gells
Senior Member
Posts: 744
|
Post by gells on Oct 28, 2014 19:47:41 GMT -5
What does it mean to be baptized in the 2x2 church? For someone that has converted to an evangelical Christian and believes that we are saved by grace, is a 2x2 baptism valid?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 28, 2014 19:59:25 GMT -5
To me baptism means burying the old life and rising to a new life in Christ - living a new life.
In meetings that is not accepted and one has to be baptised again if they had previously been Baptised in a mainstream church - one has to be baptised into the church of the workers. One of the things is that we have to believe the workers are the true servants of God and that we are following in this - their - way.
Is the 2x2 baptism valid - I don't know. It depends on the individual.
To put it another way, Baptism in a mainstream church is not valid to the workers, one has to get baptised again.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 28, 2014 20:03:19 GMT -5
What does it mean to be baptized in the 2x2 church? For someone that has converted to an evangelical Christian and believes that we are saved by grace, is a 2x2 baptism valid? You would have to ask the church you have converted to. The question normally is were you baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, which is 2x2 practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2014 10:44:10 GMT -5
The Ethiopian Eunuch's belief with all his heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God was sufficient for a proper baptism. (Acts 8)
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 29, 2014 12:16:54 GMT -5
They baptised them once. Then they laid their hands on them to recieve the Holy Spirit. Once in water and then you can say once in fire, as the Pentecostals say. But they were baptised in water once.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 29, 2014 12:27:28 GMT -5
What does it mean to be baptized in the 2x2 church? For someone that has converted to an evangelical Christian and believes that we are saved by grace, is a 2x2 baptism valid? You would have to ask the church you have converted to. The question normally is were you baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, which is 2x2 practice. In the book of Acts people were baptized in the name of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 29, 2014 15:25:51 GMT -5
Yes, so that is proof Paul did not baptise the 12 with water.
There is nothing wrong with getting baptised again at the person's choice and understanding and many who have left meeting and go to another church choose to but the workers say you have to because your last baptism was not valid even though they were baptised in the name of Jesus in their other church. The workers say you must be baptised again into their church, i.e. baptised unto the workers. Going to another church does not say that we have to be rebaptised into that church.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 29, 2014 17:10:36 GMT -5
In the book of Acts people were baptized in the name of Jesus. I don't think so! Was Jesus baptized by John the Baptist in the name of the Father or by water of submersion?Acts 9:35-39 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 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. 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.
Acts 9:17-20 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
You don't think so.....what?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 29, 2014 19:40:07 GMT -5
You would have to ask the church you have converted to. The question normally is were you baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, which is 2x2 practice. In the book of Acts people were baptized in the name of Jesus. Yes, I'm aware of that. But among many Protestant denominations, especially Pentecostal types, this has been a major dispute. People who convert from a "Jesus only" congregation to a "Trinitarian baptism" congregation have been asked to be re-baptized.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 29, 2014 20:24:29 GMT -5
They baptised them once. Then they laid their hands on them to recieve the Joly Spirit. Once in water and then you can say once in fire, as the Pentecostals say. But they were baptised in water once. So, WHY did Paul the apostle re-baptized 12 disciples of John the Baptist who had been baptized by submersion already?I keep telling you. Paul and the original apostles really didn't see eye to eye and Paul had his own ideas about things. Paul is the founder of Christianity as we see it evolved to today. Not the original bunch or even Jesus for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 29, 2014 21:34:25 GMT -5
They baptised them once. Then they laid their hands on them to recieve the Holy Spirit. Once in water and then you can say once in fire, as the Pentecostals say. But they were baptised in water once. All Pentecostals are not the same in this respect.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 29, 2014 21:40:38 GMT -5
Yes, so that is proof Paul did not baptise the 12 with water. There is nothing wrong with getting baptised again at the person's choice and understanding and many who have left meeting and go to another church choose to but the workers say you have to because your last baptism was not valid even though they were baptised in the name of Jesus in their other church. The workers say you must be baptised again into their church, i.e. baptised unto the workers. Going to another church does not say that we have to be rebaptised into that church. No rule applies to all churches, and every church has its own policy. It makes no sense to ask anyone what a particular church requires except the people in charge of that church. The same with citizenship questions -- the US government can not be relied upon to answer questions about Canadian citizenship or any other country. So now it's debatable which misinformation can bring the greatest disappointment -- citizenship misinformation or baptism misinformation.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 29, 2014 21:44:18 GMT -5
What does it mean to be baptized in the 2x2 church? For someone that has converted to an evangelical Christian and believes that we are saved by grace, is a 2x2 baptism valid? Did you get more information than you asked for?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 29, 2014 22:40:45 GMT -5
So, WHY did Paul the apostle re-baptized 12 disciples of John the Baptist who had been baptized by submersion already? I keep telling you. Paul and the original apostles really didn't see eye to eye and Paul had his own ideas about things. Paul is the founder of Christianity as we see it evolved to today. Not the original bunch or even Jesus for that matter. I know, snow. People just won't listen.
