Divisions

[Marymog]

But God did show us in that His death was not partial but fully. As His resurrection was also not partial, but fully complete. Same as our death in Him is not partial; neither is our resurrection unto Life in Him partial.

Luke 12:49-50
[49] I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? [50] But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

The focus is not John’s baptism but the one baptism that is shown in His death and resurrection...completely and fully.

Thank you VIJ,

Your logic suggest that one has to be completely submerged to obtain a valid baptism!

Over the last 2,000 years there have been millions of Christians who were not baptized by full immersion. Is there baptism not valid?? The Christians that walked/talked with the Apostles did not completely practice immersion. Where is your evidence they got it wrong and you are right?

What about people with medical conditions that can't be fully submerged? Would you deny them baptism?

FULL death and FULL resurrection do not = IMMERSION. That theory is not backed up by scripture.

It seems clear from reading Scripture that immersion is the biblical norm but that it is not an CLEARLY DEFINED norm. Historical writings from the first century Christians make that VERY CLEAR. Scripture, your own Christian history and common sense indicate that the water immersion is not all-important and that other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

James 1:27 KJV
[27] Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Tecarta BibleThere’s a fourth he keeps himself unspotted

CONTEXT, my friend - CONTEXT.

James is writing to Baptized Christians - not unbelievers. He is assuming that they have already gone through that requirement. Verse 27 is NOT about the requirements of entering into the Body of Christ - but what to DO once we are in.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why didn't you check out the meaning of baptism and find out for yourself that each time that word is used in the New Testament, it means immersion or submersion.

Strong's Concordance
baptizó: to dip, sink
Original Word: βαπτίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: baptizó
Phonetic Spelling: (bap-tid'-zo)
Definition: to dip, sink
Usage: lit: I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping; I baptize.

Do you now see why Catholic baptism is phony?

WRONG.

The FIRST CENTURY document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), written in the same Koine Greek takes this into consideration.

HOWEVER - it speaks about what to do if "living water" (lake, river, stream) is not available. It recommends POURING three times over the head and invoking the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It even says that if cold water is not available - warm water will do:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

My bible is not silent. The original Greek makes it clear that the word baptised means immersion.

As I schooled your fellow anti-Catholic @Enoch111 in post #43 - the First Century document I referenced in my last post (The Didache) was written in the SAME Koine Greek as the Scriptures. It makes a provision for pouring over the head when "living water" (lake, river stream) is not available.

YOU simply choose to ignore this fact because it doesn't conform to what YOU were taught in your Protestant Sunday School . . .

 

[Waiting on him]

CONTEXT, my friend - CONTEXT.

James is writing to Baptized Christians - not unbelievers. He is assuming that they have already gone through that requirement. Verse 27 is NOT about the requirements of entering into the Body of Christ - but what to DO once we are in.

Ok, I was just sending that verse since it seemed everyone was arguing who’s religion was superior

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Ok, I was just sending that verse since it seemed everyone was arguing who’s religion was superior

Agreed. Such "I'm right and everyone else" arguing is only destructive.

 

[Waiting on him]

Agreed. Such "I'm right and everyone else" arguing is only destructive.

Vainglory!
Philippians 2:3-4 KJV
[3] Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. [4] Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

Tecarta Bible

 

[VictoryinJesus]

What about people with medical conditions that can't be fully submerged? Would you deny them baptism?

Of course not. There again (imo) full submersion would not be necessary OR a hinderance as you suggest; since someone can undoubtedly be fully immersed (Spiritually) into His death and resurrected to walk in newness of Life.

Over the last 2,000 years there have been millions of Christians who were not baptized by full immersion. Is there baptism not valid?? The Christians that walked/talked with the Apostles did not completely practice immersion. Where is your evidence they got it wrong and you are right?

I’m not suggesting they were wrong only that what is, or should be in sight, is the baptism of His death and Resurrection which are complete and not partial... in Christ.

FULL death and FULL resurrection do not = IMMERSION. That theory is not backed up by scripture.

Yes. Jesus Christ was fully dead and fully resurrected. One baptism into His death and resurrection. Not in John’s name but in the Lord’s name. At the crucifixion was His death partial? Was His resurrection partial? all I am suggesting is that His baptism; baptism in the Lord’s name is complete.

 

[marksman]

As I schooled your fellow anti-Catholic @Enoch111 in post #43 - the First Century document I referenced in my last post (The Didache) was written in the SAME Koine Greek as the Scriptures. It makes a provision for pouring over the head when "living water" (lake, river stream) is not available.

