|
Post by what is on Aug 25, 2007 14:57:36 GMT -5
Is there such a thing as an orthodox baptism, that all churches must accept, or go to the fire?
|
|
|
Post by money grubbing on Aug 25, 2007 15:05:33 GMT -5
Most orthodox churches do not care if people get a proper baptism, as long as they pay their dues? eh?
|
|
|
Post by Encourage on Aug 25, 2007 15:15:06 GMT -5
I don't think baptism of any kind will prevent anyone from the fire.
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Aug 25, 2007 15:16:05 GMT -5
Wouldn't baptism be considered a "work"?
|
|
|
Post by worrin on Aug 25, 2007 15:28:44 GMT -5
Wouldn't baptism be considered a "work"? No, but it is the one doctrine that escapes the orthodox churches doctrinal censoring.
|
|
|
Post by Encourage on Aug 25, 2007 15:43:49 GMT -5
It's just that baptism will not save one's soul.
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Aug 25, 2007 15:46:38 GMT -5
It's just that baptism will not save one's soul. Then why do it?
|
|
|
Post by rejecting Jesus on Aug 25, 2007 15:49:05 GMT -5
It's just that baptism will not save one's soul. depends on how you wish to interpret: 'Believe and be baptized" . Some orthodox churches will not allow you to have fellowship, withjout accepting their particular view about baptizm. It comes down to whether or not you wish to have fellowship within their denomination....or not.... [as for being saved or not that is a question that we can speculate on but what do we do when we reject the truth?]
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 25, 2007 17:50:35 GMT -5
Is there such a thing as an orthodox baptism, that all churches must accept, or go to the fire?
The most orthodox baptism was surely that of Jesus. In my personal view, a true baptism is not an outward act, but an inward act of obedience and contrition to which the outward act is only the witness.
A biblical baptism occurs by full immersion into water by a minister, with the formula: "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
That's it!
|
|
|
Post by Encourage on Aug 25, 2007 20:10:40 GMT -5
We baptize because Jesus said we should. Believe and be baptized. Baptism is an outward sign of the inward belief of a born again Christian. We all know the thief on the cross was not baptized. Also for some folks it is impossible because of physical conditions to be baptized by immersion. Jesus, I do not believe baptized. I believe Paul only baptized a couple of people. If being baptized saved our soul, there would be no need for Jesus to die His horrible death on the cross.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 26, 2007 14:34:59 GMT -5
Is there such a thing as an orthodox baptism, that all churches must accept, or go to the fire?The most orthodox baptism was surely that of Jesus. In my personal view, a true baptism is not an outward act, but an inward act of obedience and contrition to which the outward act is only the witness. A biblical baptism occurs by full immersion into water by a minister, with the formula: "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." That's it! GIT, What are your thoughts on the common practice within the fellowship to deny the previous baptism of a convert and require/request the convert to be re-baptized after professing in the Friends and Worker's fellowship? Doesn't this requirement of being re-baptized equate to denying the Holy Spirit's work in the convert's life before they attended meetings?
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 26, 2007 14:45:30 GMT -5
Is there such a thing as an orthodox baptism, that all churches must accept, or go to the fire?The most orthodox baptism was surely that of Jesus. In my personal view, a true baptism is not an outward act, but an inward act of obedience and contrition to which the outward act is only the witness. A biblical baptism occurs by full immersion into water by a minister, with the formula: "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." That's it! GIT, What are your thoughts on the common practice within the fellowship to deny the previous baptism of a convert and require/request the convert to be re-baptized after professing in the Friends and Worker's fellowship? Doesn't this requirement of being re-baptized equate to denying the Holy Spirit's work in the convert's life before they attended meetings? If someone came from the F&W into our church, they would need to be re-baptized. Mostly because the F&W deny the Trinity or that Jesus is God. They couldn't have known, then, what it means to die with Christ and come up out of the water a New Man, because they ciouldn't have understood how they were saved -- by the Blood of God. Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by gimme a break on Aug 26, 2007 14:49:58 GMT -5
GIT, What are your thoughts on the common practice within the fellowship to deny the previous baptism of a convert and require/request the convert to be re-baptized after professing in the Friends and Worker's fellowship? Doesn't this requirement of being re-baptized equate to denying the Holy Spirit's work in the convert's life before they attended meetings? If someone came from the F&W into our church, they would need to be re-baptized. Mostly because the F&W deny the Trinity or that Jesus is God. They couldn't have known, then, what it means to die with Christ and come up out of the water a New Man, because they ciouldn't have understood how they were saved -- by the Blood of God. Christ's Forever, Jessi whatever That sounds like you guys are the only right ones...
|
|
|
Post by Baptism on Aug 26, 2007 15:18:04 GMT -5
Baptism was common in the new testament. Jesus himself had to be baptized. Baptism is very important though I do not understand the full context of what it means.
