Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

What About Our 'own' Convictions?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

this thread is about people convictions and the mode of baptism some choose that different from ours is just that their convictions.   and they have as much scripture evidence as any if they pour or dunk.  Sprinkling from a baptismal wand as done by the RC is a RC copy of the hyssop branch sprinkling the Jews did with the blood of their sacrifice.  Is it the wrong way.  We see by John the bapt and the disciples it was done in water.

 

As far as Paul and the baptizing he did we have no idea if it was done in a river, a lake or a horse trough or a fountain or from a basin because we have no narrative on where and in what manner he ever did baptisms.  Even his own baptism is silent on where it was done.  we see he was in a home when Anias visited him and laid hands on him but no indication of where or how the baptism was done is in the text.

 

We are gonna have to just be honest, God did not reveal to us what the process was.  That is why when you compare what we know from Paul as Baptism in the Holy Ghost and that Peter says that when the Gentiles had it done to them he states that god poured out his Spirit one them.  In these comparisons of Scriptures we could say the example of how to baptize is shown by how God baptizes with the Holy Ghost. 

 

Why did God leave out the inspiration of how one was to baptize, other than in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost was because it may be ok to do it anyway one wants.  It is something that does not affect your salvation whether you are baptized or not.  So would it not be somewhat presumptuous of us to call someone a false teacher and a heretick because they pour or sprinkle rather than dunk.  But I like you got my instructions on how to baptize from my teachers at Bible college using the same scriptures that don't give any instruction of how to baptize.  I am not saying they are wrong and they more than likely have it right.  But be honest the scriptures don't give us the indication on how to carry out baptisms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I went straight up out of the water after completing my baptisms at a local lake.  I was immerse in the water only up to my waist.  Matthew 3 does not prove he was dunked.  the term Out Of means he left the water.

 

The Translators decided to transliterate the word Baptize because they could not accurately translate it.

So you are saying the translators were  not good enough to do their jOB?

 

It sounds awfully like you are suggesting that God chose the wrong people to do the translation.

 

Of course they OBviously didn't know the language they were translating from anyway, so it really doesn't make any difference whether or not they were the right people......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

AVBibleBeliever....we were wondering....

Wondering if all of AVBB's relatives who have passed just had a little bit of dirt poured on top of them?
 

What about Phillip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:36-39? 

 

Acts 8:36 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?
Acts 8:37 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.
Acts 8:38 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.
Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

 

When the eunuch saw "a certain water",  it prOBably wasn't a little "puddle".  He (the eunuch) knew it was deep enough into which he was able to be baptized (or immersed) , or he wouldn't have asked.  OBviously, nOBody was speaking of "pouring" or "sprinkling" here.

 

Then after the eunuch responded to Phillip's question "if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest", they  (Phillip and the eunuch) "went down BOTH INTO the water"...and Phillip baptized (immersed) the eunuch.  Then they (Phillip and the eunuch) CAME UP OUT OF THE WATER.  If they had not been IN the water, they would not have been able to COME UP OUT OF THE WATER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Why did God leave out the inspiration of how one was to baptize, other than in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost was because it may be ok to do it anyway one wants. 

 

Maybe there was no need as the word had an OBvious meaning.

 

But maybe, just maybe, the word has been corrupted over time, and the misuse of it for men's own purposes has diluted that meaning.

 

Maybe everyone knew when it was written that to baptize means to plunge under, and the only reason we have any other understanding today is because men with agendas changed the meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I went straight up out of the water after completing my baptisms at a local lake.  I was immerse in the water only up to my waist.  Matthew 3 does not prove he was dunked.  the term Out Of means he left the water.

 

The Translators decided to transliterate the word Baptize because they could not accurately translate it.

 

You are in error here I think. But that is just my opinion. 

As for transliterating? Are you talking about the KJV translators, because I have Tyndales, Matthews, and the Geneva bibles, and they all have this English word 'baptize'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
“In the time of the apostles, the form of baptism was very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or a vessel, with the words which Christ had ordered, and to express more fully his change of character, generally adopted a new name. The Greek Ch urch retained this custom; but the Western Church adopted in the 13th century the mode of baptism by sprinkling, which has been continued by the Protestants, the Baptists only excepted. The introduction of this mode of baptism was owing to the great inconvenience which arose from the immersion of the whole body in the northern climates of Europe. (Zell’s Encyclopedia, Art. Baptism, Vol. I, p. 236).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
“Sprinkling as a form of baptism took the place of immersion after a few centuries in the early Church, not from any established rule, but by common consent, and it has since been very generally practiced in all but the Greek and Baptist churches, which insist upon immersion.”
(McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, Art. Sprinkling, V
ol. IX, p. 968).
 
