Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Behold]

Are you suggesting that Peter's statement ("baptism now saves you")

Water can't save you, unless Water died on the Cross for your sin.

The Dying Thief on the Cross, was not water baptized, and the born again will get a chance to talk to him in Heaven.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hey Jim B,

Any teaching that agrees with the Bible according to WHO's interpretation?

Protestant denominations teach MULTIPLE different interpretations of the same passages from scripture. According to your theory that "clearly" would be "theatre" also.....

Curious Mary

Mary,
Don't Catholics also interpret the Bible?

 

[Jim B]

Hey Jim B,

Any teaching that agrees with the Bible according to WHO's interpretation?

Protestant denominations teach MULTIPLE different interpretations of the same passages from scripture. According to your theory that "clearly" would be "theatre" also.....

Curious Mary

The Bible is its own best teacher. You criticize Protestant denominations because you believe only what your denomination claims is the truth. Jesus said "Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 Read that again!!! Jesus said that He (and He alone) is the truth. He didn't say that what the Catholic denomination teaches or any other denomination) is the truth.

The Catholic denomination is built on many false "truths". It clearly has its followers brainwashed> You and others condemn the rest of the body of Christ! Don't you think that you will be judged for condemning those whom Jesus calls His own???

 

[Jim B]

Hi Jim B,

I have no problem with your interjection. But when you interject yourself into a conversation that presents a question, shouldn't you answer the question? You failed to do that in your interjection.

If the Catholic Church disregards Scripture in favor of the interpretations of certain men then according to your statement don't YOU disregard Scripture also when you (a man) interpret Scripture? Can you not see how trivial and illogical your theory is?

YOU 'read the Bible, pray, and are guided by the Holy Spirit' but the men of the Catholic Church don't "'read the Bible, pray, and are guided by the Holy Spirit"? Therefore YOU are able to properly interpret Scripture to ascertain the Truth and not them? Can you not see how trivial and illogical your theory is?

Jesus did not say that he will guide ALL believers into the Truth. If you notice in that passage he was talking to the Apostles and the Apostles only. Your theory suggest that the billions of Christians who have lived for the last 2,000 years have been guided to the truth. HOWEVER, for the last 500 years your Protestant men have multiple truths from the same passage. Can you not see how trivial and illogical your theory is?

Continue on believing Protestant propaganda as your source of truth if that "floats your boat" but it has nothing to do with the clear teachings of the Bible.

Keeping it logical....Mary

See if you can follow the logic of these examples...

Bible -> an individual
Bible -> a priest -> an individual

Which is correct? Everything you believe has gone through the Catholic "filter". You have lost the ability to communicate with God directly as one of His children.

Continue on believing Catholic propaganda (filtered through the RCC priesthood) as your source of truth, but it has nothing to do with the clear teachings of the Bible.

 

[Marymog]

See if you can follow the logic of these examples...

Bible -> an individual
Bible -> a priest -> an individual

Which is correct? Everything you believe has gone through the Catholic "filter". You have lost the ability to communicate with God directly as one of His children.

Continue on believing Catholic propaganda (filtered through the RCC priesthood) as your source of truth, but it has nothing to do with the clear teachings of the Bible.

I understand your logic now.

Neither is correct.

In regard to Bible -> an individual, Scripture says this: 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16! Therefore, Scripture refutes YOUR "logic" on Scripture.

Your Bible -> a priest -> an individual "logic" is not based on fact. The THOUSANDS of priest are not supposed to interpret the bible on their own, come up with their own truth and then convey that truth as fact to their parishioners. Priest are to repeat or adhere to the teachings of The Church. So you got that one wrong....

All of your Scriptural doctrine has gone thru YOUR (a man's) filter. All of Catholics doctrine has gone thru the men of The Church doctrine.

Continue on believing YOUR man-made propaganda (filtered through YOUR Protestant men) as your source of truth, but it has nothing to do with the clear teachings of the Bible.

