What About Our 'own' Convictions?

[heartstrings]

 ''Nicolaitans'' might be folks like this........

 

 

..........lords over God's heritage.......... 1 Peter 5:3

[HappyChristian]

8 major language groups, plus thousands of transliterations and adaptations.

Still, like in Jesus' day, no one can understand what the Spirit reveals, without His consent.

God knew this language would come, and be the language of World Commerce, and prepared a Bible written in the "legaleze" of the KJV.
This Word has gone into the ends of the Earth (so has the Reina Vallera in the Spanish speaking 1/3 of the GlOBe).
Yet Billions disagree about what it means.

Totally agree.  And believe there is nothing wrong with going to the roots. 

[Salyan]

But in order to break it down in English you have to know the roots because English is a language developed from many.....

Some of which are... wait for it... Greek!

[Covenanter]

deleted - moved

[Ukulelemike]

The reason there is disagreement on such words as Baptize is because a false meaning to it was applied by a pagan religion that happened to force their rule over much of the world for a long time, and hence, the reason there is a disagreement. That's why its good to go back, when one is able, to see what it meant to those of that time. And having something like extra-biblical pickle-making instructions that tell you to baptize your cucumbers in vinegar, helps.

[AVBibleBeliever]

 

Picked this up today, thought it was interesting.  The first part is the Strong's translation of the word, and then an interesting commentary on the Greek words 'Bapto' and 'baptizmo' showing the difference between them. A common-every-day use of the word that might edify.

 

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3. to overwhelm

    

   "Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.). John's was a baptism of repentance (xiii. 24; xix. 4), as was also Christian baptism (ii. 38), but as John's pointed forward to Jesus (xix. 4), it became OBsolete when He came. Christian baptism followed faith in the Lord Jesus (xvi. 31 ff.); it was associated with His name (ii. 38; viii. 16, etc.), which was invoked by the person baptized (xxii. 16); it signified the remission (ii. 38) or washing away of sins (xxii. 16); sometimes it preceded (ii. 38; viii. 15 ff.; xix. 5), sometimes followed (x. 47 f.) the receiving of the Spirit." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 98, n. 1.)

    

   This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

 

Where can we find this pickle recipe. 

 

How are we to verify it is Koine or Classical Greek?

 

Is this only from FF Bruce a person who was critical of the KJV Text being correct?

 

John Strong's is not a trusted source as much of his meanings were discovered to be Classical Greek meanings forced on Koine words.

 

You have two people who were critical of the KJV and you will quote them as reliable sources to help you understand your KJV.

 

We need to be careful as compromise comes in subtle shades and will lead us to doubt the KJV Bible.  As in Philemon people are quoting extra Biblical sources and not defining the words the way that God uses them in our Language when He preserved the Bible in the KJV for us. 

 

It is like over in Philemon thread someone defined the word Traditions as Doctrines.  But not once in any context of the word Tradition/Tradition in the KJV could that be defined and vise versa Doctrine/Doctrines could never be defined as Tradition.  The supposition is Doctrines were handed down LIKE traditions were but that is an error in defining the word Traditions/Tradition.  Going to other sources, especially those critical of the KJV, is dangerous ground to tread.

[Steve Schwenke]

AVBB - let's just make up our own definitions then...would that suit you?

 

The prOBlem here is that when people showed you from the Bible itself that baptism meant "immerse" you just dismissed that.  Then when they quoted other sources, you dismissed that as well.

When people showed you why they believed the "traditions" of Philemon were the doctrines Paul taught, you dismissed that.

So basically, you dismiss anything that does not fit your own personal criteria, regardless of what evidence anyone presents.  NOBody here is compromising on baptism or on the "traditions." 

 

You are so extreme that it is impossible to please you.  You have taken a good teaching, taken it too far, and now are unreasonable in your demands. 

 

Balance and discretion are in order here, brother.

[John81]

Take the Word of God for what it says, even if it's not fully understandable to you at the present time. The Holy Ghost may open our understand at another time, or perhaps we won't have a full grasp of it until eternity. Regardless, we can take the Word as right and true and live accordingly.

[AVBibleBeliever]

AVBB - let's just make up our own definitions then...would that suit you?

 

The prOBlem here is that when people showed you from the Bible itself that baptism meant "immerse" you just dismissed that.  Then when they quoted other sources, you dismissed that as well.

When people showed you why they believed the "traditions" of Philemon were the doctrines Paul taught, you dismissed that.

So basically, you dismiss anything that does not fit your own personal criteria, regardless of what evidence anyone presents.  NOBody here is compromising on baptism or on the "traditions." 

 

You are so extreme that it is impossible to please you.  You have taken a good teaching, taken it too far, and now are unreasonable in your demands. 

