Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Chickenlittle

Advice on Baptism

Recommended Posts

@Matthew Duvall,  you are the man. You got it together. I need your opinion desperately. Give me some advice on baptism.

   I was baptized when I was 12 years old. I was not “ forced”, but I was “ pressured” by my mom. I knew “of” Jesus” , but I was too young to really understand what I was doing. I saw Jesus on the little play cards in Sunday School class, and I heard all the wonderful stories about this loving man. 

   Yes, I believed in Him, but, at that age, I did not have a personal relationship with Jesus. I got baptized because I loved my mom. She could’t be wrong. I never heard of the words “ bride of Christ” or “groom”, so how could I become part of the “ bride” with no knowledge of what I was doing? Could some religiou act by man zap me into the brideship of Christ because I loved my mom? 

   I guess this experience is why I am opposed to infant baptism. I am more opposed to it on personal experience other than theological grounds.

    I am now saved, not by some man ‘s act, but by the blood. But, baptism is important. My small church frowns on rebaptism without extreme justification, and the act of baptism would make me a member of that church, while I am still looking at other churches.

  I have been looking at Acts 19: 1-7, and can see that Paul did some sort of rebaptizism here. Being baptized twice? Come on now! It is actually scriptural! What? John’s baptism was not enough? Does this mean “my” baptism is not enough? Like these followers, when I was baptized, I knew nothing of the Holy Spirit, (verse 2). Notice also in verse 2 the words “ have ye received the Holy Ghost since you believed?

  That word “believed” just continues to haunt me, because it seems to pop up almost every time someone is “ individually” baptized. Yes, I have seen several Bible verses where “general” statements are made about baptism, without mention of belief.

     Should I be rebaptized? I cherish your thoughts, Matthew, but would also like other opinions here. Anyone is welcome to join in.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Chickenlittle said:

     Should I be rebaptized? I cherish your thoughts, Matthew, but would also like other opinions here. Anyone is welcome to join in.

When I was 14 years old I was baptized, not because someone encouraged me to do this, but because I was concerned about my eternal destiny and I believed water baptism was necessary for salvation.  A little more than two years later I heard the gospel clearly explained and was saved.  At the time the I didn't think anything about being baptized because I was already a church member and had been baptized, but later I began to think about whether I needed to be baptized again.  A little less than three years after my salvation I finally took the step of being baptized.  My second baptism wasn't actually a rebaptism because my first wasn't really a baptism at all.  I was just dunked in the water and the only change was that I became a member of my church.  There was no change in my spiritual condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
1 hour ago, Chickenlittle said:

I guess this experience is why I am opposed to infant baptism. I am more opposed to it on personal experience other than theological grounds.

The irony is that your view on baptism seems to be experiential.

 

1 hour ago, Chickenlittle said:

I have been looking at Acts 19: 1-7, and can see that Paul did some sort of rebaptizism here. Being baptized twice? Come on now! It is actually scriptural! What?

What makes you believe that the "baptism" in Acts 19:1-7 is with water?  

 

1 hour ago, Chickenlittle said:

Should I be rebaptized?

Any future act of re-baptism would be nothing more than conveying doubts rather than faith in God and His grace.

 

Surely, it is your theological understanding of baptism which contributes towards your doubt. 

 

Nicene Creed:
“And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

 

Ephesians 4:4-7 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.

 

It is my opinion others should strengthen your faith and encourage the proper theological understanding of baptism to you rather than repeat the outward expression of baptism through water which is nothing more than an act of doubt in your baptism. Baptism conveys God's grace and should not be re-administered in your weakness to convey works.   

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

You're baptism is not what saves you. John's baptism was a per-baptism to prepare the people for Christ, the people in acts didn't receive The Holy Spirit because they haven't heard and received the full Gospel.

 

Rebaptism isn't necessary, but I would say that it's good you want to if it's for the right reasons with the right understanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
18 minutes ago, Innerfire89 said:

Rebaptism isn't necessary, but I would say that it's good you want to if it's for the right reasons with the right understanding.

So if our reasons change or our understanding develops in the future should we enter into an endless cycle of re-baptism which conveys our doubts in front of others and risks making them doubt the legitimacy of not only his but of those that witness the re-baptisms?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Good answer William . The cycle of rebaptism would be endless. The problem for me was “experience”, because Acts 19, 1-7 appeared to be written just for me. I read it over and over, and it was like the Lord was pointing his finger at me. I have a guilt about the fact that Paul, or maybe a subordinate with him, was baptizing 12 who did not believe in the Holy Ghost (just like me at age 12) simply because they never heard of the Holy Spirit. It could not hit closer to home.

   But, theologically, I could say the foregoing verses, for me, are the main proof that drives the final nail in the coffin for infant baptism. Infants can not possibly believe in the Holy Ghost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Some (but not all) Southern Baptist Churches demand, unless you were baptized in a "Baptist" church, if you want to join their church you must be baptised in a Southern Baptist Church.  There are reasons, as some SBC churches do not accept sprinkling, or any other baptism but SBC baptisms.

 

These SBC churches have their reasons, and if someone does not like it then go elsewhere.  Before attacking their reasons take into consideration how many false believers there are. One church I know of found many people had no idea why they were baptised, and people thought baptism saved them. So in their thinking this was a much better way of making sure people were truly born again.  This was their thinking.  I am just giving their reasoning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Baptism is merely a sign, and since baptism literally replaced the requirement of circumcision, then re-baptism would be the same thing as a Jew getting re-circumcized.  Which would basically be considered self-mutilation.  

 

The first baptism is to signify the washing away of your sins, which if you truly repent and accept Jesus as your savior then there is no need for multiple baptisms as that would just become an unnecessary continual outward sign.  And who do we know went through the process of repeated outward demonstrations of their own faith?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
2 hours ago, Chickenlittle said:

Good answer William . The cycle of rebaptism would be endless. The problem for me was “experience”, because Acts 19, 1-7 appeared to be written just for me. I read it over and over, and it was like the Lord was pointing his finger at me. I have a guilt about the fact that Paul, or maybe a subordinate with him, was baptizing 12 who did not believe in the Holy Ghost (just like me at age 12) simply because they never heard of the Holy Spirit. It could not hit closer to home.

   But, theologically, I could say the foregoing verses, for me, are the main proof that drives the final nail in the coffin for infant baptism. Infants can not possibly believe in the Holy Ghost.

It doesn't matter if Judas Iscariot baptized you. The baptizer of the sacrament is not conveying their sin but rather God's grace. Anyone that baptizes in the name of God in three persons properly baptizes you despite any questionable or horrible theology which accompanies it. Because you later "evolve" in knowledge, understanding or theology proper doesn't mean you should re-baptize after you reject the accompanied garbage. The baptism you received was as though Jesus baptized you, to re-baptize is to doubt the baptism which was performed by Jesus.

 

John 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.

 

John 4:1-2 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), 3 he left Judea and departed again for Galilee.

 

Your doubts here are now restated by your understanding of Acts 19:1-7. Again, I ask you, why do you think the baptism here in these verses was with water?

 

Please do not hesitate to answer for fear of being wrong. No one here will pound you down to the ground for trying to understand.

 

Furthermore, Covenant, household, or paedo-baptism includes infants or children. Lemme ask you this, if the NT Covenant is better than the OT Covenant as the author of Hebrews suggests, would it be better for children if they were now excluded from the NT Covenant? Peter spoke in familiar Covenant language to the early Christians which were Jews. They'd understand what Peter meant when he said:

 

Peter 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

 

37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, o“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

 

There is no question as to what is required of Covenant household heads. They are to repent and believe. Now the question, were these that were "the house of Israel" who are familiar with Covenant language to now suppose that their children were to be excluded from the NT Covenant? And, can you with theological certainty say that none of the "three thousand souls" which received Peter's word all adults and not their children? Again, do you not think that Peter's allusion to Genesis 17:7 wasn't familiar to them?

 

Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

 

The children of believers were included in the OT and given the Sign of the OT Covenant. Were the children lost in the transition of the OT to NT Covenant?

 

Colossians 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

Why is Paul paralleling the two Covenant signs? The OT sign was circumcision, and the NT sign is water. Infants received the sign of circumcision in the OT. Why are they now excluded from the NT Covenant without an explicit mention? Nothing in the NT explicitly states such thing, and contrary to their exclusion an inclusion can be inferred from Scripture with proper understanding of the Covenant and its sign and seal of baptism.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Knotical said:

Baptism is merely a sign, and since baptism literally replaced the requirement of circumcision, then re-baptism would be the same thing as a Jew getting re-circumcized.  Which would basically be considered self-mutilation.  

 

The first baptism is to signify the washing away of your sins, which if you truly repent and accept Jesus as your savior then there is no need for multiple baptisms as that would just become an unnecessary continual outward sign.  And who do we know went through the process of repeated outward demonstrations of their own faith?

Can a person be a true believer and not be baptised? Think carefully. What about someone in a hospital bed, who just prayed to become a Follower, and then dies sometime later. It isn't baptism that saves. I know this is situation ethics, but consider how much is baptism connected to salvation. What about infants that are sprinkled and later live a life of  making hell for everyone else. Now the Roman Catholic's would say he is "saved". I don't think that's what Jesus would say, do you?

 

Then there is the mode of baptsm, and that can be a real cause for disagreement for a lot of us Christians. I suggest the mode is not near as important as the what the true soul of the person really reveals, has their been a change in the way he or she now lives, and does this person now become a genuine Follower of Jesus Christ?

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
19 minutes ago, Just Mike said:

Can a person be a true believer and not be baptised? Think carefully. What about someone in a hospital bed, who just prayed to become a Follower, and then dies sometime later. It isn't baptism that saves. I know this is situation ethics, but consider how much is baptism connected to salvation. What about infants that are sprinkled and later live a life of  making hell for everyone else. Now the Roman Catholic's would say he is "saved". I don't think that's what Jesus would say, do you?

 

Then there is the mode of baptsm, and that can be a real cause for disagreement for a lot of us Christians. I suggest the mode is not near as important as the what the true soul of the person really reveals, has their been a change in the way he or she now lives, and does this person now become a genuine Follower of Jesus Christ?

 

Any thoughts?

Same question applies to the OT Covenant. Were all in Israel that received circumcision the sign of the OT Covenant saved? Apart from salvation were they actually in a real Covenant?

 

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

 

The children of the Covenant are holy. They are separated from the world and not seen by God as the children of unbelievers. If these children later become apostate then that act conveys that they were never one of us. It doesn't mean that they were not part of the Covenant, did not receive Covenant blessings, contrary to that they are Covenant breakers. And we know how much God hates Covenant breakers (Esau). Why do you think the author of Hebrews 6 and/or the Epistle of 2 John conveyed that there are those which can taste the fruits of the Spirit and themselves not be saved? Or that there are those that began with us and did not persevere? Exactly how did they begin with us? Isn't John conveying the same as Paul? That is, not all Israel is Israel?

 

To avoid any misunderstanding, lemme first say that Water Baptism doesn't necessarily suggest that regeneration is so annexed to water that it cannot occur without baptism. And it isn't guaranteed to convey the inward regeneration in children nor adults. Our theological differences are to do with how we understand baptism from a Covenant perspective. Baptist understand Baptism to only be an outward reality or sign of an inward transformation or regeneration. Whereas Covenant, household, or paedo baptist see it as not only a sign but also a seal (God's promises). A child may not believe when baptized, just as a child did not believe when circumcised. However, the promises are really theirs. The Seal is the promise made to them that God will be their God. When a child grows up and reflects upon this, he believes in the promise and the Seal is Sealed with the Holy Spirit. In faith he reflects to his younger years and by faith sees the grace of God which was conveyed through the baptism.

 

Water Baptism doesn't save the man on his death bed. The Seal of the Covenant is God's promise. Does the man now believe in the promises of God? If yes, then the man is saved, to suggest anything else adds works to the formula of salvation. To suggest the man must perform deeds which are evidenced of his salvation is to reject even a paraplegic's salvation which could not perform anything as an outward expression of regeneration.  Likewise, we'd doubt whether the thief went with Jesus after death because the thief did not unpin himself from his cross and actually "walk after Him". The thief was completely reliant on Jesus!