 

[Marymog]

The Bible is its own best teacher. You criticize Protestant denominations because you believe only what your denomination claims is the truth. Jesus said "Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 Read that again!!! Jesus said that He (and He alone) is the truth. He didn't say that what the Catholic denomination teaches or any other denomination) is the truth.

The Catholic denomination is built on many false "truths". It clearly has its followers brainwashed> You and others condemn the rest of the body of Christ! Don't you think that you will be judged for condemning those whom Jesus calls His own???

No, I "criticize Protestant denominations" because they all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit into the Truth and preaching that Truth based on their interpretation of Scripture even though all their 'truths' disagree with each other.

John 14:6 has NOTHING to do with reading Scripture and properly interpreting it. What man taught you that?

You have brainwashed yourself into believing that you (a man) are teaching yourself the truth. But if I believe the men of The Church are teaching the truth then I am brainwashed? That makes no sense.

 

[Jim B]

I understand your logic now.

Neither is correct.

In regard to Bible -> an individual, Scripture says this: 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16! Therefore, Scripture refutes YOUR "logic" on Scripture.

Your Bible -> a priest -> an individual "logic" is not based on fact. The THOUSANDS of priest are not supposed to interpret the bible on their own, come up with their own truth and then convey that truth as fact to their parishioners. Priest are to repeat or adhere to the teachings of The Church. So you got that one wrong....

All of your Scriptural doctrine has gone thru YOUR (a man's) filter. All of Catholics doctrine has gone thru the men of The Church doctrine.

Continue on believing YOUR man-made propaganda (filtered through YOUR Protestant men) as your source of truth, but it has nothing to do with the clear teachings of the Bible.

Thank you for confessing that Catholic priests are not men!

Continue on believing YOUR woman-made propaganda (filtered through YOUR Catholic "men") as your source of truth, but it has nothing to do with the clear teachings of the Bible.

As an aside, the Catholic diocese in my area was recently bankrupted paying $125,000,000 in financial penalties of the judgement against the priests who sexually abused many children.

 

[Marymog]

Mary,
Don't Catholics also interpret the Bible?

Hi Cadyand Zoe,

I presume your question is do individual catholics OR does The Church allow individual Catholics to interpret the Bible. The answer is YES. in general, The Church does not prohibit individual members from interpreting Scripture.

There are very few biblical verses have been strictly defined by The Church that members can not stray from.

 

[Marymog]

Water can't save you, unless Water died on the Cross for your sin.

The Dying Thief on the Cross, was not water baptized, and the born again will get a chance to talk to him in Heaven.

hi Behold,

Neither The Church or Scripture teaches that water alone can save you. But the man who died on the cross for my sin did tell us to baptize all. I think that you would agree that if we want to be saved we must obey Him. And to obey Him is to baptize all.

The Church teaches that the thief on the cross was saved because he believed in Him. He did not have the chance to get baptized AFTER he believed so his faith saved him. If he had the chance to get baptized after he believed, then Scripture makes it clear that he would have been baptized in water along with all his other NT brethren.

Also, you are presuming that the thief was not water baptized. Scripture does not say one way or the other. He could have been baptized before he was hung on the cross. So please don't add to Scripture what is not there.

Mary

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hey Bible Highlighter,

If baptism in/with water was not necessary, then why did Peter water baptize Cornelius and his family? Did Peter do something that was unnecessary?

It is apparent to Peter that Cornelius has received the Holy Spirit but has not received the sacrament of baptism in an ordinary manner. Peter baptized Cornelius and his family as evidence of how serious the Apostles considered the reception of the sacrament of water baptism to be.

You can't look at Scripture in a vacuum. Peter also said "even baptism doth also now save us"! The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

For anyone to claim that baptism is unimportant would seem to contradict the meaning behind Cornelius and his companions actually becoming baptized......... in the very next verse.