You are right, Paul and the original apostles really didn't agree.
It was really the first split in the church.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 30, 2014 11:00:27 GMT -5
I keep telling you. Paul and the original apostles really didn't see eye to eye and Paul had his own ideas about things. Paul is the founder of Christianity as we see it evolved to today. Not the original bunch or even Jesus for that matter. I know, snow. People just won't listen.
You are right, Paul and the original apostles really didn't agree.
It was really the first split in the church.
The competition was somewhat even while Peter continued to live. When he died, Paul took over and voila, our Modern Day Christianity molded by someone who had never even met Jesus except in a questionable vision that could never be proved.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 30, 2014 12:26:53 GMT -5
I keep telling you. Paul and the original apostles really didn't see eye to eye and Paul had his own ideas about things. Paul is the founder of Christianity as we see it evolved to today. Not the original bunch or even Jesus for that matter. like I wrote in the past that Paul had clearer understanding than other apostles that ALL of the Old Testament law, rituals, animals sacrifices, the Sabbath keepers, were type and shadows of Jesus the Lamb of God. Everything was centered on Jesus, the Lord God and Savior of humanity.
I agree Paul teachings clashed with other apostles but can you show me where Jesus and Paul teachings are NOT in line with each others? Thanks.You answered you're own question actually. The apostles reflected Jesus more than Paul. Who knows if that is even right since it took a lot of centuries for the 4 gospels that were finally chosen to be represented in the bible. There were many gospels. Jesus was very much a Hebrew. Paul was not so much. Jesus never opposed women like Paul is another example. Jesus did not oppose marriage. Paul did. Those are just a few of the differences. The big one was the need for circumcision among the apostles and Paul ruled it out. So in that way he was different from Jesus too. Jesus never envisioned a new religion but a better Hebrew one. Paul created Christianity and I think Jesus would likely have been appalled at the outcome really.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 30, 2014 14:04:04 GMT -5
REALLY? LOL!
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Pretty tough for women to exercise their gifts as preachers, teachers, pastors under that rule!!!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 30, 2014 16:59:43 GMT -5
You answered you're own question actually. The apostles reflected Jesus more than Paul. Who knows if that is even right since it took a lot of centuries for the 4 gospels that were finally chosen to be represented in the bible. There were many gospels. Jesus was very much a Hebrew. Paul was not so much. ~~ Paul was very unique man, like Jesus said, "Paul is a chosen vessel." He had dual citizenships, a Roman and a Hebrew. Jesus couldn't appear to appeal his case before Caesar because he was a Jew. Through Paul dual citizenships he was able to preach the gospel before governors, kings and Caesar of the Roman Empire.Jesus never opposed women like Paul is another example. Jesus did not oppose marriage. Paul did. Those are just a few of the differences. ~~ Paul encouraged the women in his days to have the same equality level as the men among the Christians world like Jesus did with his women disciples (Mary Magdalene and others). God granted the women with gifts as preachers, teachers, pastors in Acts 2 and Paul allowed this practice to follow through.