John the baptist obviously baptized believers who believed in Christ and his coming to earth. He baptized the baptism of repentance. John was baptizing converts early in Matthews. He corrected the scribes and pharisees for not coming with a right spirit and meat for repentance.
There was also a difference between the baptism of John and the baptism in Christ.
Act 19:3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Act 19:4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. Act 19:5When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Act 19:6And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. We do not read of all the conversion of all Christians personally but those we do read about... most were baptized immediately after accepting Christ.
At the day of Pentecost 3000 excepted Christ. It says that they were immediately baptized as well.
The eunuch received Christ and was immediately baptized.
My belief is that most likely baptism is not just a outward show of our acceptance, but has something to do with imparting of the Holy Ghost. The spirit descended on Jesus after baptism. I think it is a symbolism of rebirth from our carnal man to our spiritual man.
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
I believe it is important but not absolutely necessary in cases were it is impossible to happen e.g. accepting Christ seconds before your death such as the man on the cross. But to willfully deny being baptized.... I do not think it is wise.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Coolidge on Aug 26, 2007 15:54:20 GMT -5
Jessi When in the F&WS group, I personally did not know that the F&WS did not believe in the trinity. I did believe in the trinity and had meeting in my home. God knows the heart and our beliefs even when we are mixed up in something that is deviously hiding its doctrine. in this case i don't believe rebaptism is neccesary. Just me ken
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 26, 2007 19:06:03 GMT -5
Git,
Please answer my question...
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 26, 2007 19:35:03 GMT -5
I'm confused. I thought the thread was about RE-baptizing . . . who is "willfully denying" baptism? Did I miss something?
Thanks,
Christ's Forever,
Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 26, 2007 19:56:06 GMT -5
Jessi When in the F&WS group, I personally did not know that the F&WS did not believe in the trinity. I did believe in the trinity and had meeting in my home. God knows the heart and our beliefs even when we are mixed up in something that is deviously hiding its doctrine. in this case i don't believe rebaptism is neccesary. Just me ken Yes, that's very interesting. How long were you in? I was B&R and never heard ANYTHING about whether there was even an argument that Jesus was or was not God. Nothing about the Trinity, very vague language, Jesus, God, follow his path, etc. Had no clue there was an issue. It's a touchy subject for many people. For me, I was all FOR being baptized as soon as possible because that's basically what the Bible exemplifies. Pretty much right away, after one is saved. But -- Only the blood of Jesus, my Savior and my God can save. Baptism only shows obedience and allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ in willingness to die with him and rise again in new life, a picture of death and resurrection. Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
GoBlue
Senior Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by GoBlue on Aug 26, 2007 20:30:11 GMT -5
Baptism is likely the greatest cause of different flavors of denominations. Whatever one believes, you'll always be in the minority. During the past 3 months I've prayerfully re-evaluated my views on baptism. 1) Who baptized me? CW 2) How was I baptized? Immersion in water 3) When was I baptized? Sept 1981 Do you want the reality of baptism or the avnonhosting.com/grace-books/BakerI01.pdfIt's just that baptism will not save one's soul. Then why do it?
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Aug 26, 2007 20:44:47 GMT -5
Baptism is likely the greatest cause of different flavors of denominations. Whatever one believes, you'll always in the minority. During the past 3 months I've prayerfully re-evaluated my views on baptism. 1) Who baptized me? CW 2) How was I baptized? Immersion in water 3) When was I baptized? Sept 1981 Do you want the reality of baptism or the avnonhosting.com/grace-books/BakerI01.pdfThat link will do just fine! thank you!
|
|
GoBlue
Senior Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by GoBlue on Aug 26, 2007 21:44:44 GMT -5
My apologies; I didn't finish my thought. ... the little trolls must have come up from under the bridge with their hammer and hit the enter key while I was grazing. I must speak to them about this. Now I answer the questions below: 1) The Holy Spirit (I Cor 12:13) 2) Into the body of Christ (Gal 3:27) 3) I don't really know Imagine the unity we could have in the body of Christ if we focused on the reality of baptism. Baptism is likely the greatest cause of different flavors of denominations. Whatever one believes, you'll always in the minority. During the past 3 months I've prayerfully re-evaluated my views on baptism. 1) Who baptized me? CW 2) How was I baptized? Immersion in water 3) When was I baptized? Sept 1981 Do you want the reality of baptism or the avnonhosting.com/grace-books/BakerI01.pdfThat link will do just fine! thank you!