I believe water baptism is necessary. In fact, I believe it is a essential. I believe it is a part of our faith and the just live by faith. Faith is how we gain access to God’s grace (Romans 5:2). Water baptism generally today will happen after they are saved by God’s grace. But I don’t see water baptism (in the name of Jesus) as being a prerequisite for being saved initially. I believe a person is first saved initially by God’s grace through faith without works (Ephesians 2:8-9). We believe the gospel. This is believing that Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and risen the third day (For your salvation) (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Can they be baptized while they believe? Sure they can. But that would be an odd or unusual circumstance today. The gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is how we are first saved and it can include also calling upon the name of the LORD (i.e., seeking forgiveness Jesus by way of prayer) (Romans 10:9) (Romans 10:13). Cornelius and his household was first saved by just hearing the gospel message because they received the Holy Spirit (the downpayment of their inheritance). Then later they were water baptized.

Also, keep in mind I am not a Protestant. I just believe the Bible and not a modern day church (Because we are living in the last days - See Luke 18:8). Now, I do believe in the glorious Trinity (Godhead), but I don’t believe its just a belief alone in Jesus one’s whole life that will save a person (with their being no change in their life). For Salvation: A person must…

#1. Be saved by God’s grace through faith (Without works) (i.e., Initial Salvation) (Ephesians 2:8-9).
#2. Abide in the Sanctification Process of the Holy Spirit (to live a holy life) (i.e., The Secondary Aspect of Salvation) (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

Christians are to follow the commands that come from Jesus and His followers in the New Testament, and they are not to go back to the Old Law like trying to keep the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, holy days, ectcetera.

 

[Marymog]

What did John the Baptist say?


John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Now answer your question. What is the baptism that leads to salvation to deliverance spiritual baptism?

Not water.

But who is it found in?

By and through Christ.

Yup. When we are baptized with water, we receive the Holy Spirit. Just like Jesus said in John 3:5.

Here is the chronology of baptism in Scripture:

Jesus was baptized in WATER as a example we are to follow and the Spirit came down upon him.
He then said we are born again thru WATER and Spirit (just like he was).
He and his apostles then went out and baptized with WATER and said 'receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' (Acts 2:38).
After his crucifixion and as he was going into heaven He said baptize all.
The Apostles and Paul continued to baptize all, with water, after they believed in Him.

Here is baptism from NT era Christian Historical writings:

Didache (written BEFORE some NT books):

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.

Hermas​

“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

With that said I know you have accepted the teachings of your 500-year-old Protestant men and rejected the teachings of the NT Christians and NOTHING I say will convince you that you are wrong.....so I digress

 

[Behold]

hi Behold,

Neither The Church or Scripture teaches that water alone can save you.

Jerome, who mistranslated the Latin text, ..... wrote that you are "born again By water".

"Born again....... BY water".

That is the "cult of Mary", "baptismal regeneration" heresy that teaches that water washes your sin away and also performs the "REGENERATION" of your Spirit.
This is why the CC is so WATER minded, so involved with WATER WATER WATER.
You absolutely were taught this and teach this, Marymog, as i quoted your post.
That is "WATER" causing you to be "born again", that you believe, as does the POPE.
That is "Jerome" = who mistranslated John 3, that denies its the HOLY SPIRIT that causes us to be Born again.
That is the Catholic Bible, the Douay Rheims version, where this is found.

This stuff, that Jerome mistranslated that became the CC doctrine, along with Him mistranslating Repentance as "Penance" has a great deal to do with why Martin Luther left the CC.

 

[Jim B]

Got it. So you belive that the Lord has spoken to you and given you the truth but "paid priests" are not spoken to and given the truth....

I never said I wanted to have a discussion with Titus and Titus only. YOU are the one who interjected yourself into our conversation of which I don't mind you doing and I have never said I mind you doing. If you are going to interject yourself into a conversation that has questions in it then answer the questions instead of presenting illogical theories that are circular.

Illogical to you perhaps, but not to others who have the ability to think independently.

