/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>569344

Yes, wishing for death is wrong.

>>569344

Baptism doesn't save you

>>569590

>Peasants ! behold the true holy baptist of the Orthodox Church, the only one valid, with one in two chance of dying and directly meet our Lord !

No big deal, there's still time for them to be baptized for real.

>>569595

" There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21)

>>569603

>not the removal of the filth of the flesh

🤔

>>569590

>OP's pic isn't real baptism

<25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances

No, OP's pic is real baptism

Water is sprinkled, and spirit is infused.

Take the baptism of Jesus:

<After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,

Water and Spirit again, corresponding to Ezekiel 36.25.

Immersion isn't necessarily required.

>>569605

Yeah, exactly. So it saves us.

>>569617

βαπτίζω

Definition: lit: I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping; I baptize.

baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to /antéxomai ("sprinkle")

“I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is” —Hermas, The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 Date: 80 A.D.

>>569622

>posts definition of a Greek word.

You then believe the gifts of The Holy Spirit are restricted to the definition of a word?

Ezekiel does not use that Greek word, rather sprinkled.

Therefore my argument still stands.

>post external source instead of scripture

< “I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is” —Hermas, The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 Date: 80 A.D.

Nowhere does it say that "going down into the water" ALONE is the only form of baptism.

However the Didache reads,

<"Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." 

Immersion is not the only form of baptism

>>569631

I agree it's not the only form but it's clearly the preferred form and I still don't get why Catholics don't do it

>>569631

>Ezekiel

You're an idiot. Ezekiel's prophecies aren't literal in every sense, and also sometimes very vague. You can't base your whole view of the sacraments entirely off of prophecies of the OT. We have the NT for a reason. Yes, OT prophesies shed light, but it's not the entire picture. Should we take the "third temple" in Ezekiel prophecies literally? Should we take Jeremiah's prophecies about the return of Israel about the literal people of Israel, or the Church? Evangelitards take both literally and base their whole eschatology off of it. But the NT clearly has something different in mind that fulfills the prophecies and gives more information about them and what they were and are.

>Argument from silence

^ Green text says it all

>Didache

Notice how the Didache only allows it for special circumstances, that is, when there is no possible way to immerse someone.

>>569663

>Quoting a heretic

>>569674

If baptism can be valid without immersion, then immersion is not essential to the form of baptism, and there is no reason to say that only baptism done by immersion is valid. Additionally, while it may be more commendable to receive baptism by immersion, the effect of the sacrament is not in any way reduced if taken otherwise, since the act of immersion is not essential to the form of baptism. Therefore sprinkling is fine in all cases.

>>569674

>Argument from silence

But that's exactly how you pretend infant baptism. (Even while Acts 2:41-42 and Acts 8:37 strictly excludes it.)

>>569687

The bible teaches infant baptism

>>569691

Yeah an argument from silence and ignoring the passages I mentioned.

>>569695

>an argument from silence

The bible commands infant baptisn. Genesis 17:10

>ignoring the passages I mentioned

Do you think we will refuse to baptize converts? Do you think we will baptize an adult without profession of faith?

>>569699

Genesis 17:10 is talking about circumcision of the flesh, anon.

After the physical birth.

>>569701

You're right, and we are talking about baptism of the flesh. Baptism is the replacement of circumcision, so this command continues. The only change since the command was given is as the covenant has been expanded from only men to both men and women, so the sacrament has expanded from only men to both men and women.

>>569685

Baptism without immersion is the exception. It is not the norm nor was it the norm in the early Church. Making it the norm invalidates the sacrament. This is like saying baptism is not necessary for salvation because catechumens who die before baptism still have chance of receiving God's grace and thus salvation. Should we make it the norm to stop baptizing altogether and make baptism of desire the norm now? NO!

>Infant baptism

Irenaeus and Aristides (and Justin Martyr may hint at it and places in the Bible which mention baptizing entire households 1 Corinthians 1:16)

>>569706

>Baptism without immersion is the exception

It's not an exception unless immersion is essential to the sacrament

>>569706

>1 Corinthians 1:16

1 Corinthians 16:15.

>>569603

1. That's nkt KJV

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

It doesn't say baptism saves. It says the figure if baptism saves. The figure is the gospel

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

So that verse proves faith alone

>>569706

What Baptist bro posted. Also your ASSuming they had infants

>>569705

Nope.