 

Balance and discretion are in order here, brother.

Steve,

 

I didn't dismiss any word from God's Word, nor am what I am promoting extremism of any kind.  And Bible balance I try to maintain.  I will say my discretion may be lacking, i.e. maybe I should have chose something else to use or just not shared at all.

 

English Word meanings and definitions to any word in the KJV Bible can be found using the KJV Bible itself.  That is my own conviction.

 

I won't argue that people showed some verses, but as when I first stated about these convictions I said that those verses are not clear enough to prove one or the other.

 

What people "Believe them to be" are not the same as what "God means them to mean".  Importance should be put on seeing without any addition how God's word defines the words that are in the KJV Bible.

 

I understand what you are saying but I am not rejecting or dismissing anything you or anyone has said.

 

It is my conviction that the reason Baptism is not clear on the mode in the final moment of its practice is because Baptism is not necessary for salvation. 

 

What ever the mode used to baptize was, it wasn't causing a prOBlem in the churches as was seen in the practice of Lord's table.  It is my opinion that the reason Jesus felt it necessary to give Paul a separate inspiration of the Lord's Table was because of the abuse of it by the different people coming together to share the Lord's Table.  And in my opinion, and by following the reasoning for this second teaching on the Lord's table, you will notice Jesus never gave a teaching on Baptism or an inspired teaching of it to Paul, because it was not a practice that was being abused.  Whether that practice was immersion (we don't know for sure except through tradition) or if pouring, it seemed not to be a prOBlem that needed to be addressed.

 

I am not opposed to either mode (immersion or pouring) of baptism .  I am against infant baptism, baptism for church membership (R.C., Bible Baptist and others) and baptism as an addition to the work of the cross for salvation. 

 

I know of a Baptist Minister who at the hospital baptized a dying woman who could not be moved for medical reasons.  He did so because she had confessed she had longed to be baptized but never did. And the thought of dying to her without being baptized was a painful thing.  So the Pastor was allowed to baptize her there in her bed they held her up and her poured a small amount of water over her head.  She died later that day with a joy filled heart that she was baptized.  Normally that minister would have done immersion but in her case he poured.

[Ukulelemike]

And yet the picture that baptism presents, death burial and resurrection of Christ, as well as the terminology applied to the act, ie, going down into and coming up out of, the water, clearly indicate the mode. There comes a time when enough has been said and common sense must take up the mantle. If pouring or sprinkling as the mode of the baptisms of John or the baptism by Phillip of the eunuch, there would be no reason at all for going down into the water-what a waste, if one could just scoop up a handful of water and pour it on them, rather than going down into the water and pouring a little on their heads.

 

as well, Israel going through the Red Sea was a picture of baptism, as was the passing under the cloud, the pillar which was the presence of the Lord, UNDER the cloud and THROUGH the sea, and were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea. Under and through-pictures of baptism. And granted, they did not actually go INTO the water, yet the inference is clear, under and through. (1Cor 10:1,2).

 

As well, it is pure assumption on your part that the words would mean different things in Kione than classic Greek. 

 

As for your medical example, I, too have done a pouring baptism for much the same reason: a woman very sick and could not be immersed, but she desired to OBey the Lord, so we poured-the heart is very important, but when the ability is present, it should always fllow the mode clearly laid out in scripture. I happen to see it quite clearly, though implied, but with no implication of any other.

[Steve Schwenke]

AVBB, what you are saying is that the Lord was not clear in His instructions to us.  I find that incredible.  The Lord just left us to drift on our own and figure it out for ourselves, because after, it really does not matter. 

That would be like me telling my 7 year old daughter to change the oil on the car.  Hey, don't worry about the details - like drain pans, using power steering fluid instead of motor oil, putting the drain plug back in....nah - that stuff just is not important...just change the oil!

 

Hey don't worry about HOW you OBey the Lord, just OBey Him according to how you define your own terms, because after all, the HOW just is not that important. 

 

That is what I am hearing you say.

Maybe my hearing is off....I don't know...

What I do know is that Jesus said, "They that worship me MUST worship me in SPIRIT and in TRUTH." 

 

I kinda think the "HOW" is just as important as the "WHAT."  And the Scriptures are crystal clear - immersion was the mode.  Argue it all you want, but it makes no sense for the Ethiopian Eunuch to stop his entire train, get off the chariot, wade out into the water, so that PHilip could scoop up some water and pour it on him.  Why not just pass the canteen over to PHilip while they were travelling, without stopping.

 

Baptism pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, our association with Christ, and our new life in Christ.  Pouring does not picture that at all.  Immersion does.

 

It does make a difference.  The only ones who cannot see that immersion is the Scriptural method of water baptism are willfully blind to it.

