What About Our 'own' Convictions?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

yes, and on the shore.

[AVBibleBeliever]

By far the best comment in this thread after it turned to baptising. As for me personally I'm in agreement with Li Bai Jai. 

 

If anyone uses AV's logic it leads to doubt not faith. What did they do? Might as well say baptiso means wading or splashing. Maybe John splashed Jesus. John 3:23 says there was much water so maybe baptise means swim. See how this train of thought leads to doubt. That's what Bill Clinton was doing when he said what does this word mean? How do you define "is"? Oh okay, so without knowing what to do after getting in the water, immersion or sprinkling or pouring or splashing or swimming or wading or drinking, all could be baptising cause we don't know what it is. Does this lead to faith? So its basicly, have a conviction that no one else can have a conviction about what baptism means. Stand firm on not knowing? 

#1 I never once question anyones mode of Baptism

#2 The point is the actual Mode was not clear in the English Text

#3 The modes of Baptism are personal Convictions

#4 Not once did I interpose any rewording or questioning of God's word.

#5 Baptism is the clearest area in Scripture that different people have differing convictions of mode because the scriptures are not clear but there are other things as well.  See Philemon thread.

#6 Each can have hold to their conviction but the other should not label them heretick or false teacher if they don't hold the same conviction on baptism or any unclear area of scripture.

#7 Have Grace upon people convictions, supposition, assumptions and interpretation.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

I believe the mode is perfectly clear in the English text.  Baptism is described as burial with Christ and rased into a new likeness.

When you bury someone, do you just pour a cup of dirt over their head?  No!  You cover them completely.. They are completely immersed in the grave.  So it is with water baptism.  Fully immersed under the surface of the water.

[DaveW]

And the mode of baptism is often an indicator of the belief of purpose of baptism.
Therefore the mode IS important.

Historically the reason for sprinkling/pouring was a belief in clinic baptism.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

In other words, a band-aid jOB when full surgery was necessary.

[Steve Schwenke]

A review of true Baptist History might help cement our position on the mode of Baptism.  It is truly one of THE great "watershed" issues in Theology, and has been for nearly 2,000 years now (pun intended.)  The people who gradually started drifting away from the proper mode of Baptism, also began drifting away from the proper SUBJECTS for baptism, and the proper place Baptism holds in theology. 

The mode of baptism is not, nor ever has been, a matter of conscience. 

 

AVBB, since you yourself practice and advocate immersion, then it seems to me you are just picking a fight.  My suggestion is that you drop it and move on.

 

In Christ,

[AVBibleBeliever]

A review of true Baptist History might help cement our position on the mode of Baptism.  It is truly one of THE great "watershed" issues in Theology, and has been for nearly 2,000 years now (pun intended.)  The people who gradually started drifting away from the proper mode of Baptism, also began drifting away from the proper SUBJECTS for baptism, and the proper place Baptism holds in theology. 

The mode of baptism is not, nor ever has been, a matter of conscience. 

 

AVBB, since you yourself practice and advocate immersion, then it seems to me you are just picking a fight.  My suggestion is that you drop it and move on.

 

In Christ,

Steve, It isn't about picking a fight it was about the fact that people hold different convictions on some Biblical issues and we should not be so quick to just pounce on them.  I used Baptism because it is the clearest one, and that Wine being alcoholic or juice was one that had been vehemently debated on many threads already the English word was used for both.

 

And you being an avid KJV guy should clearly understand that "Baptist History" is not the Bible.  There is a document I read at a Independent Baptist Missionaries home (and I will try and get a copy), Where the RC, in about 1200AD, were complaining about "those Baptist".  There complaint wasn't about the mode but as you said about which subjects who were being baptized.  the RC called them Baptist not because of the Mode but because they were adamantly against baby/infant baptism.  Which is truly a false practice and scripture can prove it as such.

 

I am sorry to everyone I did not intend to start any "fight" or "Questioning of God's word."

 

This is the last I can say about it.  As many of you are strongly on your conviction of the mode in which you use.  I use immersion and I have come to accept that tradition of the mode of Baptism.

[Steve Schwenke]

It is not a tradition - it is Scriptural. 

And Baptist History shows that not only was the candidate for Baptism bitterly fought over for nearly 2,000 years, but also the mode. 

And what is the number one distinguishing point about the Baptists anyway? 

 

Their STRICT adherence to SCRIPTURE as their sole authority, and their absolute disdain for man-made tradition.  Thus, their entire position on Baptism is based on SCRIPTURE - not man's tradition.

 

The reason why it appears you are fighting over it is that you keep pushing it and pushing it and pushing it....you have to know when to let things go.

 

In Christ,

[Ukulelemike]

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.

[Ukulelemike]

As an addendum to the former post, we always hear how terrible it is to go to the Greek or Hebrew to better understand a word, and I agree in some cases. Here, however, we have a word that has not been translated into English, but just an anglicized version of the Greek word, so we CAN know the meaning from the Greek. And then, when you have extrabiblical examples of the use of the word, it goes to reinforce that. Not claiming its Bible or scripture, but the Bible DID use words used during that time for other reasons, and there is no reason we can't hearken to their usages to clarify understanding, particularly of anglicized Greek or Hebrew words.

[prophet1]

As an addendum to the former post, we always hear how terrible it is to go to the Greek or Hebrew to better understand a word, and I agree in some cases. Here, however, we have a word that has not been translated into English, but just an anglicized version of the Greek word, so we CAN know the meaning from the Greek. And then, when you have extrabiblical examples of the use of the word, it goes to reinforce that. Not claiming its Bible or scripture, but the Bible DID use words used during that time for other reasons, and there is no reason we can't hearken to their usages to clarify understanding, particularly of anglicized Greek or Hebrew words.

Like "presbytery", and "Nicolaitan", and others, there are times when we have no choice but to look at the parent language.

[Ukulelemike]

Like "presbytery", and "Nicolaitan", and others, there are times when we have no choice but to look at the parent language.

e-zakly!

[AVBibleBeliever]

Like "presbytery", and "Nicolaitan", and others, there are times when we have no choice but to look at the parent language.

Knowing the English meaning of these words makes it quite clear what is said.  Just break down the English word Nico in English means rule or power over and laitian mean common people, hence "to rule over the common people". 

 

You can do the same for presbytery as well.

[HappyChristian]

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

[prophet1]

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

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.