Another Take On The Need For Water Baptism

[SDG]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Show me who did not from the early church fathers that survived?

Now you sound like the Trinitarians ....

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Now you sound like the Trinitarians ....

I can point to people that believed at that time in Modalism etc... Show me where anyone believed baptism is not essential at that time.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Ron

I believe in Acts 2:38 not just because I was taught it, but because I researched it out when I came to the Lord & the good book backs it up in so many ways.
My Pastor was speaking on the house of God and he quoted a scripture on Jesus Baptism to make a point & a light went off in my head.

Jesus was baptized not because he had sin, but to fulfill all righteousness.
His baptism was to fulfill his calling as our high priest at the start of his ministry
at age 30.
Every Levite was washed to prepare them for ministry.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.


We are a royal priesthood, would it not make sense then that as our High priest was washed to make way to minister in a priestly role, would it also not make sense that we would need that washing to begin our priesthood roles in this New Testament covenant?

BTW, I am in no way taking away the fact of remission of sins through water baptism in Jesus name, but rather this just gives another reason of the need of it.

I like also that in the Tabernacle we were coming toward God, Altar, Laver, Holy place/Holy of Holies!

In the Gospel, Jesus is coming towards us, Holy of Holies/Holy Place (Heaven), Laver (Jordan River Baptism) & Altar (Calvary)

AMEN! However, don't forget how this "washing" (baptism) was to be performed....

Numbers 8:5-7
{8:5} And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, {8:6}
Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and
cleanse them. {8:7} And thus shalt thou do unto them, to
cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and
let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their
clothes, and [so] make themselves clean.

The Old Testament custom in regards to purifying the priests was to sprinkle the “water of purifying” upon them as they stood in the basin of the tabernacle or running natural water. It is possible that Jesus, preparing for his priestly duties as our great high priest, was “fulfilling all righteousness” by seeking this purification and consecration for service from John the Baptist. Seeing that Jesus did this at 30 years of age (Luke 3:23) we see an additional correlation to this custom of preparation for priesthood. At any rate, if this is so, Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly as our high priest by standing in water allowing John to sprinkle “water of purifying” upon him. Many would say that the reference to Jesus coming, “up straightway out of the water”, requires that Jesus was completely immersed. However, it can also be understood as Jesus walking out of the river in which he stood as John baptized him with the sprinkling of the water of purifying.

It could be said that in this manner Jesus “fulfilled all righteousness”, pointing to the Law. If one believes this, they will believe that Jesus may have stood in the water while John sprinkled or poured water over him in accordance to the Law.

The Greek word for “baptize” means “immersion”. However, it also means, “to wash”, “to make clean with water”, “to wash one’s self”, or to “bathe”. We see the “washings” of the Old Testament referenced in Hebrews.

For more on this subject visit: http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=16547

[SDG]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I can point to people that believed at that time in Modalism etc... Show me where anyone believed baptism is not essential at that time.

All of us claim a corner to true apostolic teaching ... it's a mainstay among us Christian groups ... anti baptismal regenerationists are the same .....

By the second century w/ the increased paganism that entered the Church we see the full fruition of mysticism entering Christian practices.

Some scholars link some of the more extreme teachings of baptismal regeneration to the Gnostics of the early church:

Culturally, there was also the de-emphasis of such rites with many of the Gnostics. Those Gnostics that did have a baptismal ritual (Sethians and Valentians) had it so "super-spiritualized" that it would be construed by many to be a polemic against the normal, orthodox baptismal practice. We would consequently expect an increased emphasis on the act of baptism itself, certainly far more than our culture would remit. It could also be that the significance of water baptism is not derived so much from the agency of the water, but from the agency of faith and public profession of the Lordship of Christ. "If you confess me before men, I will confess you before my heavenly Father" (Matthew 10:32). In any respect, I would deduce that the emphasis on the ritual of baptism with respect to regeneration by the fathers was more a product of these cultural forces than actual apostolic teaching.

Tsk ..tsk ..tsk ...

Most Protestant ... including you and I .. would probably agree w/ this statement:

In the earliest Christian literature, after the apostolic period, we may trace three tendencies toward degeneration, all proceeding from this common cause, developing along lines parallel at first, yet distinct, afterward converging, and at length constituting a logical, consistent whole. These are: the idea of a Holy Catholic Church, the ministry a priesthood, and sacramental grace.

I know OPs do ... in many other areas ... of theological discussion.


Is this a road you want to go down ... the pagan road?

The general prevalence of adult baptism during the first centuries shows that many believed it was a confession of faith ....