 

It is not my intention to be mean to you brother.  It is simply inexcusable for a KJV Bible Believer to not be able to see that simple truth.

 

In Christ,

[AVBibleBeliever]

AVBB, what you are saying is that the Lord was not clear in His instructions to us. List out any scriptures that are CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO BAPTIZE I find that incredible.  The Lord just left us to drift on our own and figure it out for ourselves, because after, it really does not matter.  Pouring or immersing in baptism is not drifting or figuring out, they are clear practices of which no mans salvation is dependent on it. 

 

That would be like me telling my 7 year old daughter to change the oil on the car.  Hey, don't worry about the details - like drain pans, using power steering fluid instead of motor oil, putting the drain plug back in....nah - that stuff just is not important...just change the oil!

 

Hey don't worry about HOW you OBey the Lord, just OBey Him according to how you define your own terms, because after all, the HOW just is not that important.   then if someone OBeys by pouring in their baptism ritual you don't mind and wouldn't condemn them for it?  That is what this "our conviction" thread was speaking of.

 

That is what I am hearing you say.

Maybe my hearing is off....I don't know...

What I do know is that Jesus said, "They that worship me MUST worship me in SPIRIT and in TRUTH." 

 

I kinda think the "HOW" is just as important as the "WHAT."  And the Scriptures are crystal clear - immersion was the mode. Show immersion was how Paul and Silas Baptized the Philippian Jailer.  Argue it all you want, but it makes no sense for the Ethiopian Eunuch to stop his entire train, get off the chariot, wade out into the water, so that PHilip could scoop up some water and pour it on him.  It could have been.  What is clear is both went down into the water   Why not just pass the canteen over to PHilip while they were travelling, without stopping. 

 

Baptism pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, our association with Christ, and our new life in Christ.  Pouring does not picture that at all.  Immersion does.  Roms 6:3 is how the picture is related by Paul and it does not involve water at all, it is spiritual baptism, baptism into Jesus was not water baptism but spiritual baptism (1Cor 12:13) which is the most important baptism of any believer.  In the verse about being baptized unto Moses it is not about water baptism either, but some people see baptism and think it is water baptism, the least important of baptism.

 

It does make a difference. No it really doesn't make a difference on how one baptizes, it does however make a difference on who and why a person is baptized, as not one person who was saved ever lost salvation because they weren't baptized.  But unsaved people go to hell even if they were baptized in water whether immersed or poured.    The only ones who cannot see that immersion is the Scriptural method of water baptism are willfully blind to it.

 

It is not my intention to be mean to you brother.  It is simply inexcusable for a KJV Bible Believer to not be able to see that simple truth.  I never once said that Baptism was not immersion I simply stated that the method was not clear and we should be graceful to those who don't hold to Immersion as you and I do.  This thread is about their own convictions and well as our convictions.  The simple truth is the instruction for baptism are not there, Paul never commanded or instructed any one in any church letter to baptize, and if he only baptized the few he claims to, then he wasn't OBedient to Matt 28 and as James said, to him that knoweth to do good and do it not it is sin. 

 

I know you are not being mean you are being concerned over an issue you hold strong convictions too.

 

In Christ,

PS I am not saying to abandon baptizing by immersion, that was never the point. Some interpret and practice baptism differently and that is their conviction and we need to show brotherly love to them and not condemning them where practices and scripture are not 100 percent clear.

[DaveW]

Don't say baptism isn't immersion, but argue that the Bible doesn't teach what it is?

So what is the REAL point of your arguing then?

[John81]

Who defines what is or isn't clear?

 

Whether the issue in question or matters such as women's role in church, tithe, details of the return of Christ, etc., there are differing views which has some on all sides claiming the matter is clear to them even while others acknowledge they don't see clarity in one or more area.

 

I agree that we should love our brothers/sisters in Christ even if we disagree on certain points, and if we confront them on a point of difference it should be with the intent of helping them, not condemning or battering them.

 

Myself, after much diligent study of the matter, I fully believe Scripture is perfectly clear that biblical water baptism is immersion.

[Invicta]

Who defines what is or isn't clear?

 

Whether the issue in question or matters such as women's role in church, tithe, details of the return of Christ, etc., there are differing views which has some on all sides claiming the matter is clear to them even while others acknowledge they don't see clarity in one or more area.

 

I agree that we should love our brothers/sisters in Christ even if we disagree on certain points, and if we confront them on a point of difference it should be with the intent of helping them, not condemning or battering them.

 

Myself, after much diligent study of the matter, I fully believe Scripture is perfectly clear that biblical water baptism is immersion.

 

I agree.

 

I understood that the KJ translators did not translate it as such as they were told they could not translate any word that would go against the then current practice. Another wors that came under that heading was Bishop.