 

[Jim B]

Hey Bible Highlighter,

If baptism in/with water was not necessary, then why did Peter water baptize Cornelius and his family? Did Peter do something that was unnecessary?

It is apparent to Peter that Cornelius has received the Holy Spirit but has not received the sacrament of baptism in an ordinary manner. Peter baptized Cornelius and his family as evidence of how serious the Apostles considered the reception of the sacrament of water baptism to be.

You can't look at Scripture in a vacuum. Peter also said "even baptism doth also now save us"! The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

For anyone to claim that baptism is unimportant would seem to contradict the meaning behind Cornelius and his companions actually becoming baptized......... in the very next verse.

Nobody is saying tha water baptism is unimportant. However, it is not required. It is a symbolic statement that the sinful "old man" and the "new man" has been resurrected into a new life in Christ.

 

[Jim B]

If water saved you, then Jesus didn't need to die for you on the Cross.

So, taking a verse out of context to try to prove that WATER is the Savior, is an insult to the Cross of Christ.

Listen, if water died on the Cross for your sin, then keep worshiping water on the Forum.
NP.

Great post!

 

[Jim B]

That still makes no sense.

Are you suggesting that Peter's statement ("baptism now saves you") to the people that were standing in front of him 2,000 years ago only applies to them? And that Jesus instructions to baptize all was only to the people that were watching him rise into heaven?

Help me out here.....

Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the only baptism that saves you. Water baptism is a ritual of repentance, a symbolic death of the "old man" and the resurrection of the "new man" in Christ.

If this wasn't the case then all the people whom John baptized had no need for a savior. Obvious!!!

 

[Jim B]

What did John the Baptist say?


John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Now answer your question. What is the baptism that leads to salvation to deliverance spiritual baptism?

Not water.

But who is it found in?

By and through Christ.

Great post!

 

[Jim B]

hi Behold,

Neither The Church or Scripture teaches that water alone can save you. But the man who died on the cross for my sin did tell us to baptize all. I think that you would agree that if we want to be saved we must obey Him. And to obey Him is to baptize all.

The Church teaches that the thief on the cross was saved because he believed in Him. He did not have the chance to get baptized AFTER he believed so his faith saved him. If he had the chance to get baptized after he believed, then Scripture makes it clear that he would have been baptized in water along with all his other NT brethren.

Also, you are presuming that the thief was not water baptized. Scripture does not say one way or the other. He could have been baptized before he was hung on the cross. So please don't add to Scripture what is not there.

Mary

" If he had the chance to get baptized after he believed, then Scripture makes it clear that he would have been baptized in water along with all his other NT brethren." This is just a theoretical teaching of the Catholic denomination. It has no Biblical basis.

"Also, you are presuming that the thief was not water baptized. Scripture does not say one way or the other. He could have been baptized before he was hung on the cross." Please don't YOU add to Scripture what is not there." Could have been? LOL!!!

 

[Illuminator]

I believe water baptism is necessary. In fact, I believe it is a essential. I believe it is a part of our faith and the just live by faith. Faith is how we gain access to God’s grace (Romans 5:2). Water baptism generally today will happen after they are saved by God’s grace. But I don’t see water baptism (in the name of Jesus) as being a prerequisite for being saved initially. I believe a person is first saved initially by God’s grace through faith without works (Ephesians 2:8-9). We believe the gospel. This is believing that Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and risen the third day (For your salvation) (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Can they be baptized while they believe? Sure they can. But that would be an odd or unusual circumstance today. The gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is how we are first saved and it can include also calling upon the name of the LORD (i.e., seeking forgiveness Jesus by way of prayer) (Romans 10:9) (Romans 10:13). Cornelius and his household was first saved by just hearing the gospel message because they received the Holy Spirit (the downpayment of their inheritance). Then later they were water baptized.

What if I told you the CC has consistently taught the same things for 2000 years?

Also, keep in mind I am not a Protestant. I just believe the Bible and not a modern day church (Because we are living in the last days - See Luke 18:8).