One writer states:

We know, for example, that Augustine, though the son of the godly Monica, was not baptized in infancy, but on personal profession of faith at the age of thirty-three. Gregory of Nazianzum and Chrysostom are two others. Similar cases were frequent without a doubt, though from this time on they became more rare, until after the sixth century the practice of infant baptism was universal, or nearly so. Nothing in the history of the church did so much as this departure from apostolic precedent to prepare the way for papacy.

While others like Justin Martyr were already bringing strange ideas on salvation to the Church ... including giving the Eucharist the ability to also remit sins.

In the doctrine of transubstantiation we see "the decrease of vital faith the increase of formalism kept pace, and the administration of the Lord's Supper, from being a simple and spiritual ceremony"

"Another consequence of the idea of baptismal regeneration was the baptism of infants. It logically followed, if those unbaptized were unregenerate, that all who died in infancy were unsaved"

The decline of true apostolic teaching on baptism and the growth of infant baptism were synchronous, Luke ... which gives plenty of moment to pause and reflect.

We also know how Catholic missionaries mixed pagan beliefs to convert pagans .... which added mysticism to common Christian practices.

Using this early Church fathers argument ... as an OP seems at the most disingenuous .... at the least inconsistent ... when their thinking is slammed for not even having a clear understanding on the Godhead.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

All of us claim a corner to true apostolic teaching ... it's a mainstay among us Christian groups ... anti baptismal regenerationists are the same .....

By the second century w/ the increased paganism that entered the Church we see the full fruition of mysticism entering Christian practices.

Some scholars link some of the more extreme teachings of baptismal regeneration to the Gnostics of the early church:

Tsk ..tsk ..tsk ...

Most Protestant ... including you and I .. would probably agree w/ this statement:
I know OPs do ... in many other areas ... of theological discussion.


Is this a road you want to go down ... the pagan road?

The general prevalence of adult baptism during the first centuries shows that many believed it was a confession of faith ....

One writer states:

While others like Justin Martyr were already bringing strange ideas on salvation to the Church ... including giving the Eucharist the ability to also remit sins.

In the doctrine of transubstantiation we see "the decrease of vital faith the increase of formalism kept pace, and the administration of the Lord's Supper, from being a simple and spiritual ceremony"

"Another consequence of the idea of baptismal regeneration was the baptism of infants. It logically followed, if those unbaptized were unregenerate, that all who died in infancy were unsaved"

The decline of true apostolic teaching on baptism and the growth of infant baptism were synchronous, Luke ... which gives plenty of moment to pause and reflect.

We also know how Catholic missionaries mixed pagan beliefs to convert pagans .... which added mysticism to common Christian practices.

Using this early Church fathers argument ... as an OP seems at the most disingenuous .... at the least inconsistent ... when their thinking is slammed for not even having a clear understanding on the Godhead.

Dan your a smart guy though I disagree with you I enjoy reading people who at least do study for themselves.

My problems though with this is there should be alot of debate LIKE NOW if baptism was not thought of as essential, yet you find no debating baptism as essential for salvation. It clearly was one thing that nobody argued about it was a default of known fact among everyone.

Also there is no support among the writings that exist of any belief otherwise concerning baptism. We can do a lot of hypothetical why(from a faith only standpoint) they did not but in the end it clearly shows nobody believed it wasn't essential.

[LUKE2447]

Also Daniel pointing to Gnostics (special/divine/secret knowledge) groups actually hurts the argument even more as they where in the "faith/special knowledge" ONLY category of believers. You will not find anyone with even a hint of so called orthodoxy teaching baptism was not essential.

[LUKE2447]

The thing is scholars of "faith only" position are silent everytime this subject is brought up concerning church history. They never quote historical sources on how baptism was viewed NOT essential but a post salvation action. Sure historical sources are not the end all but I would expect some debate over this, yet we find NONE!

[Aquila]

In my opinion the debate isn't so much as to if water baptism is essential, it's as to it's functional relevance. Does water baptism regenerate the soul, wash "sin substance" from the spirit, or is it a post salvational act of obedience?

In a very real way water baptism can be considered post salvational and essential at the same time. For example, when I was filled with the Holy Ghost I had only repented and was yet to be water baptized. Obviously God forgave my sin and chose to fill me with His Spirit. We danced and rejoiced, giving God praise and thanking him for his mercy...and I wasn't water baptized yet. I was water baptized afterwards.

Now...while water baptism was a post salvational experience for me...the Bible commands it and therefore it was an essential step of obedience. Had I refused to be water baptized in Jesus name I could have forfeited this great salvation on account of my disobedience.

If viewed in this light water baptism is indeed a post salvation experience, however it is also absolutely essential.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In my opinion the debate isn't so much as to if water baptism is essential, it's as to it's functional relevance. Does water baptism regenerate the soul, wash "sin substance" from the spirit, or is it a post salvational act of obedience?

