ2]

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Accepting or receiving Jesus is only by believing...

Since James 2:24 does exist, it cannot be that simple. There must be more to salvation then belief or James 2:24 contradicts.

 

[notuptome]

Since James 2:24 does exist, it cannot be that simple. There must be more to salvation then belief or James 2:24 contradicts.

Which translates to you are unable or unwilling to believe.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger