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.
Innerfire89

Being born of water is being born.

Recommended Posts

Staff
9 minutes ago, Becky said:

A simple sounding thing but i caught my attention   " living (running "  post #19I have never associated  living water with running water.  Maybe that is why i dont care for baptismals . Running water is not a stagnant pool it is refreshed .  Thanks @William  very informative.  By speaking of the running water dont get the idea i did not catch the rest 

 

You're welcome.

 

Living water can be seen as depicted in Ezekiel's temple by rivers, and springing wells and welling up water are all phrases and descriptive language to indicate "Divine Activity". Even in John 3 born of water and spirit is a phrase leading back throughout the OT to signify divine activity. Psalm 1 etc a tree planted by .....

 

13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. 2 The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”

 

Notice the woman came to "work" or "draw" the water. The divine activity Jesus speaks of is only given by Grace.

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Notice the woman came to "work" or "draw" the water. The divine activity Jesus speaks of is only given by Grace. 

 

Some times ya just make my spirit smile . 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Becky said:

A simple sounding thing but i caught my attention   " living (running "  post #19I have never associated  living water with running water.  Maybe that is why i dont care for baptismals . Running water is not a stagnant pool it is refreshed .  Thanks @William  very informative.  By speaking of the running water dont get the idea i did not catch the rest 

 

Of course, Jesus was baptized in a river.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
51 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Of course, Jesus was baptized in a river.

Do we know how?  We often speak  baptism representing  and death and resurrection . In my mind baptism is being laid back , buried under the water. That is in my mind cause i grew up with that. Is that Biblical ?   Could John have cupped water in hands and poured it over Jesus' head .. Could he have used a cup of some sort.  Did Jesus kneel ( i doubt that) . Do we know?  

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Becky said:

Do we know how?  We often speak  baptism representing  and death and resurrection . In my mind baptism is being laid back , buried under the water. That is in my mind cause i grew up with that. Is that Biblical ?   Could John have cupped water in hands and poured it over Jesus' head .. Could he have used a cup of some sort.  Did Jesus kneel ( i doubt that) . Do we know?  

John could have baptized that way but it seems unlikely that he did because that kind of baptism wouldn't have required getting into the river.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, theophilus said:

John could have baptized that way but it seems unlikely that he did because that kind of baptism wouldn't have required getting into the river.

Baptizmo also almost always has the connotation of immersion, plunging, etc. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
On 1/9/2019 at 3:32 PM, William said:

The Didache (100-150 A.D.) chapter vii: "Baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if they have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm" (baptisate eis to onoma tou patos kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos en hudati zonti). "But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice (tris) upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

 

I think major contention exists when one mode is "rejected" for another. Clearly such practice places tradition over Scripture. There's more than one mode described of baptism, but regardless, water baptism is symbolic, and though immersion may be a better or complete imagery symbolically it is nothing more than symbolism. And having said this, I refer to the mode and not the conveyance of grace in the sacrament as to make baptism nothing more than water.

 

I really respect our church's practice which is by sprinkling. When I asked our Pastor whether he would immerse he said sure, though inconvenient, and if the person believes that only such mode is acceptable he'd be compelled to address their understanding. Again, what we are speaking about here is preference, and a preference can be a tradition, not saying some traditions are good or bad but they can be quite bad when they take precedence over Scripture.

Not to step on your toes but those date for the Didache are not correct.  The majority of scholars today place it within the second half of the 1st century.  Some opt for a date between 50 and 70 A.D.

 

One reason why this is significant concerns the methods of baptism given in the text.  Note that one method of baptism could simply be water poured upon the head three times and also note the author had no problem using the verb "baptize."  Now it has to be admitted that was not the preferred method, nevertheless it was an acceptable method.  This document places that method with the life time of the Apostle and the writing of the N.T. itself.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
8 minutes ago, Origen said:

Not to step on your toes but those date for the Didache are not correct.  The majority of scholars today place it within the second half of the 1st century.  Some opt for a date between 50 and 70 A.D.

 

One reason why this is significant concerns the methods of baptism given in the text.  Note that one method of baptism could simply be water poured upon the head three times and also note the author had no problem using the verb "baptize."  Now it has to be admitted that was not the preferred method, nevertheless it was an acceptable method.  This document places that method with the life time of the Apostle and the writing of the N.T. itself.

That really adds credibility. Question and please note the bolded:

 

(1) Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have spoken all these things, “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water.

(2) If you do not have running water, baptize [baptizon] in other water. If you are not able in cold, then in warm.

(3) If you do not have either, pour out [ekcheo] water three times on the head “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

(4) Before the baptism [baptizomenos] the one baptizing [baptizon] and the one being baptized [baptizomenos] are to fast, and any others who are able. Command the one being baptized [baptizomenon] to fast beforehand a day or two.

 

Just curious, why would "anyone" not be able to fast before being baptized? Just a curious comment.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
6 minutes ago, William said:

Just curious, why would "anyone" not be able to fast before being baptized? Just a curious comment.

Easy, too sick and\or too young.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion on whether baptism is necessary for salvation:

 

ENDOFGOSPEL.WORDPRESS.COM

In this article I attempt to answer the question: Is water baptism necessary for salvation? (Mark 16:16) "He that believes and is baptized shall be...

 

Note that I do not read this forum thoroughly.

 

Moderation: Please do not promote personal email addresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

I think most Christians agree that baptism is an ordinance and one that is a sin to neglect. However, rather popular contention seems to be whether at times baptism is a sacrament, whether grace is actually conferred, and whether there is a prerequisite to the grace conferred.

 

As for a slightly derailed subject on the mode of baptism and the point of sprinkling etc additional reading is highly fruitful. We recommend the 3rd volume of Charles Hodge's Systematic Study:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2019 at 1:59 AM, davidtaylorjr said:

The thief on the cross was not baptized with water. Does that mean he was not saved?

This is a very good question. The thief is in old covenant, at that time Jesus had not died, the blood was not flowing yet. The new covenant began only after Jesus said 'It is finished' and his blood was flowing out.

In old covenant, there are many things present baptism:

Circumcision;

Crossing the Red Sea;

Noah Ark;

Crucified on cross;

 

Now in new covenant, as the reality is found in Christ, the shadow of the things no need any more. Like now, we do not need circumcision. Hope it is clear to you now. Feel free to propose any question. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/15/2019 at 9:44 PM, Echo Song said:

This is a very good question. The thief is in old covenant, at that time Jesus had not died, the blood was not flowing yet. The new covenant began only after Jesus said 'It is finished' and his blood was flowing out.

In old covenant, there are many things present baptism:

Circumcision;

Crossing the Red Sea;

Noah Ark;

Crucified on cross;

 

Now in new covenant, as the reality is found in Christ, the shadow of the things no need any more. Like now, we do not need circumcision. Hope it is clear to you now. Feel free to propose any question. Thanks.

I wasn't really asking a question. It was sarcasm.

 

What if the thief was not circumcised? He didn't offer sacrifices, etc.  

 

No baptism is not required for salvation. If someone gets saved on their deathbed and there is no time for baptism, guess what, they still are saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
1 minute ago, davidtaylorjr said:

It was sarcasm.

I like your sarcasm. We should have sarcasm Mondays!

 

:classic_biggrin:

  • Like 1

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...