One Baptism

[marks]

In what way have I shut the door to him by my response? See my answer to @Helen regarding the desire of the heart...

Peace!

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that one is regenerated by the water of baptism, means that my father-in-law, regardless of what I think, was not born again, and shut out of heaven.

Any exceptions would be the parsing of man. IF in fact this were what the Bible teaches, then who is anyone to say that it doesn't apply here, or there . . .

Regarding your post to Helen, I desire oneness with Christ. My FiL desired to not leave this world without knowing the Name of Jesus. We simply Want God.

It is our blessedness that God assures us, I'm not far away at all! The Word is right here . . . in your very mouth . . . all who call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved.

Much love!

 

[amadeus]

@marks
@Philip James

marks said: ↑
Are you saying those who believe are not born again until they are water baptized?

Philip James said:
Yep

Peace!

What happens to people if, while loving God from their heart to the end of their allotted time of battles against the temptations of the flesh, they did not at their final moment of time here understand the differences the two of you are bumping heads on here? What happens if one followed the way that @marks supports and another followed the way that @Philip James supports? Is it a black and white thing where the wrong choice equals death and the right choice equals the Life that Jesus brought?

Does a person need to be a theologian and thereby to choose the correct way based on his theological discoveries? I am trying to understand why the difference between these is even important to a believer...?

 

[Philip James]

I am trying to understand why the difference between these is even important to a believer...?

Hello amadeus,

Because the Truth matters. Jesus is the way and the truth and the life..
And thus it is a question of life or death.
For 2000 years the Spirit and the bride have said 'come and receive the gift of living water'
For 2000 years the Church has said that 'the way' begins with the new birth received in the sacrament of Baptism.

But there is another spirit that says 'did He really say water?' 'surely this is just a symbol' 'one does not need to receive this water... You already have all you need...'

This is diametricaly opposed to what the Church has always taught, everywhere, and is thus is a lie straight out of the pits if hell...
It denies the power of the Holy Spirit and makes the Church a liar..

Can Jesus have mercy on those who mistakenly believe this? Of course, HIS mercy knows no bounds,

But does that negate that in Baptism. -Even if your sin is red as scarlet, you will be made white as snow..'

Shall we then presume upon HiS mercy and remain dead in our sin, or shall we receive the water that the Church and the Spirit call us to?

'to him that is given much, much is expected..'

Peace be with you!

 

[Philip James]

Does a person need to be a theologian and thereby to choose the correct way based on his theological discoveries?

Not at all. The ''way' is surprisingly simple: be reborn and united with Me..

And it is open to the simple as freely as to the wise...

All are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Hi Ernest,

This quote, doesn't then this say there are Two baptisms or more? We know that we are baptised into Christ. When we include baptized in water, doesn't that make two, when Ephesians says there is one?

Much love!

Hi,

The word baptism (baptizo - an immersion) is to be taken literally in Ephesians 4:5.

Galatians 3:17 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 'Baptized' in this verse also refers to a literal immersion and it is through this literal immersion one put's on Christ. Eph 3:4 and Gal 3:27 speak of the same, one baptism which is Christ's baptism of the great commission.

 

[marks]

A bold claim. Demonstrate an apostolic community anywhere that teaches otherwise.

Peace!

Here is an apostolic community who taught differently from your "Trinitarian formula".

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

This was of course spoken by Peter on Pentecost.

Later, at the Beautiful Gate, Peter was guilty of an even greater ommission, failing to even mention baptism.

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

You add many requirements where God has but one.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Hi,

The word baptism (baptizo - an immersion) is to be taken literally in Ephesians 4:5.

Galatians 3:17 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 'Baptized' in this verse also refers to a literal immersion and it is through this literal immersion one put's on Christ. Eph 3:4 and Gal 3:27 speak of the same, one baptism which is Christ's baptism of the great commission.

I agree with you completely that baptism is a literal immersion, but into whatever is stated that immersion is into. It sounds like you mean, "a literal immersion into water." Is that what you mean?

John baptized with water, but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Baptizing with the Holy Spirit is contrasted to baptizing in water, so these are necessarily two different baptisms, one in water, one not.

John's baptism in water was not the same as the baptism of the great commission. It is being actually immersed into Jesus that we join Him in His death, burial, and resurrection, for which we use water baptism to symbolize.