What you fail to understand is this kind of privatized version of Christianity is the purest form of Protestantism. Are you a loner?

Now, I do believe in the glorious Trinity (Godhead),

Well, that's a relief. It's alarming the number of Hislopites pretending to be Christians that have infiltrated CyB. I'm getting better at spotting them. They deny the glorious Trinity and appear in many disguises. A red flag goes up when they accuse Catholicism of having pagan roots. This is a symptom of the diabolical poisoning of Alexander Hislop whose teachings have started new cults and infected many fundamentalist and evangelical circles. That may be why "Trinity" is now a restricted topic in most forums.

but I don’t believe its just a belief alone in Jesus one’s whole life that will save a person (with their being no change in their life). For Salvation: A person must…#1. Be saved by God’s grace through faith (Without works) (i.e., Initial Salvation) (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Baptism is an initiating sacrament, it's not a work. Paul mostly uses "works" to mean "works of the law", James mostly uses "works" to mean good works done through faith in Christ. There is no contradiction because there are 2 different kinds of "works" with different spellings and different meanings. Until that biblical truth is understood by all parties, debates about "works" is endless and circular.

#2. Abide in the Sanctification Process of the Holy Spirit (to live a holy life) (i.e., The Secondary Aspect of Salvation) (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

Christians are to follow the commands that come from Jesus and His followers in the New Testament, and they are not to go back to the Old Law like trying to keep the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, holy days, ectcetera.

Agreed, but I would argue with scripture that water\spirit baptism, with proper form and intent, is a commandment, not a mere ordinance.
What would happen if a Christian got martyred before he had a chance to get baptized? It's called the Baptism of Blood, flowing from the ONE baptism of Christs' death and resurrection.

What would happen if a Christian wanted baptism, but died before they got the opportunity? It's called the Baptism of Desire, flowing from the ONE baptism of Christs' death and resurrection. The thief on the cross was baptized with such desire, proof being Paradise promised by Jesus Himself. No water needed.

 

[Jim B]

Yup. When we are baptized with water, we receive the Holy Spirit. Just like Jesus said in John 3:5.

Here is the chronology of baptism in Scripture:

Jesus was baptized in WATER as a example we are to follow and the Spirit came down upon him.
He then said we are born again thru WATER and Spirit (just like he was).
He and his apostles then went out and baptized with WATER and said 'receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' (Acts 2:38).
After his crucifixion and as he was going into heaven He said baptize all.
The Apostles and Paul continued to baptize all, with water, after they believed in Him.

Here is baptism from NT era Christian Historical writings:

Didache (written BEFORE some NT books):

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.

Hermas​

“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

With that said I know you have accepted the teachings of your 500-year-old Protestant men and rejected the teachings of the NT Christians and NOTHING I say will convince you that you are wrong.....so I digress

Are you joking? John 3:5 says, "Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." A person is born of water (naturally) and born of the Spirit (supernaturally). This has nothing to do with the ritual of water baptism.

Acts 2:38, "Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Baptism means immersion. This does not refer to the ritual of water baptism. Was there some kind of giant tank of water handy to baptize all these people? It's absurd!

What is more absurd is conflating separate, out-of-context selections from Scripture to form a predetermined doctrine. "Jesus was baptized in WATER as a example we are to follow and the Spirit came down upon him.
He then said we are born again thru WATER and Spirit (just like he was). He and his apostles then went out and baptized with WATER and said 'receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'

Why did Jesus, the Savior, God incarnate, need to be baptized in water? Do you think that He was not God prior to John's dunking Him in the river? That is absurd to the max!!!

And stop with the Roman Catholic propaganda! The Didache is not Scripture! Nor are the writings of Hermes!

You end with the illogical statement that "I know you have accepted the teachings of your 500-year-old Protestant men and rejected the teachings of the NT Christians and NOTHING I say will convince you that you are wrong". And this right after you have quoted from non-Scriptural authors!!! LOL!!!