Many scholars believe it was Paul who wrote the book of Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable. Paul stayed in the homes of married people in the churches if he had opposed married then they wouldn't welcome him into their homes.The big one was the need for circumcision among the apostles and Paul ruled it out. So in that way he was different from Jesus too. ~~ When Jesus was alive, he was living under the Old Testament covenant law of Moses so he had to obey the circumcision practice for the baby male to be circumcised after birth. After his death on Calvary's Cross he paid the priced of Redemption so we as Christians are NO longer observing the Law of Moses but we live under the grace, and truth of Jesus teachings. Paul understood this and taught others but he received much opposition from Moses law keepers apostles and converting Pharisees and Saduccees ex-followers.Jesus never envisioned a new religion but a better Hebrew one. Paul created Christianity and I think Jesus would likely have been appalled at the outcome really. Without Paul's vision of Jesus Christ, who came to give us a better Covenant, and promises under the New Covenant which is... Grace and Truth of God. Christianity would have gone backward into the dark ages living under the LAW of thou shall do this and thou shall NOT do which give NO Salvation for those who obey it. There is Eternal life offer to those who are believing in the gospel of Grace and Truth came by/through Jesus Christ as our Redeemer and Savior.Paul said women shouldn't speak in the churches. He said people shouldn't marry unless they absolutely had to. Jesus was God according to you. He could have said no more circumcision if that's what he wanted. Was he that ineffectual in saying what he wanted to have happen? Without Paul Christianity would never have existed and it looks nothing like what Jesus had in mind. Jesus was a Hebrew. He was upset at the hypocrisy in the temple. He was trying to change things in his religion. He never ever once thought about starting a new one. He wanted the 'old' one, his religion, to reform. He wanted the priests in the temple to stop charging for salvation. The miracles should have been for free and that's why he traveled and made his supposed miracles free. He would never have condoned Paul just like his apostles never condoned Paul.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 20:32:28 GMT -5
Paul said women shouldn't speak in the churches. He said people shouldn't marry unless they absolutely had to. Jesus was God according to you. He could have said no more circumcision if that's what he wanted. Was he that ineffectual in saying what he wanted to have happen? Without Paul Christianity would never have existed and it looks nothing like what Jesus had in mind. Jesus was a Hebrew. He was upset at the hypocrisy in the temple. He was trying to change things in his religion. He never ever once thought about starting a new one. He wanted the 'old' one, his religion, to reform. He wanted the priests in the temple to stop charging for salvation. The miracles should have been for free and that's why he traveled and made his supposed miracles free. He would never have condoned Paul just like his apostles never condoned Paul. now i know the general interpretation of these verses has to do with individual lives but i am reminded Jesus brought NEW WINE and wanted to put it in NEW BOTTLES. he wasn't trying to salvage the OT and the law... Mat_9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved. Mar_2:22 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. Luk_5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. Luk_5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. and yes i know about the following verse also... Rom_3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
|
|
gells
Senior Member
Posts: 744
|
Post by gells on Oct 30, 2014 22:45:40 GMT -5
What does it mean to be baptized in the 2x2 church? For someone that has converted to an evangelical Christian and believes that we are saved by grace, is a 2x2 baptism valid? You would have to ask the church you have converted to. The question normally is were you baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, which is 2x2 practice. Thanks for your response. I did ask the pastor of the church I currently attend, and he put it back onto what it meant when I got baptized. What does the 2x2 church teach about baptism? I'm trying to remember what it meant when I was baptized several years ago at the age of 17 when I couldn't accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, because I didn't believe in the trinity. I was baptized, but what does it mean if you don't believe in grace and believe that salvation is through works rather than the blood of the lamb through the atonement? I guess the reason I brought this question here, is because I thought there might have been others that have had this situation or knew someone that began to attend another church after leaving meetings and had to make a decision. I asked myself what it meant to be baptized at convention, and I couldn't honestly answer the question. Sad. Considering I was born and raised and only recently left the church. Maybe I'm answering my own question here....
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 30, 2014 23:59:27 GMT -5
You would have to ask the church you have converted to. The question normally is were you baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, which is 2x2 practice. Thanks for your response. I did ask the pastor of the church I currently attend, and he put it back onto what it meant when I got baptized. What does the 2x2 church teach about baptism? I'm trying to remember what it meant when I was baptized several years ago at the age of 17 when I couldn't accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, because I didn't believe in the trinity. I was baptized, but what does it mean if you don't believe in grace and believe that salvation is through works rather than the blood of the lamb through the atonement? I guess the reason I brought this question here, is because I thought there might have been others that have had this situation or knew someone that began to attend another church after leaving meetings and had to make a decision. I asked myself what it meant to be baptized at convention, and I couldn't honestly answer the question. Sad. Considering I was born and raised and only recently left the church. Maybe I'm answering my own question here.... Maybe you are answering your own question. I don't know that a belief in "saved by grace" has anything to do with baptism -- in any denomination. Being baptized means dying to one's previous life and being born into newness of life. I was raised in the 2x2s and I was baptized at 14, but I never heard baptism connected to "saved by grace". And contrary to what most 2x2s seem to understand, I ALWAYS was told and believed that one was "saved by grace". I always thought the people who didn't believe that were just maybe a little to dense to understand the concept, so settled for the rules. I think if the pastor wants you to decide, maybe he should tell you what he believes so you can decide if you are missing anything. Frankly, I think the majority of people who are baptized in any denomination are fuzzy on the meaning anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 2, 2014 18:10:26 GMT -5
You would have to ask the church you have converted to. The question normally is were you baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, which is 2x2 practice. Thanks for your response. I did ask the pastor of the church I currently attend, and he put it back onto what it meant when I got baptized. What does the 2x2 church teach about baptism? I'm trying to remember what it meant when I was baptized several years ago at the age of 17 when I couldn't accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, because I didn't believe in the trinity. I was baptized, but what does it mean if you don't believe in grace and believe that salvation is through works rather than the blood of the lamb through the atonement? I guess the reason I brought this question here, is because I thought there might have been others that have had this situation or knew someone that began to attend another church after leaving meetings and had to make a decision. I asked myself what it meant to be baptized at convention, and I couldn't honestly answer the question. Sad. Considering I was born and raised and only recently left the church. Maybe I'm answering my own question here.... Before I was baptized by the workers, we had multiple studies that went through all the verses listed in the concordance under baptism and water cleansing, the accounts of Christ's death and resurrection as a parallel to baptism, and the day of Pentecost with baptism by Holy Spirit. Years later, I heard this summary preached at a convention: - "Right" ministry: 2x2 workers only (all other baptisms invalid)
- "Right" candidate: must show evidence of repentance and obedience (legalism, women's appearance)
- "Right" waters: must be living waters (no sprinkling of infants or baptizing in swimming pools)
I encourage you to go back and read the scripture references about baptism. Then decide for yourself whether you think your own baptism was valid. If you didn't understand grace, was it different than baptism of an infant who doesn't understand grace?