Let me ask you . . . if the commission given to the disciples in Matthew 28 is intended to be observed by all Christian believers, well, Let me ask you . . .

Why did Paul say he was not sent to baptize? If Jesus sent all Christians into all the world baptizing in water, why does Paul deny being sent to baptize?

Much love!

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I agree with you completely that baptism is a literal immersion, but into whatever is stated that immersion is into. It sounds like you mean, "a literal immersion into water." Is that what you mean?

Yes.

Acts of the Apostles 8
And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
......
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

The eunuch is saved the same way we today are saved by teaching and baptism of Christ's great commission, (Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15;16; Lk 24:47). CHristianity is a taught religion, the eunuch was taught the word, believed the word (Romans 10:17 faith comes by hearing) and obeyed what he was taught by being water baptized as God commands men to be baptized. Here we have the "one faith" being taught and the "one baptism" taking place which is human administered water baptism of Christ's great commission.

Some theologies teach man is so depraved he cannot understand unless the Spirit first miraculously"enlightens" him enabling him to understand and he is baptized with the Holy Spirit. Yet this is NOT what happened here at all. Verse 29 the Spirit sent Phillip to teach and baptize the eunuch. If these theologies were correct, Phillip would not be needed at all for the Spirit by Himself could have "enlightened" and enabled the understanding of the eunuch and baptized the eunuch.

Yet only one baptism took place here, water baptism, the one baptism of Eph 4:5 the one baptism that is now in effect, the one baptism of the great commission that saves, that is commanded, that lasts till the end of time.

John baptized with water, but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Baptizing with the Holy Spirit is contrasted to baptizing in water, so these are necessarily two different baptisms, one in water, one not.

John's baptism in water was not the same as the baptism of the great commission. It is being actually immersed into Jesus that we join Him in His death, burial, and resurrection, for which we use water baptism to symbolize.

Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"

This verse says Jesus will baptize "you" with the Holy Ghost AND fire, but the verse does not specify who either pronoun "you" refers to.

To understand this passage, we need to know who is talking, who is being spoken to and what is being said:

John is talking, he is talking to Pharisees (Matthew 3:7) who came to where John was baptizing and John says to these Pharisees in verse 11 "I indeed baptize you with water". Now why would John say to these Pharisees "I indeed baptize you with water" when in fact John had not baptized them, the Pharisee rejected John's baptism (Luke 7:30). Both pronouns "you" do not refer to the Pharisees to whom John was speaking. John is using both pronouns in a generic fashion. There is an old saying "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". Neither pronoun "you" in this saying refers to anyone specifically, they are being used in a generic way. What John is doing in Mt 3:11 is simply announcing the type of baptism he baptized with (water) and the types of baptism Christ would baptize with (Holy Ghost and fire). It cannot be told from the immediate context of Mt 3:11 who the "you" refers to that will be baptized with the HG. Also, John was not promising those Pharisees ("you") that they would be baptized with the HG.

But if we look to the fulfillment of John's words of Mt 3:11, we can find out who the "you" is that will be baptized with the HG.

Acts of the Apostles 1: 1-5:
In this context Jesus is with His Apostles and tells them "that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." In verse 5 Jesus refers back to what John said in Matt 3:11. So now we know that the "you" in Mt 3:11 that will be baptized with the HG is the Apostles, not anyone today. Some today want to conveniently make the second "you" of Mt 3:11 refer to themselves but not the first "you". In Acts 1, Jesus was fulfilling the promise of the Comforter that had earlier been promised to the Apostles (John 14:26). And in Acts 2 it was just the Apostles that were baptized with the HS, no one else.

Let me ask you . . . if the commission given to the disciples in Matthew 28 is intended to be observed by all Christian believers, well, Let me ask you . . .

Why did Paul say he was not sent to baptize? If Jesus sent all Christians into all the world baptizing in water, why does Paul deny being sent to baptize?

Much love!

1) if Paul was not sent to baptize, then why did he baptize? 1 Corinthians 1:14,16. Did he sin by baptizing? No, for he was under the great commission to go teach and baptize as other disciples are.