In a very real way water baptism can be considered post salvational and essential at the same time. For example, when I was filled with the Holy Ghost I had only repented and was yet to be water baptized. Obviously God forgave my sin and chose to fill me with His Spirit. We danced and rejoiced, giving God praise and thanking him for his mercy...and I wasn't water baptized yet. I was water baptized afterwards.

Now...while water baptism was a post salvational experience for me...the Bible commands it and therefore it was an essential step of obedience. Had I refused to be water baptized in Jesus name I could have forfeited this great salvation on account of my disobedience.

If viewed in this light water baptism is indeed a post salvation experience, however it is also absolutely essential.

Again this is all assumption on your part "Obviously God forgave my sin and chose to fill me with His Spirit." Well not necessarily it is obvious! Cornelius and his household received the "gift"(empowerment) of the HS as a sign of acceptance by God. God has moved all throughout history by the empowering work of his Spirit through faith. Acceptance does not mean they had been identified/accounted with Christ's atonement yet but that God through this sign, shutup any argument that these of the house of Cornelius should not be identified with Christ. Thus they where baptized. As Peter received the dream of acceptance of those who many considered common(ritually unclean) these had been accepted by a sign of divine empowerment by faith, evidenced by all there. As Peter said "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized" That answer was no! They should be identified with Christ in his death burial and resurrection as God had shown his favor by this sign. Thus the evidence not just a vision of Peter showed God's favor to the Gentiles.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Again this is all assumption on your part "Obviously God forgave my sin and chose to fill me with His Spirit." Well not necessarily it is obvious! Cornelius and his household received the "gift"(empowerment) of the HS as a sign of acceptance by God. God has moved all throughout history by the empowering work of his Spirit through faith. Acceptance does not mean they had been identified/accounted with Christ's atonement yet but that God through this sign, shutup any argument that these of the house of Cornelius should not be identified with Christ. Thus they where baptized. As Peter received the dream of acceptance of those who many considered common(ritual unclean) these had been accepted by a sign of divine empowerment by faith, evidenced by all there. As Peter said "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized" That answer was no! They should be identified with Christ in his death burial and resurrection as God had shown his favor by this sign. Thus the evidence not just a vision of Peter showed God's favor to the Gentiles.

Bro….I was pleading for God to forgive my sin with sobbing tears. The brother that prayed me through told me to thank God for his forgiveness and receive the Holy Ghost….and as I did….the Holy God of Heaven came down and filled me with His Spirit. God will not dwell in an unclean temple. If I was un-forgiven God would not choose to abide in me, filling me with His very Spirit. The Holy Ghost isn’t a mindless “energy” that flows through just any open door…it is God Himself manifest in Spirit. The Holy God of Heaven took up residence in this forgiven sinner’s heart. I was saved. And all of that was prior to water baptism. Now….water baptism identifies us with Christ and symbolizes the washing away of our sins….and it is a COMMAND. Therefore I obeyed that command. Had I refused to be water baptized I would have lost my soul, being in rebellion against the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I reject your notion that the Holy Ghost is merely an energy that flows into any open door….the Holy Ghost is God himself in Spirit. He will not dwell in an unclean or un-forgiven temple, therefore those who receive the Holy Ghost prior to water baptism are evidence that God HIMSELF forgives the sinner upon repentance. However, that repentant sinner is still under the command to be water baptized. There is no power in the water to save….nor is the name of Jesus a sin cleansing incantation or magic ritual. It is repentance that bridges the gap between fallen man and a Holy Ghost and allows grace and forgiveness to flow to the soul. WE DON’T SERVE A SACRAMENTAL GOD. LEAVE THAT TO THE CATHOLICS. We serve a savior who saves based on relationship. That relationship begins at repentance and continues through water baptism and the perfecting of the saint. Your sacramentalism demonstrates that you haven’t fully grasped the depth and beauty of what happened to you when you were filled with the Holy Ghost. It wasn’t just another box to check off on your passport to Heaven. This was the very God of Heaven coming to live in you…and that isn’t possible unless he forgives you.

Now consider this my brother….my wife was filled with the Holy Ghost as a minor while visiting the church. Her mother wouldn’t allow the church to water baptize her because she was from a Jewish family. She continued to come to church, filled with the Holy Ghost, praying, praising, even experiencing miracles in her life for months before her baptism. During that period my brother she was just as saved as you are, longing for that day when she could obey and be water baptized fully taking up the likeness of Christ by being buried with him in baptism. If she was un-forgiven until that point it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for a Holy God to dwell within her.

God himself testifies by his very actions that the sinner is forgiven at repentance. However, this doesn’t negate the fact that water baptism is a command to be obeyed. Failure to teach water baptism or to obey it is REBELLION…and that is what endangers the un-baptized soul.

God has and will continue to operate outside of your "religious" box.