Why do some churches require a process to be baptized?

[Muna]

The intent of Caiaphas, a Jewish high priest in the temple, was clear. He was a Sadducee and an organizer of the plot to kill Jesus. He sent Jesus to Pilate and he presided over the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus.

It tells us he did not say that of himself very specifically, but prophesied it, why bother telling us that? What would be the difference and why should we care? We know that God's counsel on this would stand regardless, as it says, the rulers were gathered together against the LORD and against his Christ, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. And so it was done.

 

[doctrox]

It tells us he did not say that of himself very specifically, but prophesied it, why bother telling us that? What would be the difference and why should we care?

First, words of prophecy in the mouth are no infallible evidence of a principle of grace in the heart. Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? will be rejected as a frivolous plea.

Second, it was intended that the counsel of the wicked Caiaphas would be construed to fall in within the counsels of God. Wicked men are often God's hand to humble and reform us; likewise, what they say against us may be God's mouth to instruct and convince us. As the hearts of all men are in God's hand, so are their tongues. Those are deceived who say, Our tongues are our own, so that we may say what we will, and are not accountable to God's judgment. Balaam could not say what he would, when he came to curse Israel, nor Laban when he pursued Jacob.

In another respect, this does relate back to NotTheRock's OP. Caiaphas was a part of the "process" that killed Jesus. The "process" has hijacked and perverted "baptism" to likewise serve its worldly purposes.

 

[Muna]

First, words of prophecy in the mouth are no infallible evidence of a principle of grace in the heart. Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? will be rejected as a frivolous plea.

It would not be used as a plea in this case, the scriptures acknowledge those who do prophesy out of their own hearts, but in this case it specifically says that he was not speaking this of himself there.

Second, it was intended that the counsel of the wicked Caiaphas would be construed to fall in within the counsels of God. Wicked men are often God's hand to humble and reform us; likewise, what they say against us may be God's mouth to instruct and convince us. As the hearts of all men are in God's hand, so are their tongues. Those are deceived who say, Our tongues are our own, so that we may say what we will, and are not accountable to God's judgment. Balaam could not say what he would, when he came to curse Israel, nor Laban when he pursued Jacob.

In another respect, this does relate back to NotTheRock's OP. Caiaphas was a part of the "process" that killed Jesus. The "process" has hijacked and perverted "baptism" to likewise serve its worldly purposes.

I couldnt make out what you are talking about there

 

[ProverbsInPink]

Thanks in advance!

Some think ritualizing Baptism their way makes those Baptized to feel more grounded in the church itself. It's not merely immersion,it's a unique practice of the church.

 

[doctrox]

It tells us he did not say that of himself very specifically, but prophesied it, why bother telling us that?

and

the scriptures acknowledge those who do prophesy out of their own hearts, but in this case it specifically says that he was not speaking this of himself there.

Same diff. There's no conflict here between the two cases.

This spoke he not of himself, IOW, it was not only the language of his own enmity and policy, but in these words he prophesied, though he himself was not aware of it, that Jesus should die for that nation.

As it was an artifice to stir up the council against Christ, he spoke it of himself, or of the devil rather; but as it was an oracle, declaring it the purpose and design of God by the death of Christ to save God's spiritual Israel from sin and wrath, he did not speak it of himself, for he knew nothing of the matter, he didn't mean it so nor did his heart think so, for nothing was in his heart but to destroy and cut off.

it's a unique practice of the church.

...a unique practice of a church.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Why do some churches require a process to be baptized?​

Thanks in advance!

You're welcome, precious friend. imho, I believe the processes of water baptism comes from
traditions of denominational churches (about 11 or more Conflicting ones) that I have researched.

However, God Only Has:

One [ Spiritual ] Baptism For The Body Of Christ, Today, Under His Amazing Grace.

Thus, no more Confusion, eh?

Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And Edified
In Christ, and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided!

Amen.

 

[Muna]

Same diff. There's no conflict here between the two cases.

I will look into this further,because I am not really convinced of this yet.

 

[NotTheRock]

Why do some churches require a process to be baptized?​

You're welcome, precious friend. imho, I believe the processes of water baptism comes from
traditions of denominational churches (about 11 or more Conflicting ones) that I have researched.

However, God Only Has:

One [ Spiritual ] Baptism For The Body Of Christ, Today, Under His Amazing Grace.

Thus, no more Confusion, eh?

Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And Edified
In Christ, and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided!

Amen.

View attachment 73629

Thank you.

Have you ever considered communicating with others like normal people do, such as using simple, regular, English like the rest of us? I believe you would be more enlightening and persuasive.

Thanks again.