2) Paul used the verb 'baptize' and did not use the noun 'baptism'. Paul never said in the context of 1 Corinthians that 'baptism' is not part of the gospel or that 'baptism' was not essential to salvation but is talking about the ACT of baptizing. Furthermore, there was division at Corinth. Instead of following and be "of Christ" they were following the person who had baptized them. In this context Paul says "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;". Paul said this NOT because baptism is not essential but said this "Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.". It appears now that Paul did not do the ACT of baptizing much for he did not want to contribute to division among disciples following him rather than following Christ.

3) 1 Corinthians 1:17 is a not - but elliptical statement, a figure of speech...."For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:..". The purpose of a not-but elliptical is to put emphasis on one thing (preach the gospel) over another (baptizing) but not to the total exclusion of baptizing.

Another example of not-but elliptical:
1 Peter 3:3-4 "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." Peter here is speaking to wives and Peter is NOT LITERALLY telling them to not plait the hair, wear gold or put on apparel. He is telling the wives to put more emphasis on the inward adornment over the outward adornment but not the the total exclusion of the outward adornment. (I believe some religious groups may have taken these words literally for they make their female members to wear their hair a certain way, no make, up no gold jewelry and wear certain type clothing.)

Another example:
John 6:27 "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." Jesus is NOT LITERALLY saying to not work for the physical food we eat, this would contradict 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Jesus' point to those people was they should put more emphasis on working for the meat that endures unto everlasting life and less emphasis on working for the food that perishes but not to the total exclusion of working for the physical food we eat.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

4) Lastly,
In this context, Paul uses the necessity of water baptism to heal the division among the Christians at Corinth.

Instead of all those Corinthians being "of Christ" they were divided, Paul says "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.", 1 Corinthians 1:12.

In order to heal this division and get them all to be "of Christ" as they should, Paul asks a rhetorical question in verse 13 in the negative: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

Verse 13 stated in the positive, Paul is saying "Christ is not divided! Christ was crucified for you You were baptized in the name of Christ."

Paul's point being this; if you are to be "of" some one then two things must be true of that some one. That some one must be:
1) crucified for you
2) you must be baptized in that someone's name

Since these two things are only true of Christ, then no man can be "of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Cephas" or of any other man. Therefore if we are to be "of Christ" then both of these things must be true.....not just one but BOTH.


Was Christ crucified for us? Yes, #1 above is true for Hebrews 2:9 says "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

Since #1 is true, then why isn't "every man" saved? For every man has not been baptized in the name of Christ per necessity #2 above. Baptism "in the name of Christ" is the human administered water baptism of the great commission per Acts of the Apostles 10:47-48; Acts of the Apostles 2:38.

The phrase "in the name of" is a legal term. If I buy a new car, then I take the title and paper work to the local clerk and have the car registered "in the name of" Ernest T Bass showing I am the owner. Those not baptize have not come into the ownership of Christ, are not "of Christ" per verse 13. Again, BOTH #1 and #2 must be true, not just #1.


(sorry for such a long response)

 

[marks]

Not to worry about a long post, I've got lots of time today.

Yet this is NOT what happened here at all. Verse 29 the Spirit sent Phillip to teach and baptize the eunuch. If these theologies were correct, Phillip would not be needed at all for the Spirit by Himself could have "enlightened" and enabled the understanding of the eunuch and baptized the eunuch.

Yet only one baptism took place here, water baptism, the one baptism of Eph 4:5 the one baptism that is now in effect, the one baptism of the great commission that saves, that is commanded, that lasts till the end of time.

While I don't question that Phillip was sent to preach the Gosple and baptize, yet I don't see that actually said in the passage.

We read of only one baptism here, true.

Wherein fits our baptism into Jesus?

Yet only one baptism took place here, water baptism, the one baptism of Eph 4:5 the one baptism that is now in effect, the one baptism of the great commission that saves, that is commanded, that lasts till the end of time.

This is indeed the question. Is the water baptism meant in Jesus' instructions to the disciples the same baptism intended in Ephesians 4.

Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"

This verse says Jesus will baptize "you" with the Holy Ghost AND fire, but the verse does not specify who either pronoun "you" refers to.

