75a1da No.827856
Baptism is by immersion. The word baptism itself is a transliteration of the greek which means "I immerse, I dip, I submerge".
It is to be performed after confession of faith: credobaptism as opposed to on infants: pedobaptism. This is what the Bible teaches.
Pedobaptists have been playing word games for centuries but the credobaptist argument continues to win out. You are saved by faith, then you are to be baptized.
If your church practices baptism of infants and/or doesn't practice baptism by immersion, it's time to start asking questions.
"Baptists" as a tradition aren't the only ones to view it this way, that's just the namesake doctrine. It is very popular opinion across the evangelical protestant world, and there are even Roman Catholic parishes who practice baptism by immersion (though not exclusively and with a different understanding).
Do you know your church's doctrine of baptism and can you defend it?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
75a1da No.827857
>Acts 19:1ff.
<"It happened, however, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul traveled through the upper countries and came to Ephesus. He found several disciples to whom he said, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?' They said to him: 'We have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said: 'Wherein were you baptized?' They said, 'In John's baptism.' Paul, however, said, 'John baptized with the baptism of repentance,' and told the people that they should believe in the one who would come after him, that is, in Jesus who is the Christ. When they heard this, they let themselves be baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. When Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. And there were approximately twelve men."
>This passage, O dear Christian, shows you such a clear, plain, and definite difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ, that it is a mockery and shame that some people introduce here such obscure and confusing glosses by which they want to mix the baptism of John with his teaching, and that contrary to their previously published books. But one should not play tricks like that with the treasure of the divine Word, otherwise in the end, holy theology would become Anaxagorean philosophy and we would have to accept as many new beliefs as there are New Testaments being printed.
Balthasar Hubmaier, 1525
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4bddc9 No.827883
>>827856
>As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" Acts 8:36
This makes it seem more like they found some sort of puddle than a river. Seeing as how they were in Roman territory and traveling far, it's likely that the water was runoff of the Roman engineering – something you could not achieve full immersion in. Of course, that's just speculation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
75a1da No.827889
>>827883
Acts 8:38-39
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. 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.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bb4d13 No.827894
>>827856
I don't care about your religion view but I am more interesting in sociology - psychology of this ceremony
where is this come from ? I mean the origin of it. pushing someone in the water is one way to kill them. you know. is it possible that it happen from killing your enemy by push them to be drowned. and you let them alive by stop do that ? and later it become tradition of "rebirth" ?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1cfda1 No.827900
>>827894
It's supposedly related to Jewish ablution rituals. Pic is where it's believed Jesus was baptized according to tradition.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8c124d No.827915
God gave us a Church and told us to follow it and for the Apostles to lead us.
The Bible also says you need the church to interpret the Bible for us.
Rather than take bits of the Bible out of context to justify the sin of the day, the Church digested the entire Bible, the teachings of the Apostles, and reality and told us what God wants us to believe.
And we need to believe it and not question it. We cannot comprehend the mind of God.
This religion works
So I'm good, thanks.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
de06a7 No.827918
>>827915
>you need the church to interpret the Bible for us.
>the Church told us what God wants us to believe.
>we need to believe it and not question it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
88aa8b No.827938
OP as usual is false. In the New Testament Baptism is literally the place where one is united with Christ. Hence Romans 6 and Galatians 2:27.
Even worse in 1 Peter 3:21, Baptism described as an "appeal" or "pledge" of a good conscience or for one destroys the Baptist view because the Greek there is commonly used in context of contractual trade agreements and oaths sworn. This indicates that Baptism is like "signing" a deal to enter into a relationship with God and not merely a naked symbol. It is the means of being grafted into Christ.
Therefore the Baptist naked symbolist view of Baptism falls short of what Scripture says.
So Baptists condemning others for a wrong way of Baptizing only incur more condemnation on themselves because they have an incorrect view of Baptism in the first place.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
13c96a No.827942
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>827894
>and later it become tradition of "rebirth" ?
Something like that:
1 John 3:1-7
>4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
So baptism ('being born of water') is half of it (the other half being born of spirit).
