Baptism: Essential or Not

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by ForeverBlessed

and CC, the key there is, it is the symbol of being buried w/Him.

I will never forget thru personal study of the scriptures that I understood that water baptism is not what saves, but is symbolism of what already took place in the heart....circumcision of the heart by the Spirit.

Several posts here that I would "LIKE" if there was such a button. lol

Face lol illness. We watched the Social Network last night and K said it makes her like FB less... Bet she won't post less though!

[ForeverBlessed]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Face lol illness. We watched the Social Network last night and K said it makes her like FB less... Bet she won't post less though!

lol I hope she doesn't, I love her sense of humor and love to read her posts.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

They are not against baptism that they have created. The one that is merely a symbol. The one that is merely a outward testimony of an inward work.

The one that bothers them so much is the one Jesus spoke of and the Apostles.

You know the one that Jesus said we must do to be saved. The one Paul said was for burying the old man. The one Peter said was for the remission of sins.

THAT baptism is the one they oppose. That happens when we take our eyes off the scriptures and listen to to much Protestant/Evangelical teaching.

Again, what about the thief on the cross? Why wasn't he baptized before entering paradise with Christ? What about the house of Cornelius? Filled with the HG before baptism? Were they unsaved?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Have you examined every incidence of conversion in the book of Acts? If so, where is repentance preached in Acts 8, 9 or 10? Did Paul preach repentance to the jailer in Phillippi? Does this lack of the preaching of repentance mean that someone who believes in Christ but does not repent of his sins is saved?

Salvation begins at repentance/faith/belief. Philip preached Christ to the Samaritans in Acts 8. The Bible says in verse 12 the people believed Philip's message. No contradiction there to what I said.

Acts 9:25 says "other believers" lowered Saul down in a large basket. The inference is that Saul was a believer too.

At what point did Cornelius believe? Acts 10:43 says Peter said, "...everyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven..."

I said, or meant to say, that every conversion in Acts includes either repentance OR faith OR belief. Baptism and speaking in tongues is only present 4 out of 18 times.

[DAII]

Deac, I count tongues in just two salvational conversions ... Cornelius (Acts 10) ... who also magnified God and whose tongues were seemingly intelligible .... and John's disciples, who also prophesied (Acts 19).

The apostles were believers ... authorized by Christ to preach the Gospel in Acts 2 ... the 3000 were water baptized and we cannot speak when scripture is silent fro Acts 8.

I also believe there is reference to 21 conversions in Acts ...

I will confirm and share a chart in a little while.

[DAII]

Using the same hermeneutic ... my 3 stepper friends use ... allowing historical narrative, rather than didactic teaching to guide biblical interpretation .... I can most definitely prove that God-ordained, faith-filled believers should smote rocks and it should release water.

Exodus 17:1-7
Numbers 20:1-13

[DAII]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Salvation begins at repentance/faith/belief. Philip preached Christ to the Samaritans in Acts 8. The Bible says in verse 12 the people believed Philip's message. No contradiction there to what I said.

Acts 9:25 says "other believers" lowered Saul down in a large basket. The inference is that Saul was a believer too.

At what point did Cornelius believe? Acts 10:43 says Peter said, "...everyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven..."

I said, or meant to say, that every conversion in Acts includes either repentance OR faith OR belief. Baptism and speaking in tongues is only present 4 out of 18 times.

You see, Mizpeh, in her "cleverness" would separate repentance with faith/belief.

The crux of her argument would fall ... and she would have to acknowledge the Gospel and faith/belief/repentance are present in every single initial conversion ... and yes, we can infer that baptism immediately followed ...

Refusing to realize when one turns to God in faith and biblical belief this includes repentance (turning from sin, turning to God). Two sides of the same coin.

It's very difficult for her as a former atheist to readily accept that the "whole Truth" given to her includes an invention of the 20th century

Yes, she'll point to Trinitarian paedobaptist baptismal regenerationists of centuries ago as some type of validation of her unique beliefs ... but never speaking to the fact that they did not equate this to a necessary proper name formula needing to be invoked or glossalalia as the initial, necessary, sign of being born of the Spirit.

[Carpenter]

I have asked this question several times here on AFF and have yet for someone to answer...

Tell me about the validity of the baptism if the person (presumably a minister) has sin in their lives such as child molestation or homosexuality, or adultry...does the candidate still have a valid baptism? If you say yes it is valid, then it would seem to me that the baptizer is a non-entity and therefore it may matter little or not at all what the baptizer says or if they are silent all together?

Then...if this is the case, does the candidate require a complete understanding of the oneness doctrine to truly understand what baptism in Jesus Name means?

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

I have asked this question several times here on AFF and have yet for someone to answer...

Tell me about the validity of the baptism if the person (presumably a minister) has sin in their lives such as child molestation or homosexuality, or adultry...does the candidate still have a valid baptism? If you say yes it is valid, then it would seem to me that the baptizer is a non-entity and therefore it may matter little or not at all what the baptizer says or if they are silent all together?

Then...if this is the case, does the candidate require a complete understanding of the oneness doctrine to truly understand what baptism in Jesus Name means?

I might add that there are two occasions in our church over the years (of course they are gone now) where the baptizer was actively involved in illicit and awful actions in private...and with those in the church.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Again, what about the thief on the cross? Why wasn't he baptized before entering paradise with Christ? What about the house of Cornelius? Filled with the HG before baptism? Were they unsaved?

Was the thief commanded to be baptized. No. Why? He lived during the Old Covenant.