 

God bless,

William

 

  • Like 1
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, William said:

So if our reasons change or our understanding develops in the future should we enter into an endless cycle of re-baptism which conveys our doubts in front of others and risks making them doubt the legitimacy of not only his but of those that witness the re-baptisms?

Not at all. It just seems like its a good thing that someone wants to show the inward work of the Holy Spirit by a symbolic representation.

But they should certainly understand what baptism is enough to know that they won't have need to be baptized again and again.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
1 hour ago, Innerfire89 said:

Not at all. It just seems like its a good thing that someone wants to show the inward work of the Holy Spirit by a symbolic representation.

But they should certainly understand what baptism is enough to know that they won't have need to be baptized again and again.

And if the Scriptures convey only "one baptism" would re-baptism be a misrepresentation of the sacrament?

 

The major problem I see with re-baptism is that it communicates doubt. What doesn't come from faith is a sin. Therefore, for someone to convey doubt to our Covenant children which are received in the name of Jesus might heed the warning of Jesus Christ:

 

Matthew 18:5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,1 it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

I'm merely pointing out a historical fact and conveying how such an act was counted against the Ana-baptist. In the 1600s both Catholic and Protestant Magistrates hunted down and killed Ana-baptists. Some were drowned in the rivers while others mocked them and shouted "let baptism save you"! Wonder how many were saved by their baptism?

 

A gruesome historical event. But I am using it as an emphasis on how these acts have consequences and affect Covenant children.

 

God bless,

William

 

Share this post


Link to post

William, In regards to household baptism and children baptism, there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of infant baptism in the NT. As for as “household” , Acts16:30-33, “sirs what must I do to be saved, verse 32, and they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in the house., verse 34 clearly states that after baptism that he and all his house believed in God. (Can babies believe?) The word of God was spoken to all those in the “House” that were baptized. Babies would not understand words spoken.

    The household had children, but not plain proof of babies. I am not trying to split hairs. But, again, in any verse in the NT regarding baptism, I have failed to find evidence that households included babies, only children. 1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism saves you, not the removal of dirt , but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Babies cannot appeal to God. I can go on with this, but you get my point.

   As for the New Covenant, without going into great detail ( I am not a theologian), this I do know. New covenant members are not defined by physical descent, Jewishness, or (genetics). A good example was that many Jews under the old covenant threw up “Abraham” as their father when debating salvation. Circumcision was under the old covenant. New covenant members are defined by their faith, and by God’s writing His laws on their heart, not bound by hocus pocus legalism. Baptism is also defined by faith.

   Are we not to believe the NT? In every NT description of baptism, faith was a requirement of baptism, including the faith of household children. No baby can have faith. Our difference on infant baptism seems to stand on new covenant law. Is infant baptism covered under new covenant law?  You say yes, I say no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
21 hours ago, Chickenlittle said:

William, In regards to household baptism and children baptism, there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of infant baptism in the NT. As for as “household” , Acts16:30-33, “sirs what must I do to be saved, verse 32, and they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in the house., verse 34 clearly states that after baptism that he and all his house believed in God. (Can babies believe?) The word of God was spoken to all those in the “House” that were baptized. Babies would not understand words spoken.

    The household had children, but not plain proof of babies. I am not trying to split hairs. But, again, in any verse in the NT regarding baptism, I have failed to find evidence that households included babies, only children. 1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism saves you, not the removal of dirt , but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Babies cannot appeal to God. I can go on with this, but you get my point.

   As for the New Covenant, without going into great detail ( I am not a theologian), this I do know. New covenant members are not defined by physical descent, Jewishness, or (genetics). A good example was that many Jews under the old covenant threw up “Abraham” as their father when debating salvation. Circumcision was under the old covenant. New covenant members are defined by their faith, and by God’s writing His laws on their heart, not bound by hocus pocus legalism. Baptism is also defined by faith.

   Are we not to believe the NT? In every NT description of baptism, faith was a requirement of baptism, including the faith of household children. No baby can have faith. Our difference on infant baptism seems to stand on new covenant law. Is infant baptism covered under new covenant law?  You say yes, I say no. 

You haven't addressed a single Scripture put to you. Wasn't faith a requirement of the OT Covenant too? If so, then why do you think the NT Covenant is distinguished from the Old Covenant by faith?