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Aug 26, 2007 21:55:58 GMT -5
Theres a verse in Luke 12:50 where Jesus says "But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!" The interpretation for this verse in my bible is that it that word baptism is a figure for Jesus' death and refers to the coming of overflowing waters of divine judgement. In Mark 10:39 Jesus said "You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with you will be baptized;". So in other words, when i accept Jesus as our Savior, we also will know of this baptism he is speaking about. In this reference, it means his death not the immersion in the water. It would be figurative then. what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 26, 2007 23:45:25 GMT -5
What are your thoughts on the common practice within the fellowship to deny the previous baptism of a convert and require/request the convert to be re-baptized after professing in the Friends and Worker's fellowship?
There are more than a few Friends who have not been re-baptised in the Church and yet who are in full communion with us. They feel their first baptism was sufficient; that it was made in good faith and good conscience before God; and that it reflected the start of a new life. And there it is.
Personally I think there is a certain argument for re-baptism in that one can be sure that it is performed correctly. It would require some discretion on the part of the individual and the Workers - I don't think there is any hard and fast rule.
Although personally I feel comfortable only with the baptism of the Workers, and would encourage converts to be re-baptised.
Doesn't this requirement of being re-baptized equate to denying the Holy Spirit's work in the convert's life before they attended meetings?
Jessi would disagree with this sentiment! And no, I don't believe there is any denial that a spiritual work has not transpired previously.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 26, 2007 23:48:12 GMT -5
If someone came from the F&W into our church, they would need to be re-baptized. Mostly because the F&W deny the Trinity or that Jesus is God. They couldn't have known, then, what it means to die with Christ and come up out of the water a New Man, because they ciouldn't have understood how they were saved -- by the Blood of God.
Before the Council of Nicea there were heaps of Arians in the Church who were baptised. Were they all damned?
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 27, 2007 0:15:01 GMT -5
There are more than a few Friends who have not been re-baptised in the Church and yet who are in full communion with us. Why do you so often look to the minority in an attempt to dismiss the norm? Of course there are some Friends (their numbers are unknown) who have not been rebaptized... what does that have to do with the common practice of rebaptism? Yet it is common practice for the ministry to deny their first baptism... Why would you assume it wasn't preformed correctly? Also, since you said above that the outward isn't as important as the inward, why would you want to make extra sure the outward is preformed correctly. Could you give some examples of how an adult baptism could not be preformed correctly? Here is a rule for you... why not refrain from denying the Holy Spirit's work in the lives of converts before they made contact with the worker's ministry. Why would you make such an encouragement? Then why demand/request the convert be re-baptized?
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 27, 2007 6:57:46 GMT -5
No wonder I get irritable with your contributions Bryan. You ask for someone's thoughts, and then create a conceptual mushroom cloud that explodes issues in all directions - you then claim that they do not have an adequate response. No surprise there. You seem to specialise in launching a fusillade of questions, never posting significant material of your own.
Why do you so often look to the minority in an attempt to dismiss the norm?
This is not what I was doing. You asked me for my thoughts on re-baptism, not for a discussion about what is normative practice for the Church. I was not dismissing anything; neither purporting that re-baptism is not the norm, nor maintaining that allowing previous baptisms to stand were the norm.
Your question is loaded so that it makes it appear that I was being evasive, when this is not the case.
It is normative practice for re-baptism to occur, but this is not universal. There are more than a few Friends in our area who retain an Assemblies of God baptism, et al. The Head Worker has suggested re-baptism to these people, but they have rejected the suggestion. They are nevertheless in full communion with the Church, the elders and the Workers.
Of course there are some Friends (their numbers are unknown) who have not been rebaptized... what does that have to do with the common practice of rebaptism?
I don't know. Why are you asking me this question about my thoughts on re-baptism? I was not arguing any case. Please don't suggest via loaded questions that I was.