To understand this passage, we need to know who is talking, who is being spoken to and what is being said:

John is talking, he is talking to Pharisees (Matthew 3:7) who came to where John was baptizing and John says to these Pharisees in verse 11 "I indeed baptize you with water". Now why would John say to these Pharisees "I indeed baptize you with water" when in fact John had not baptized them, the Pharisee rejected John's baptism (Luke 7:30). Both pronouns "you" do not refer to the Pharisees to whom John was speaking. John is using both pronouns in a generic fashion. There is an old saying "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". Neither pronoun "you" in this saying refers to anyone specifically, they are being used in a generic way. What John is doing in Mt 3:11 is simply announcing the type of baptism he baptized with (water) and the types of baptism Christ would baptize with (Holy Ghost and fire). It cannot be told from the immediate context of Mt 3:11 who the "you" refers to that will be baptized with the HG. Also, John was not promising those Pharisees ("you") that they would be baptized with the HG.

But if we look to the fulfillment of John's words of Mt 3:11, we can find out who the "you" is that will be baptized with the HG.

Acts of the Apostles 1: 1-5:
In this context Jesus is with His Apostles and tells them "that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." In verse 5 Jesus refers back to what John said in Matt 3:11. So now we know that the "you" in Mt 3:11 that will be baptized with the HG is the Apostles, not anyone today. Some today want to conveniently make the second "you" of Mt 3:11 refer to themselves but not the first "you". In Acts 1, Jesus was fulfilling the promise of the Comforter that had earlier been promised to the Apostles (John 14:26). And in Acts 2 it was just the Apostles that were baptized with the HS, no one else.

In this part above I am in agreement with you for the most part. I think the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was given to them at that time, and that we receive the same upon our repentance, exchanging our flesh mind for Christ's mind, not in a separate event.

In who received the baptism in the Holy Spirit, you've said the Apostles only, the quote is, Act 2:1 And in the fulfilling of the day of Pentecost, they were all with one mind in the same place. Whether this is "all the apostles", or, the about 120 (1:15), I don't know enough to give a formed opinion. I've always thought in terms of the 120, but I wouldn't be dogmatic. Its interesting to think about.

This part:

1) if Paul was not sent to baptize, then why did he baptize? 1 Corinthians 1:14,16. Did he sin by baptizing? No, for he was under the great commission to go teach and baptize as other disciples are.

1 Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:"

I still don't understand how you reconcile these statements. It seems to me that they would be very contradictory if Jesus' instructions to the disciples included Paul.

He's very specific that Jesus did not send him to baptize. Did he sin in baptizing people? No, I don't think so. Yet he was glad he didn't baptize more than those he did.

Anyway, this is getting long too!



To be continued . . .

Much love!

 

[marks]

2) Paul used the verb 'baptize' and did not use the noun 'baptism'. Paul never said in the context of 1 Corinthians that 'baptism' is not part of the gospel or that 'baptism' was not essential to salvation but is talking about the ACT of baptizing. Furthermore, there was division at Corinth. Instead of following and be "of Christ" they were following the person who had baptized them. In this context Paul says "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;". Paul said this NOT because baptism is not essential but said this "Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.". It appears now that Paul did not do the ACT of baptizing much for he did not want to contribute to division among disciples following him rather than following Christ.

I realize that Paul was glad for not baptizing lest as you say he contribute to division. But even so, not to belabor the point, he was not sent to baptize, while Jesus did send His disciples to baptize.

This says to me there is something more than a blanket command that applies to all people in all times. Paul states it did not apply to him. I see a certain simplicity to this that seems inescapable.

3) 1 Corinthians 1:17 is a not - but elliptical statement, a figure of speech...."For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:..". The purpose of a not-but elliptical is to put emphasis on one thing (preach the gospel) over another (baptizing) but not to the total exclusion of baptizing.

Another example of not-but elliptical:
1 Peter 3:3-4 "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." Peter here is speaking to wives and Peter is NOT LITERALLY telling them to not plait the hair, wear gold or put on apparel. He is telling the wives to put more emphasis on the inward adornment over the outward adornment but not the the total exclusion of the outward adornment. (I believe some religious groups may have taken these words literally for they make their female members to wear their hair a certain way, no make, up no gold jewelry and wear certain type clothing.)

Granted. And I'm not saying Paul was to not baptize, he was free to baptize, but it's not what he was sent to do. He was sent to preach the Gospel. The disciples were sent to baptize and teach obedience. Paul was sent to preach the Gospel.