“Sprinkling was still (in the period of 323 - 692) confined to Baptismus Clinicorum (clinical baptism) and was first generally used in the West in infant baptism in the 12th century, while the East still retained the custom of immersion.” (Kurts, a German Lutheran Historian , in Church History, Vol. I, p. 367)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Baptism made simple: it's a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Every time we witness a baptism, we are reminded of what Christ did for us on the cross, in the tomb, and His resurrection.  We mock Christ's sacrifice when we change the picture by sprinkling or pouring instead of immersing. 

 

When we begin to mess with the pictures God has placed in the Bible, we will miss out on the blessings of God. Just look at what happened to Moses when he messed with one of God's pictures. Numbers 20:8-12.  I Corinthians 10:1-6.

 

As a side question, why would John the Baptist, Peter, and the others go through all the trouble and inconvenience of getting waist deep in water if they were just going to simply pour a cup of water over the persons head? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The more important question is what purpose is behind the questioning of the mode of Baptism?

 

The plain understanding of the word, along with the reasons and picture (as mentioned above), all point to the full immersion. 

 

Why do people want to find another understanding?

 

What is the reason for it?

 

There are already plenty of ways the death burial and resurrection of Christ are minimised and pushed into the background. 

There is, quite simply, no reason to take an understanding of baptism apart from the basic meaning of plunging into liquid.

The examples of the Spirit etc are ILLUSTRATIONS and need to be seen as such.

 

So what is behind people wanting to find another mode? what is the purpose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You are in error here I think. But that is just my opinion. 

As for transliterating? Are you talking about the KJV translators, because I have Tyndales, Matthews, and the Geneva bibles, and they all have this English word 'baptize'.

and they all transliterated the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The more important question is what purpose is behind the questioning of the mode of Baptism?

 

The plain understanding of the word, along with the reasons and picture (as mentioned above), all point to the full immersion. 

 

Why do people want to find another understanding?

 

What is the reason for it?

 

There are already plenty of ways the death burial and resurrection of Christ are minimised and pushed into the background. 

There is, quite simply, no reason to take an understanding of baptism apart from the basic meaning of plunging into liquid.

The examples of the Spirit etc are ILLUSTRATIONS and need to be seen as such.

 

So what is behind people wanting to find another mode? what is the purpose?

there is no questioning you cant question the mode if there is none.

 

 

the thread was about "one convictions" your's and mine are about immersion, theirs is about pouring or sprinkling.  Neither mode is clearly shown in scripture except in how God baptized Gentiles with the Holy Ghost and that was "poured out".   so they leave us to our conviction and we to theirs.

 

But to argue the mode is this or that and call each other names, when the mode is clearly not in the KJV text when it is not is pure nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

AVBibleBeliever....we were wondering....

What about Phillip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:36-39? 

 

Acts 8:36 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?
Acts 8:37 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.
Acts 8:38 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.
Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

 

When the eunuch saw "a certain water",  it prOBably wasn't a little "puddle".  He (the eunuch) knew it was deep enough into which he was able to be baptized (or immersed) , or he wouldn't have asked.  OBviously, nOBody was speaking of "pouring" or "sprinkling" here.

 

Then after the eunuch responded to Phillip's question "if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest", they  (Phillip and the eunuch) "went down BOTH INTO the water"...and Phillip baptized (immersed) the eunuch.  Then they (Phillip and the eunuch) CAME UP OUT OF THE WATER.  If they had not been IN the water, they would not have been able to COME UP OUT OF THE WATER!

once again no mode and the words indicate they went into the water and they came out of the water.  Or you would have to say Philip dunked himself at the same time he dunked the Eunuch because of the plural word THEY and Both. 

 

It is a Kingdom gospel of the of the Promise King that fulfilled the scripture and you will notice not one mention of blood for the forgiveness of sins is mentions anywhere in Philip's Kingdom Gospel presentation.  Just death Burial and raised again to fulfill scripture that Jesus Was the Christ the Messiah of Israel of the lineage of David and rightful King of the Jews.  but that is for another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...