Baptism is two things: a bath and a burial. It is to deal with your past and wash your sins away and get clean. Additionally, going down under the water is a burial, to say goodbye to the old you, who is dead. Coming out of the water can represent resurrection and new life I suppose, but would be symbolic more than anything and would not count for the second step that Jesus mentions: Receiving the Holy Spirit (by the laying on of hands, like in the passage already quoted) who is God, who is life itself, true life, completes your rebirth as a new man.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
75a1da No.827956
John 3:5-6
5. Jesus answered, “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and Spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
75a1da No.827957
>>827938
>1 Peter 3:21
<And baptism, which this foreshadowed, now saves you — not the mere cleansing of the body, but the search of a clear conscience after God — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Not the cleansing/removal of dirt (the physical act), but the search/appeal (spiritual baptism)
>Galatians 3:27
<For all of you who were baptized into union with Christ clothed yourselves with Christ.
Let's read the verse immediately before
Galatians 3:26
For you are all sons of God, through your faith in Christ Jesus
Everyone who was baptized professed prior faith
>Romans 6
All discussing the baptism of the spirit
I notice that you didn't even address the mode of baptism, is there a reason?
>>827942
>So baptism ('being born of water') is half of it (the other half being born of spirit).
Water birth is physical birth
Spiritual birth is salvation, becoming born again
John 3:5-6
5. Jesus answered, “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and Spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
>>827956
Mispost
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0958e2 No.827974
>>827918
" “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him."
Or you can ignore Philips' interpretation and forever splinter into new denominations.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c4c93f No.827976
>>827889
to add,
John 3:23
23 John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
23fc2e No.827979
>>827974
The eunuch needed someone to tell him the gospel, therefore you must believe the Roman church and not question it? Is that unironically your argument?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8c124d No.827982
>>827979
It's a general admonishment that all Ball-less and d—-less people need the Church to help them understand the Bible, yes. Clearly, with dozens of different denominations of protestants, each one calling the others wrong, help is needed
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0958e2 No.827983
>>827979
Well, besides you getting lost if you read it without holy tradition, the fact that Philip explained him the gospel and baptized him, means you dont even need the bible to save souls. So sola bible already out of the table.
If the Egyptian actually had a NT but no Philip, he'd make up some personal Christianity of his own.
Which is what happens to this day to those who follow sola bible. Its proven empirically. How many are denoms did this idea create, 10k? 30k? not to mention all of those who simply say they dont even need church, that they can have a personal relation alone in their homes through their bible.
Easy pickings for the wolf, these isolated sheep.
So yes you need The Church.
Is your argument evading the palpable consequences of sola bible? We know its fruits now.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
17b3e0 No.827984
>>827983
You're just begging one question after another
>means you dont even need the bible to save souls.
Find me one single Protestant who has ever said otherwise, that a presentation of the gospel can't save
This is called a strawman
>30k denominations
Debunked study. Don't make yourself look like an idiot.
>you need The Church
I'm not denying the role of the church, I'm denying that the Roman church has exclusive authority
Why can't Catholics ever argue in good faith? Honest question. Is the teenage tradcath meme true?
It is all kneejerk spite with you people and never any real consideration of your debate partner's post.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
88aa8b No.827991
>>827957
>Not the cleansing/removal of dirt (the physical act), but the search/appeal (spiritual baptism)
And completely missing the point of my argument which is the "appeal" here is in Greek same thing as "pledges" made in trade contracts. We literally have papyri attesting to this.
https://www.academia.edu/12720416/_Confessing_God_from_a_Good_Conscience_1_Peter_3_21_and_Early_Christian_Baptismal_Theology
And this scholar is Evangelical before anyone dismiss this all because he is associated with a Catholic institution.
>B-But the verse before Baptism in Galatians 2 refers to saved by faith
This shows myopic eisegesis because that very faith is immediately after tied to Baptism. And this is not muh spirit Baptism. Why? Because nowhere in Pauline writings is the term Baptism used to denote the Pentecostal born again tier baptism. This is an artificial distinction. Even Acts which speaks of the gift of the Spirit coming on people before water Baptism never labels that as Baptism, which also shoots down the assertion on Romans 6.
The most simplest and coherent answer is that Baptism is tied to justification by Faith. This is why Paul includes it when he mentions this. It isnt some separate optional DLC as you preach. It is part of Union with Christ.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
17b3e0 No.827995
>>827991
>that very faith is immediately after tied to Baptism.
That's exactly what Baptists advocate
>The most simplest and coherent answer is that Baptism is tied to justification by Faith
Yes
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
88aa8b No.827996
>>827995
It isn't. It is just an additional post optional DLC after being Saved.
When I say Baptism is tied to justification by faith, it is because that is part of being united with Christ. This is why Galatians say we put on Christ in Baptism. In Baptism you are buried with Christ, into his death as Romans 6 says. Baptism is seen as analogous to OT circumcision as in Colossians 2:11-12 which itself also speaks right after mentioning Baptism of the Colossians being under sin and death.