Peter's example, I like this. Peter tells women that their beauty is not found in coifed hair, or fancy jewelry or clothing. The real beauty is in the inner person. Yes, you can wear fancy pretty stuff, but it doesn't make you pretty to God. It's what's inside that make you pretty to God.

This seems to me to compare reasonably with baptism. Paul expresses much the same thing, he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. You can baptize, but it's not what makes you saved in God's eyes. Believing in the inner man is what saves.

The Gospel, not baptism, is the power of God unto salvation. "the ability of God unto saving".

4) Lastly,
In this context, Paul uses the necessity of water baptism to heal the division among the Christians at Corinth.

Instead of all those Corinthians being "of Christ" they were divided, Paul says "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.", 1 Corinthians 1:12.

In order to heal this division and get them all to be "of Christ" as they should, Paul asks a rhetorical question in verse 13 in the negative: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

Verse 13 stated in the positive, Paul is saying "Christ is not divided! Christ was crucified for you You were baptized in the name of Christ."

Paul's point being this; if you are to be "of" some one then two things must be true of that some one. That some one must be:
1) crucified for you
2) you must be baptized in that someone's name

Since these two things are only true of Christ, then no man can be "of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Cephas" or of any other man. Therefore if we are to be "of Christ" then both of these things must be true.....not just one but BOTH.

This part above, Paul apparently addresses that the believers were being baptized in water. But I'm not sure I agree with your understanding,

Paul's point being this; if you are to be "of" some one then two things must be true of that some one.

I think what Paul is really saying is that here are two things by which you should realize that we don't focus on the people, and instead focus on Christ.

Let me ask you the same question I asked others.

My father in law, nearly on his deathbed, responded to God's invitation, and received him, and so far as my wife and I know, the man was born again. Yet he was not baptized in water. He was dead 3 weeks later.

Can he have been saved without being water baptized?

Was Christ crucified for us? Yes, #1 above is true for Hebrews 2:9 says "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

Since #1 is true, then why isn't "every man" saved? For every man has not been baptized in the name of Christ per necessity #2 above. Baptism "in the name of Christ" is the human administered water baptism of the great commission per Acts of the Apostles 10:47-48; Acts of the Apostles 2:38.

To this part . . . not all are saved because not all believe.

Of course, what Jesus said was to baptize in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Do you feel that is not important, and that to baptize in the Name of Jesus is sufficient?

Anyway, I appreciate the depth of your response! You've brought up a number of relevant thoughts, and given me good food for thought!

Much love!

 

[Enoch111]

I realize that Paul was glad for not baptizing lest as you say he contribute to division. But even so, not to belabor the point, he was not sent to baptize, while Jesus did send His disciples to baptize.

This says to me there is something more than a blanket command that applies to all people in all times. Paul states it did not apply to him. I see a certain simplicity to this that seems inescapable.

You seem to be misunderstanding what Paul said. He was putting his emphasis on the preaching of the Gospel, but that was NOT to the detriment of Christian baptism. It was to ensure that no one got the false idea that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

And yes, once a person is converted, baptism is absolutely necessary. It applies to all people at all times (Mt 28:19).

 

[marks]

You seem to be misunderstanding what Paul said. He was putting his emphasis on the preaching of the Gospel, but that was NOT to the detriment of Christian baptism. It was to ensure that no one got the false idea that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

And yes, once a person is converted, baptism is absolutely necessary. It applies to all people at all times (Mt 28:19).

Hi Enoch,

All I can say is I'm a simple guy . . .

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:

compare to

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

One was sent to baptize, one was not.

"I was not sent to baptize, I was sent to preach."

I don't think I'm misunderstanding. Paul states his true mission was preaching, not water baptizing. Not that he couldn't water baptize. He apparently did.

And in giving this emphasis, as you point out, he nonetheless declares that he was not sent to baptize.

My thinking is that we need align our understandings of these doctrines so that these niggling little inconsistencies disappear.

For me, there is harmony between all of these.

Much love!

 

[amadeus]

@Philip James

amadeus said: ↑
I am trying to understand why the difference between these is even important to a believer...?

Philip James said:
Hello amadeus,

Because the Truth matters. Jesus is the way and the truth and the life..

