Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Recommended Posts

  • Members
22 hours ago, Baptistsenior said:

I've always been taught that it's just testimonial.  If Christ was talkig about spiritual baptism then  why would Christ give the church baptism as an ordinance, and why would we conclude it was water baptism? 

Our Lord did speak of a physical, literal baptism as a church ordinance but he revealed later through Paul it represents the spiritual baptism. Just as we are born physical there's a spiritual birth. Just as there was a literal circumcision there's a spiritual. Just as there's literal food there's spiritual. There's a "church" on Earth then a Church which is his body.  The list goes on. Not every time baptism is mentioned does it refer to being dunked under water. The context will clear it up. Also, the author of the passage,  Paul, never much emphasized water baptism.

So, the context is about spiritual things in heavenly places. 

 

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 minutes ago, Baptistsenior said:

were not the Anabaptist given that name because they rebaptized catholic converts?  thinking that was a water baptism 

I've mentioned this before but the Anabaptists are closer to the Amish, Mennonites and other Old World German Baptists while Baptists, as we think of it, came out of the Church of England from a group called Brownists whom the Pilgrims were part of. That's why there is a big difference between Baptists in America and the British Isles and Baptists in the rest of Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 minutes ago, SureWord said:

I've mentioned this before but the Anabaptists are closer to the Amish, Mennonites and other Old World German Baptists while Baptists, as we think of it, came out of the Church of England from a group called Brownists whom the Pilgrims were part of. That's why there is a big difference between Baptists in America and the British Isles and Baptists in the rest of Europe.

None of those referenced by you here are /were/ the assembly of Ekklesia from the beginning/ first century.  

The continuation of assemblies of true believers whe never were in the false one world religion,  and did not come out of the false one world religion nor out of her daughters/offspring,  (Persons did come out, as God Called them out, but the faith, the assembly, the working of the body of Christ ,  did not result from the activities or the teachings or the practices of the false babylon immersed church(es))

is not welcome by the world nor by the religious world, as it shows/ exposes the sinfulness of the world.

The description(s) in the Epistles accurately describe the people of redemption in Jesus the Messiah.

The descriptions later man developed or came up with for themselves or for others are not to be trusted nor relied upon for anything.

16 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Our Lord did speak of a physical, literal baptism as a church ordinance but he revealed later through Paul it represents the spiritual baptism. .... The context will clear it up. Also, the author of the passage,  Paul, never much emphasized water baptism.

If the context cleared it up,  there would not be such complete differences and confusion here and in the Baptist churches , Catholic groups, and Protestant groups.

No where in Scripture is it written that immersion in Yeshua's Name represents spiritual immersion although the whole entire life immersed in Yeshua is a reality to be realized in Ekklesia set apart, born again by the Father in Heaven,  afaik,

or can you show Scripture you're referring to ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, SureWord said:

as a church ordinance

By what definition , whose definition, of "church ordinance" ?   When ?   The objection here is not whether or not Jesus directed His disciples to immerse other disciples, making disciples, in His Name, or not,

but the use of the most often used pagan titles/names/ practices of "church" things including ordinances in or of or from the one world church and others not in the body of Christ. 

When used properly,  it is good, yes.  Realize most people do not know the depths of Satan, the wickednesses in high places,  the corruption started before 300a.d.  of Christendom in the world and what the whole world "sees" as "Church".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...