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 3, 2014 10:57:03 GMT -5
I was pretty shocked when I heard that three-point summary about the form of baptism, because I was initially taught about the substance of baptism.
If I had to put myself in gells' shoes, I think my opinion of that baptism would depend on whether I had been taught only about the legalistic side, or whether I had studied the baptism of the spirit. It would also depend on her new religious community. If they regularly perform adult baptisms of converts to their church, then it would be a good opportunity to celebrate new spiritual life there. If they don't perform many adult water baptisms, then focus on the other types of baptism discussed in the scripture, and treat the 2x2 water baptism as a "check box" like the infant baptisms done in many denominations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 13:49:26 GMT -5
Yes, so that is proof Paul did not baptise the 12 with water. There is nothing wrong with getting baptised again at the person's choice and understanding and many who have left meeting and go to another church choose to but the workers say you have to because your last baptism was not valid even though they were baptised in the name of Jesus in their other church. The workers say you must be baptised again into their church, i.e. baptised unto the workers. Going to another church does not say that we have to be rebaptised into that church. The Main point was Paul asked them to baptize again in the name of the Christ.Were they to believe with ALL their heart that Jesus was the Son of God, or that Jesus was God the Son, or was it both? Scriptural references on the back of a postage stamp for the latter two?
|
|
|
Post by xna on May 2, 2016 7:12:28 GMT -5
Quote from Charlie Munger this am; "I heard a guy say ; I believe in baptism, because I've seen it done." I guess that makes me a believer again.
|
|
|
Post by breakfree on May 2, 2016 7:31:12 GMT -5
Acts 9:17-
And straightway he preached Christ in the SYNAGOGES,that he is the Son of God.
What about the church in the home?
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 2, 2016 10:58:34 GMT -5
I keep telling you. Paul and the original apostles really didn't see eye to eye and Paul had his own ideas about things. Paul is the founder of Christianity as we see it evolved to today. Not the original bunch or even Jesus for that matter. I know, snow. People just won't listen.
You are right, Paul and the original apostles really didn't agree.
It was really the first split in the church.
Snow & dm; very interesting distinction there between Paul and the Jesus/12 apostles. I think I agree with you both. In recent years I find myself MUCH more inclined to read Matthew thru John and much LESS inclined to read the writings of Peter, Paul, etc. I have thought that the Gospels give access to the very source / words of Jesus and that the books following the Gospels are more opinion pieces than source materials. For that matter, i find it difficult to relate to David in the Psalms. Many times he wished destruction on his enemies. I've never been able to reconcile that with the example & teachings of Jesus either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2016 11:26:27 GMT -5
Snow & dm; very interesting distinction there between Paul and the Jesus/12 apostles. I think I agree with you both. In recent years I find myself MUCH more inclined to read Matthew thru John and much LESS inclined to read the writings of Peter, Paul, etc. I have thought that the Gospels give access to the very source / words of Jesus and that the books following the Gospels are more opinion pieces than source materials. For that matter, i find it difficult to relate to David in the Psalms. Many times he wished destruction on his enemies. I've never been able to reconcile that with the example & teachings of Jesus either. The bible is a collection of many writings from many different people (many different authors even worked on the same 'book') across many different times (even writing prophecies about things that had already happened). It is absurd to expect consistency and 100% internal coherence from it. You could really benefit from a proper theology education. At the very least you should do the Lectionary daily for 3 years. Lots of good websites and apps to help you with that.
|
|