Indeed Jesus is the Truth, and He matters, but how well do any of us know Him? My point is that every person may not necessarily know the difference between your position and the position of @marks much less know which of your two ways should be followed to walk with the Lord to the end of his course. Perhaps there is another path to follow?

And thus it is a question of life or death.

It may be such a question if God has shown a person that it is... but does He show exactly the same things to everyone? Not every person is a toe, nor is every person a finger, nor is every person any one body part of the Body of Christ. The different parts have different needs according to the function God has called them to perform.

What is absolutely necessary for every part of the Body of Christ? Consider that every part of the physical human body needs certain things to survive as a part of that body. A specialist in the study of the human body could probably provide with a good list, but with regard to the Body of Christ... who could do that so well? What is needed to be a part of the Body of Christ?

But all of this goes to your question with @marks, which is not the sam as my question. If you don't want to answer my question simply say so and we are finished. I was hoping that one, or both, of you could or would answer me without trying to convince me that he is right and the other guy is wrong. There is probably enough of that already going on around here.

For 2000 years the Spirit and the bride have said 'come and receive the gift of living water'
For 2000 years the Church has said that 'the way' begins with the new birth received in the sacrament of Baptism.

The number of years that have passed ultimately makes no difference one way or the other, does it, as to whether a person is right or wrong in the eyes of God? How long did the natural children of Israel/Jacob follow God through Moses in the wilderness? How long did they live under the judgments of Samuel? How much time passed from the day those same Israelites came out of Egypt until Jesus was crucified on the cross at Calvary? How much time passed from the day Adam & Eve were put outside the Garden of Eden until Jesus was crucified? If you know those times will that knowledge matter at all in the end? Why would 2000 years of being right or wrong matter in where a person is now. Is anyone's final result based on what others have done?

You say the Spirit and the Bride have said come? If the Bride is the Church, why would she be calling to herself? Maybe you meant to express that a different way.

Who was Jesus speaking to here?

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matt 11:28-30

But there is another spirit that says 'did He really say water?' 'surely this is just a symbol' 'one does not need to receive this water... You already have all you need...'

This is diametricaly opposed to what the Church has always taught, everywhere, and is thus is a lie straight out of the pits if hell...
It denies the power of the Holy Spirit and makes the Church a liar..

You made quite a jump there from the need for H2O to denying the power of the Holy Spirit and making the Church a liar. You are, I guess, making that the answer to my question?

I suggest that you miss the mark when you say someone is denying the power of the Holy Spirit based on your knowledge or belief. That judgment is hardly yours, nor mine, to make about any other person.

I believe that only God... and the person denying the power of the Holy Spirit... would know that a person is actually doing that. The sin is unforgivable because it is done knowingly. A person who is error in his beliefs cannot, I believe, deny the Holy Spirit by following his beliefs. While he still has time, he still has room left for repentance. Someone having committed the unforgiveable sin has no room left for repentance. His last opportunity to make it right with God is gone...

Can Jesus have mercy on those who mistakenly believe this? Of course, HIS mercy knows no bounds,

Putting it this way and saying the person has denied the power of the Holy Spirit are quite different. Of course, you are still presuming you are correct and that @marks is in error. He may well believe it you that are in error. No possible admission of middle ground here?

But does that negate that in Baptism. -Even if your sin is red as scarlet, you will be made white as snow..'

Shall we then presume upon HiS mercy and remain dead in our sin, or shall we receive the water that the Church and the Spirit call us to?

'to him that is given much, much is expected..'

Part of what is given, is the place we are in our current belief based on our own experience and knowledge even though it may turn out in some measure to be in error. God knows this, when no one else does. Because of this a fair judgment can never be rendered by any man against another unless he has already completely overcome everything standing between himself and God. Even then he cannot do it if God has not called him to do that job.

Peace be with you!

And with you as you walk with Him!

 

[amadeus]

Not at all. The ''way' is surprisingly simple: be reborn and united with Me..

So then we each let a person be reborn and become united with God as he will with no unsolicited comments, suggestions or interference on our part... or do we insist on jumping in and telling him that his rebirth does not meet God's requirement or that his unity with God is really disunity?

And it is open to the simple as freely as to the wise...