 

And though you ignored everything put to you I'll address 1 Peter 3:21.

 

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death pin the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

 

1 Peter 3:18-22 makes an explicit allusion to the OT where the waters of the flood were a fore-type and resulted in 8 persons being saved. Baptism is the anti-type and fulfillment, Baptism then is the ark bringing us into Christ's church. This very verse goes against your theology as it is being used by Peter as an initiation into Christ's Covenant church. Peter says, "Baptism is saving you". Peter does not say, "Baptism SAVED you" this is present tense and conveys an incomplete action. That is, Baptism brings us into a state of salvation and into a real covenant with God.  However, Peter warns that this initiation into the Covenant church is only the beginning. Lest we make it into an empty Sign. The birth and the growth must follow. The death to sin and "Regeneration to Justification" must be actual and realized in our lives. Your verse actually reinforces my previous posts.

 

And lastly, I find your statement about children not being included in "households" rather hilarious. Especially when my previous response included verses which explicitly stated that the Seal of the Covenant included children. 

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, William said:

And if the Scriptures convey only "one baptism" would re-baptism be a misrepresentation of the sacrament and what it conveys?

 

The major problem I see with re-baptism is that it communicates doubt. What doesn't come from faith is a sin. Therefore, for someone to convey doubt to our Covenant children which are received in the name of Jesus might heed the warning of Jesus Christ:

 

Matthew 18:5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,1 it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

I'm merely pointing out a historical fact and conveying how such an act was counted against the Ana-baptist. In the 1600s both Catholic and Protestant Magistrates hunted down and killed Ana-baptists. Some were drowned in the rivers while others mocked them and shouted "let baptism save you"! Wonder how many were saved by their baptism?

 

A gruesome historical event. But I am using it to convey the emphasis on how these acts affect Covenant children.

 

God bless,

William

 

Brother, all Im saying is that there is a certain aspect thatithat is good to a person wanting to make that public show of faith.

I think of it like Paul who still crimuseized a few individuals even though it wasn't necessary.

Rebaptism isn't a good thing, theres no real reason for it.

 

Just don't kill me, alright? Lol.

  • Like 1
  • Wow 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
37 minutes ago, Innerfire89 said:

I think of it like Paul who still crimuseized a few individuals even though it wasn't necessary.

Now you did it Innerfire!

 

In all seriousness, there were two different conditions and applications in Paul's examples for him to have discouraged Titus' circumcision and encouraged Timothy's circumcision. Refer to 1 Cor. 9:19-22 as well as Galatians 2:3. Read the entire context surrounding Galatians 2:3. From there I can glean that if Titus was circumcised it would of been an empty sign, and void of meaning. Likewise how meaningful is re-baptism?

 

In Paul's example it would be like becoming a Baptist (which are not catholic) in order to assemble with them to spread the Gospel. Further difference is that these Jews were requiring the OT Sign rather than re-circumcising Timothy. The Baptist church rejects the Baptism already done rightly and requires Re-Baptism to enter their church as @Just Mike suggested. That's why you'll find a wealth of Baptist churches which reject the Nicene Creed. I'm not accusing them all of not being catholic, but I am simply observing a great amount of Baptist churches that actually reject the Nicene Creed. Furthermore, Paul's actions would communicate to us "placate" the Baptist church in order to bring them to the true Gospel.

 

In the spirit of what Paul says and in action two different examples present an obvious limitation to how far Paul would go in the case of Titus:

 

1 Corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Chickenlittle said:

@Matthew Duvall,  you are the man. You got it together. I need your opinion desperately. Give me some advice on baptism.

   I was baptized when I was 12 years old. I was not “ forced”, but I was “ pressured” by my mom. I knew “of” Jesus” , but I was too young to really understand what I was doing. I saw Jesus on the little play cards in Sunday School class, and I heard all the wonderful stories about this loving man. 

   Yes, I believed in Him, but, at that age, I did not have a personal relationship with Jesus. I got baptized because I loved my mom. She could’t be wrong. I never heard of the words “ bride of Christ” or “groom”, so how could I become part of the “ bride” with no knowledge of what I was doing? Could some religiou act by man zap me into the brideship of Christ because I loved my mom? 