Basic common sense would tell the attentive reader that Paul wants you to see Baptism as part of one's coming into Christ which is why he places it within context of justification by faith and uses "union" terminology like burial with or putting on.
Your Baptism has no union with Christ. Worse still, your own argument entails that to be saved requires no union with Christ because the very locus of this union is destroyed and disparaged as "works salvation"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
40bac2 No.827999
>>827996
My argument is memorialism. Baptism is the first step of obedience to Christ, anyone who doesn't even do that should be presumed damned.
Baptism is still a work so it explicitly cannot be understood as a step before receiving salvation, which is sola fide.
When the Bible talks about baptism saving you, it's referring to baptism with the spirit. Baptism by water is the sacrament/ordinance we practice in the church.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
88aa8b No.828001
>>827999
Memorialism is certainly not what the Sacrament of Baptism is in Scripture. For one thing as Crawford(an Evangelical) notes, the "appeal" or "pledge" when used in Greek papyri refer to one pledging to honour a trade contract. It's cognates are used in oaths too when one is about to embark on a task assigned by the king or someone of higher rank.
This already refutes the classical Baptist position because by going back to the Greek and see the context of its use, it entails baptism as a kind of "contract" the believer signs with God to have faith in God to the end to enter into a relationship with him. Hence it is literally part of the process.
Some Baptists to their credit are waking up to this. So Stein of Southern Seminary notes how Baptism is part of a sequences of repentance, belief and obedience for one's coming into Christ
http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/documents/sbjt/sbjt_1998spring2.pdf
And your whole point on muh spirit baptism fails, because nowhere is the prior reception of the Spirit before water Baptism is ever described as a baptism
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
366e09 No.828002
>>828001
I've talked to you here a long time ago about muh papyri and I am not interested. It is not compelling.
The additional connotation of pledge based on new research of ancient documents is not a refutation of memorialism. You're saved by faith, see st. Dismas. Baptism is a necessary part of christian faith, but not preceding faith.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
88aa8b No.828003
>>828002
You gotten refuted on them all. The additional connotation of pledge also refutes your memorialism which you cannot even show why this is not so. You can only assert so.
Unlike you I had explained in detail why your position is wrong and here you refuse to see truth.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
88aa8b No.828005
Also Baptists who use the thief as an excuse to dismiss Baptism only show their own myopia in eisegesis. This is because the whole point of Luke 23 and 24 presents Jesus' death as a kind of return to Paradise. When Jesus died, the temple curtain was broken. This shows the end of the separation between God and man by Jesus' death. When Jesus said to Dismas that he will be with him in paradise, it shows a usage of imagery referring to an Edenic paradise as Genesis 2:8 LXX uses. Second Temple writings like Pslams of Solomon 14:1-10 and 4 Ezra 8:52 follows this as a metaphor for eschatological blessing.
That same Edenic theme comes back in Luke 24 on the Road to Emmaus where the eyes of two disciples were opened in the breaking of the bread. That is a clear intertextual link to Genesis 3 where a pair, Adam and Eve had their eyes opened. Adam and Eve fell when their eyes were opened by the Serpent, but with the eyes of the disciples were opened, they understood and it indicates a reversal of this.
What does this have to do with Baptism? Baptists who are myopic cannot see a recurring pattern in Acts when the Ethiopian was Baptized.
Someone appeared to him and explained Scripture to him, which he can't understand, leading him unable to be Baptized. The guide who explained disappears and in both instances the characters are closing in on Jerusalem. That is a clear parallel but Baptists are so scared of this like this Memorialist. Why? Because when this is shown, the Memorialist position falls further, it shows Baptism as a gateway into "Eden" hence why the Ethiopian cant be Baptized if he cant understand. He needs to understand. He needs to believe, only then can he go through the gate!
This ironically proves my point and matches what Biblical scholarship on the "appeal" of a good conscience in 1 Peter actually means
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ec05d3 No.830167
>>827894
The reason water is involved in baptism and how it means rebirth is obvious. You've ever been inside a womb?
Here's a characteristic feature of it: the fetus is immersed in water (amniotic fluid to be specific). Naturally, to be born again of the spirit involves water too.
You could tie this to the rebirth of the world when it comes to the flood.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
75a1da No.831946
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9a3334 No.832738
dude, I had water sprinkled on my head as a baby, I'm totally baptized and saved and I can do anything as long as I go to confession and sunday worship
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.