>>569807

I'm pretty sure you just flat out stated falsehoods so why pretend? We will make sure they get a proper baptism.

>>569674

>You're an idiot. Ezekiel's prophecies aren't literal in every sense, and also sometimes very vague.

Sure prophecies aren't literal in every sense, however I find no other reason to think its not literal in this passage.

Show me how this passage CANNOT be taken literally, then i will concede.

> You can't base your whole view of the sacraments entirely off of prophecies of the OT

Is the OT invalid?

I am defending one view and one form of baptism, that is sprinkling using the OT.

Is the OT no longer scripture then?

>We have the NT for a reason

Yes namely, in one aspect to present us with the New Covenant.

>Yes, OT prophesies shed light, but it's not the entire picture.

If you were to read the passages of Ezekiel from which i quoted, (Ezekiel 36:25-27) God is foretelling of a New Covenant, which directly correspond with the New Testament and specifically baptism.

So yes, you can see Ezekiel shedding light on baptism, but not revealing the sacrament.

It does not make what Ezekiel writes invalid.

>Should we take the "third temple" in Ezekiel prophecies literally? Should we take Jeremiah's prophecies about the return of Israel about the literal people of Israel, or the Church?

Again the passages quoted from Ezekiel are clearly foretelling of baptism in the future New Covenant.

Is nothing from the OT prophecies literal?

<Argument from silence

Just as Proties point to John 3.16 for evidence of faith alone,

is it a fallacy if i say to them: "it does not say in John 3.16, 'Believes alone in Him will not perish but have everlasting life" ?

or does John 3.16 already imply faith alone?

>>569622

The poster provided a narrative of a man recounting his baptism, the narrator did not imply that the works of The Holy Spirit apply to those whom have been immersed alone.

>Notice how the Didache only allows it for special circumstances, that is, when there is no possible way to immerse someone.

>It is not the norm nor was it the norm in the early Church.

So not being the norm, therefore invalidates the sacrament?

You think the works of The Holy Spirit rely on what the norm is?

I don't think so.

And if you don't like the Didache;

<"he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring"

(Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]

<Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace"

(Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255])

<Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner"

(On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203])

>>569705

>ASSuming that baptism is nkw circumcision

That's a bad goy

>>569815

>Sure prophecies aren't literal in every sense, however I find no other reason to think its not literal in this passage.

> Show me how this passage CANNOT be taken literally, then i will concede.

Again, you base everything off of a vague passage in the OT, which does nothing for your argument.

>Is the OT invalid?

>I am defending one view and one form of baptism, that is sprinkling using the OT.

>Is the OT no longer scripture then?

The NT supersedes the OT and is the fulfillment of it. Everything in the OT must be considered within the light of the NT. Including that verse in Ezekiel which is clearly a foreshadow of baptism and not a literal actual laying down of precise doctrine.

>Yes namely, in one aspect to present us with the New Covenant.

Yes, the New Covenant, which has laws and precepts that pass that of the Old Covenant, and which is greater than the Old Covenant.

>If you were to read the passages of Ezekiel from which i quoted, (Ezekiel 36:25-27) God is foretelling of a New Covenant, which directly correspond with the New Testament and specifically baptism.

>So yes, you can see Ezekiel shedding light on baptism, but not revealing the sacrament.

>It does not make what Ezekiel writes invalid.

Ok? So according to your logic, Ezekiel laid out a precises doctrinal authority for baptism in the OT 500 years before Christ? Are you that retarded? You are literally basing everything off of ONE passage in the OT without any proper interpretation in NT terms. All Ezekiel was doing here was foreshadowing baptism, to say he was laying out any precise doctrine of baptism - which the NT and early Church did - is retarded. You, my friend, are retarded.

>quoting early church

Literally two of those quotes demonstrated it being the exception, and also, you provided a deliberately shitty translation of Tertullian

"with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again" On Baptism 2 [A.D 203])

This is done in many Orthodox baptisms today. A person is immersed fully three times with water simultaneously being sprinkled/poured on them with the invocation of the Trinity.

Just admit it Latin, your baptisms are not true baptisms.

>>569884

Colossians 2:12

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God,

>>569915

The important part of the passage is when it justifies the lack of circumcision by the presence of baptism