   I guess this experience is why I am opposed to infant baptism. I am more opposed to it on personal experience other than theological grounds.

    I am now saved, not by some man ‘s act, but by the blood. But, baptism is important. My small church frowns on rebaptism without extreme justification, and the act of baptism would make me a member of that church, while I am still looking at other churches.

  I have been looking at Acts 19: 1-7, and can see that Paul did some sort of rebaptizism here. Being baptized twice? Come on now! It is actually scriptural! What? John’s baptism was not enough? Does this mean “my” baptism is not enough? Like these followers, when I was baptized, I knew nothing of the Holy Spirit, (verse 2). Notice also in verse 2 the words “ have ye received the Holy Ghost since you believed?

  That word “believed” just continues to haunt me, because it seems to pop up almost every time someone is “ individually” baptized. Yes, I have seen several Bible verses where “general” statements are made about baptism, without mention of belief.

     Should I be rebaptized? I cherish your thoughts, Matthew, but would also like other opinions here. Anyone is welcome to join in.

Actually baptism is in two stages . First when someone is truly saved they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit as clear evidence of a 

genuine conversion. God then fully justifies them and baptizes them with the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ . This is a one time event that removes our sins by the sacrificial work of Christ on the cross . There is no repeating this .Then there is a second baptism whereby we are water baptized as a public display and commitment that we are in the body of Christ . These both are necessary for the salvation of our souls . Only on rare occasions can the water baptism be detained for a while depending on the circumstances  . Perhaps when water is not readily available , as was the case of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch when a genuine act of salvation was achieved but water only available  for a short distance away .Acts.8:36 . 

In any event, to be baptized twice is useless , especially to be "re-baptized " into the body of  Christ . That is not even remotely possible. The only sacrament we are obligated to repeat and observe is The Lord's Supper .   M

Share this post


Link to post

So, Matthew, what do you think is going on in Acts 19? John the Baptist had already baptized these 12 guys for repentance, and now Paul baptizes them for “believing in the Holly Ghost”. Not necessarily “rebaptizing” them, but baptizing them.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Chickenlittle said:

So, Matthew, what do you think is going on in Acts 19? John the Baptist had already baptized these 12 guys for repentance, and now Paul baptizes them for “believing in the Holly Ghost”. Not necessarily “rebaptizing” them, but baptizing them.

The question has some difficulty in its meaning . I'll do my best to answer it. But the act of baptizing is centered on two kinds of baptism . There is no indication that John knew of the baptism of the Holy Spirit because if he did, these men would have already known of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They did not . John was given to his original assignment and that was to baptize with water unto repentance . Paul was exercising his apostolic authority when he laid hands on them and subsequently they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, take note that prior to this they did not know of a Holy Spirit, only the baptism of John. But in verse 4 of this same chapter Paul said to them that John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him ,that is, Christ Jesus. When they heard this then they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. That's what I gather of these verses.   M

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
29 minutes ago, Matthew Duvall said:

The question has some difficulty in its meaning . I'll do my best to answer it. But the act of baptizing is centered on two kinds of baptism . There is no indication that John knew of the baptism of the Holy Spirit because if he did, these men would have already known of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They did not . John was given to his original assignment and that was to baptize with water unto repentance . Paul was exercising his apostolic authority when he laid hands on them and subsequently they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, take note that prior to this they did not know of a Holy Spirit, only the baptism of John. But in verse 4 of this same chapter Paul said to them that John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him ,that is, Christ Jesus. When they heard this then they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. That's what I gather of these verses.   M

G'day brother,

 

If you dont mind my questions what were the reasons for this baptism and the result of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Matthew, I have asked this question now a few times and Chickenlittle has refused to answer so I present my question to you instead. Is there any indication of this "baptism" being performed by water? I ask this because there are resulting implications if water was readministered. Not that theology ought to change what is stated.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

Acts 19:1-7: Yes, Matthew, that does make sense. Thank you for your response. Amazing how I missed something here. I kept concentrating on verse 2 where the 12 were asked by Paul  “ about believing in the Holy Ghost.” I completely overlooked the part of verse 4 about John the Baptist “saying unto the people, that they should “believe” on Him who should come after him”, that is Christ Jesus. Once again, even when John the Baptist baptized for repentance, “belief” was attached to baptism.. What can I say? If the word “believe” was attached to baptism 100,000 times in the NT, there are those who, somehow, would detach the two. It is time for me to end this discussion. This dead horse has already been beaten.