YOU simply choose to ignore this fact because it doesn't conform to what YOU were taught in your Protestant Sunday School . . .

How silly of you to use someone's interpretation that is not backed up by scripture.

 

[marksman]

It has more than one meaning. You have chosen the ONE meaning that fits your theory: Strong's Greek: 907. βαπτίζω (baptizó) -- to dip, sink

You can't provide any evidence from Scripture that people were immersed ONLY. I don't have any evidence from Scripture that says dipping, making clean with water or sprinkling is how we MUST baptize.

As you know (at least I believe you do) the translation of the word has more than one meaning therefor you can only ASSUME that when it was translated they meant "immersion". On the flip side it also allows us to assume that they didn't mean immersion so we are at a stalemate on that point.

What evidence do you have that anyone in the 1st Century were ONLY immersed or submerged when getting baptized?


Maybe @Jane_Doe22 can help you out with this one

Bible Study Mary

Quite simple really. Every reference to baptism in scripture is by immersion.

 

[BreadOfLife]

How silly of you to use someone's interpretation that is not backed up by scripture.

And how silly of YOU to assume thar Scripture is our SOLE authority - when Scripture itself refutes this heresy (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18. Luke 10:16, Johyn 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Quite simple really. Every reference to baptism in scripture is by immersion.

WRONG.

Show me ONE example of a Baptism in Scripture that describes the person being fully immersed in the water.
Simply because immersion is the primary method or definition doesn't mean that there aren't secondary methods or definitions.
This is true for MANY words.

Take the word "Pray".
The primary definition of this word simply means "to ask" - to petition, to supplicate.
The SECONDARY definition is "worship" - yet Protestants use this as their PRIMARY definition.

To arrive at YOUR conclusions - we must dismiss ALL the linguistic nuances of Koine Greek.
Once again - I give you the First century document, The Didache. It was written in the SAME Koine Greek as the NT, yet it makes provisions for POURING over the head - yet STILL refers to it as "Baptism".

Whether or not your like The Didache is irrelevant. It is still an historical document that provides us with the linguistic nuances regarding Baptism.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ok, I was just sending that verse since it seemed everyone was arguing who’s religion was superior

Agreed. Such "I'm right and everyone else" arguing is only destructive.

No - It has nothing to do with that - and everything to do with CONTEXT.

It is because of the abandonment of context that we have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming they they have the "Truth".

 

[Waiting on him]

No - It has nothing to do with that - and everything to do with CONTEXT.

It is because of the abandonment of context that we have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming they they have the "Truth".

That’s exactly why I came out of her.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That’s exactly why I came out of her.

Out of WHO??

 

[Jane_Doe22]

No - It has nothing to do with that - and everything to do with CONTEXT.

It is because of the abandonment of context that we have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming they they have the "Truth".

BoL: we can all agree that there is only one ultimate Truth.

However, this Truth is not discovered via people arguing over the internet, nor is anyone convinced of it via arguing over the internet. Such arguing is only destructive.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BoL: we can all agree that there is only one ultimate Truth.

However, this Truth is not discovered via people arguing over the internet, nor is anyone convinced of it via arguing over the internet. Such arguing is only destructive.

First of all - I wasn't arguing.
I was simply pointing out the CONTEXT of what James was saying - and WHO he was saying it to.

As for arguing and debating - the Early Church was built on debating, so it's NOT "only destructive".
It can be very helpful - to an open mind . . .

 

[Jane_Doe22]

First of all - I wasn't arguing.
I was simply pointing out the CONTEXT of what James was saying - and WHO he was saying it to.

As for arguing and debating - the Early Church was built on debating, so it's NOT "only destructive".
It can be very helpful - to an open mind . . .

No church of Christ's was built via people arguing over the internet. Lots of negativity and nasty amongst people was created though.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No church of Christ's was built via people arguing over the internet. Lots of negativity and nasty amongst people was created though.

If you knew anything about the Early Church - you would know that it was BUILT on healthy debate.
I'm not talking about name-calling or other epithets. I'm talking about discussion, disagreement and resolution.

YOU erroneously stated that it was all "only destructive".

 

[Jane_Doe22]

If you knew anything about the Early Church - you would know that it was BUILT on healthy debate.
I'm not talking about name-calling or other epithets. I'm talking about discussion, disagreement and resolution.

YOU erroneously stated that it was all "only destructive".

No church of Christ's was built via people arguing over the internet. Lots of negativity and nasty amongst people was created though.