I agree with your words here, but I doubt that every man that should stands back as he should when he should. Fortunately I don't have to judge individual cases.

 

[Philip James]

Hello amadeus,

First, thank you for the attempt at peace making.
Unfortunately, on this point, there can be no reconcilliation between @marks position and mine on this.

One states that the new birth comes by the sacrament of baptism

The other states that the new birth has no need of water and that the ritual we perform is merely a symbol.

They are contradictory therefore one (or both) must be false.

What is absolutely necessary for every part of the Body of Christ

That it actually be a member. The Church has for 2000 years affirmed that baptism is the means by which one is born again and becomes a member in the assembly of the sons and daughters of God.

To teach that this is unnecessary contradicts this and must be exposed for the lie that it is.

So then we each let a person be reborn and become united with God as he will with no unsolicited comments, suggestions or interference on our part..

Jesus is the only way to be reborn, it is HE that establishes His Church, it is through the apostles that He gives us the deposit of faith, this faith has been proclaimed, taught and lived for 2000 years,
For 2000 years the Church has called men and women to come and receive the living water, and that Truth must be upheld.

You say the Spirit and the Bride have said come? If the Bride is the Church, why would she be calling to herself?

The Church (bride) and the Spirit call the unbaptized to the waters.. The baptized have already received them.

The 'hearers' are the catachumens who are preparing to be baptized, and others who have come to hear the Gospel proclaimed.

The sin is unforgivable because it is done knowingly. A person who is error in his beliefs cannot, I believe, deny the Holy Spirit by following his beliefs.

I did not mean to imply that it was willfully and knowingly done.

One may not be culpaple due to ignorance, but the effects of the propogation of that lie remain.

To speak of Baptism as just a symol, is to deny the power of the Spirit working in that sacrament

And so that lie MUST be challenged and exposed for the danger it is.

A Christian community that ceases to baptise will bear no fruit...

Peace!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

 

[amadeus]

@Philip James
Thanks for your kind reply. I believe I understand your position of much... even though I may not agree with each point.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

John the Baptist did so with Water and he himself says of the other that he was not worthy of doing, as that comes from Christ Jesus himself !
Jesus was water Baptised as well and what did he go and do then ? hey ! 40 days and then talked to the Devil himself who tempted him, I though it was .
One must be water baptised first, if your mum and Dad are worthy Christians, as it's their duty and they will do so, that one is worthy of the family of Christ Jesus, not to mention you also have your god parents that have a duty to up hold.
So a Child has 4 Christian people that have a duty to up hold. not to mention that then the Priest has a duty to that child as well. now if one is not baptised no one has put forward a duty in such at all and that child is a bastard as to God, because no one has brought the child before God.

If one is a Bastard child or comes seeking Christianity, then such a one can be water baptised by their own will to be done so to them.
The hope of being water baptised leads to the real hope and united in the Church gives strength, as we all know in the hope that they will be born again in the Holy Spirit.

Water baptism anoints one to such, that's why Jesus did such and also for us it is for remission of Sins as well, so that one can repent, this helps and gives strength and hope, so we are united as one body in such.

There is one Baptism given for you and the other is truly a gift of God to the one who receives this.

No one gets strength on there own to become born again and then goes get water baptised, even Saul was water baptised before God came to him. not even the Jews ran away from baptism, the Bible points this out. Satanist love to claim Saul was not water baptised.
Any worthy Jew did as such with John the Baptist I recall.

 

[marks]

One states that the new birth comes by the sacrament of baptism

And in this you deny the rebirth of my father in law, not being able to be baptized in water. I, and my wife believe he was baptized into Christ. Your view denies this.

I agree our positions are fairly opposite on this point.

Much love!

 

[marks]

One may not be culpaple due to ignorance, but the effects of the propogation of that lie remain.

This then means that if someone reads the Bible, and reads that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved, and they believe this, and call out to Jesus, Jesus save me! This means He won't.

Nope! You didn't follow the formula. Didn't you hear the apostolic community telling you? Water baptism! That's how you must be saved!

Lake of fire!

OOPS!!!!!

But that's not our Faithful Creater Who isn't into the same games that people play. He simply wants those He has already reconciled through the finished work of Christ to be reconciled to Him.

Much love!