Share this post


Link to post

In Matthew 3:16  "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, (19) and behold a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." NASB

Mark 1:10  "Immediately coming up out of the water".

 

Scripture's teaching of Baptism, if we are to follow the way Jesus was Baptized, is by water.  "Jesus came up out of the water" and how else could He have come up out of the water, without be down in the water?

 

 One of the core doctrine's Baptist hold is Baptism by immersion.Scripture supports this method of baptism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, William said:

Now you did it Innerfire!

 

In all seriousness, there were two different conditions and applications in Paul's examples for him to have discouraged Titus' circumcision and encouraged Timothy's circumcision. Refer to 1 Cor. 9:19-22 as well as Galatians 2:3. Read the entire context surrounding Galatians 2:3. From there I can glean that if Titus was circumcised it would of been an empty sign, and void of meaning. Likewise how meaningful is re-baptism?

 

In Paul's example it would be like becoming a Baptist (which are not catholic) in order to assemble with them to spread the Gospel. Further difference is that these Jews were requiring the OT Sign rather than re-circumcising Timothy. The Baptist church rejects the Baptism already done rightly and requires Re-Baptism to enter their church as @Just Mike suggested. That's why you'll find a wealth of Baptist churches which reject the Nicene Creed. I'm not accusing them all of not being catholic, but I am simply observing a great amount of Baptist churches that actually reject the Nicene Creed. Furthermore, Paul's actions would communicate to us "placate" the Baptist church in order to bring them to the true Gospel.

 

In the spirit of what Paul says and in action two different examples present an obvious limitation to how far Paul would go in the case of Titus:

 

1 Corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

 

God bless,

William

William, I DO NOT support rebaptism.  There is only one exception to this, and that would be for someone who was baptized as an infant.   

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
26 minutes ago, Just Mike said:

William, I DO NOT support rebaptism.  There is only one exception to this, and that would be for someone who was baptized as an infant.   

 

 

 

 

 

And that is the center of controversy between Catholics and Protestants against Baptists. That is, re-baptism.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Baptism - necessary for salvation ?

      What say all of you? 

      in Baptism

    • Debate: Cornelius and Baptism

      Round One Topic: Was Cornelius (and those with him) saved only after they were baptized in water or were they saved when they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water?           @Trist will defend the affirmative. @Faber will defend the negative.   The participants have requested that the debate consists of 5 rounds, rather than 3, and I have agreed.   Trist you have 48 hours to make your first post.   No one is allow to post comments until the debate is

      in Theological Debate

    • Spirit Baptism?

      ROUND ONE Affirmative: @seabasscontends that there are only two occurrences of Spirit baptism in the New Testament.   Negative: @Faber contends that all believers received Spirit baptism.   The debate will consists of 4 rounds.   Seabass you have 24 hours to make your first post. No one is allow to post comments until the debate is finished.   See rules for any questions.  

      in Theological Debate

    • Local Mother Immediately Regrets Asking For Parenting Advice On Facebook

      TALLAHASSEE, FL—Local mother Tiffany Johnson confirmed Wednesday that she immediately regretted asking for parenting advice on Facebook after her newborn baby developed a cough. The post Local Mother Immediately Regrets Asking For Parenting Advice On Facebook appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • Best arguments for Covenant/Household Baptism

      Really short version by JTB.SDG:   1) The covenant promises to Abraham were about salvation in the fullest sense (Gen.17:7-8; NT scripture). "...to be God to you and to your descendants after you." This is the essence of God's covenant with Abraham; and if you get this, everything else falls into place (below).   2) The covenant promises were made not only to Abraham but also to his offspring (Gen.17:7-8). "I will be God" --not just to Abraham--But: "to you and to your descendants afte

      in Covenant/Household Baptism

×
×
  • Create New...