Yet it is common practice for the ministry to deny their first baptism...
Indeed it is. Because previous baptisms do not often accord with the four elements required for what we in the Fellowship believe to comprise biblical, orthodox, Christian baptism:
1. Correct form\mode: (full immersion; "burial baptism") 2. By proper authority: (By a Christian minister, "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost") 3. Purpose: (For the remission of sins; not salvation) 4. Correct subject: (A truly penitent believer).
Re-baptism may be required in the following instances:
1. Incorrect form - sprinkling or pouring (as practiced by Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and some Methodists)
2. Baptised apart from the authority of Christ, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: (such as being baptised by the authority of Ellen G. White prophetess founder of the Seventh Day Adventists; or by the authority of the Watch Tower Society of Jehovah Witnesses, or by the authority of Joseph Smith, the "prophet" of the Mormons, et al).
3. Being baptised as a form of public declaration of faith, rather than for the remission of sins: (as practiced by many Baptists, Assemblies of God, Churches of Christ et al).
4. Being baptised for motives other than repentence (other than penitent sinners), such as because our friends are doing; because of family pressure; etc.
Why would you assume it wasn't preformed correctly?
Why assume it was?
Also, since you said above that the outward isn't as important as the inward, why would you want to make extra sure the outward is preformed correctly.
Outwardly we must conform to the scriptural injunctions, although inner conditions are far more important.
Could you give some examples of how an adult baptism could not be preformed correctly?
See above.
Here is a rule for you... why not refrain from denying the Holy Spirit's work in the lives of converts before they made contact with the worker's ministry.
How is it denial of the Holy Spirit's work to request that they be re-baptised in the Church - baptism being the requirement for full communion with the brethren? I just don't see those two assertions logically connecting at all.
Why do you deny the possibility that it is the Holy Spirit's will that re-baptism occur?
Why would you make such an encouragement?
Uniformity; orthodoxy; and as public witness before the Church of repentance. None of these are objectionable reasons.
By the way, a significant number of churches require re-baptism in order for full communion to occur, especially those moving between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and within the mainstream denominations of Protestantism. Standards may be less stringent in megachurches...
|
|
GoBlue
Senior Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by GoBlue on Aug 27, 2007 7:22:52 GMT -5
Yes, not a drop of water in that baptism, is there? External rituals at best can only be types and shadows of reality. I have no problem with continuing the ritual although I don't think it's needed, but why put the focus on the ritual when we can have the reality? I used to sit in on the baptism meetings at convention when those who were going to baptized and their families were invited to come to the front of the building after the regular convention meeting was over (midwest USA tradition, not sure if its practiced elsewhere). I don't remember hearing about the real baptism, by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. (For a bit of baptism humor, if you will, it is interesting to read I Cor 10:1-2 and notice who were baptized but didn't get wet. Then consider the pursuing counter party that got wet but didn't get baptized.)Theres a verse in Luke 12:50 where Jesus says "But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!" The interpretation for this verse in my bible is that it that word baptism is a figure for Jesus' death and refers to the coming of overflowing waters of divine judgement. In Mark 10:39 Jesus said "You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with you will be baptized;". So in other words, when i accept Jesus as our Savior, we also will know of this baptism he is speaking about. In this reference, it means his death not the immersion in the water. It would be figurative then. what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Aug 27, 2007 7:46:17 GMT -5
Yes, not a drop of water in that baptism, is there? External rituals at best can only be types and shadows of reality. I have no problem with continuing the ritual although I don't think it's needed, but why put the focus on the ritual when we can have the reality? I used to sit in on the baptism meetings at convention when those who were going to baptized and their families were invited to come to the front of the building after the regular convention meeting was over (midwest USA tradition, not sure if its practiced elsewhere). I don't remember hearing about the real baptism, by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. (For a bit of baptism humor, if you will, it is interesting to read I Cor 10:1-2 and notice who were baptized but didn't get wet. Then consider the pursuing counter party that got wet but didn't get baptized.)Theres a verse in Luke 12:50 where Jesus says "But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!" The interpretation for this verse in my bible is that it that word baptism is a figure for Jesus' death and refers to the coming of overflowing waters of divine judgement. In Mark 10:39 Jesus said "You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with you will be baptized;". So in other words, when i accept Jesus as our Savior, we also will know of this baptism he is speaking about. In this reference, it means his death not the immersion in the water. It would be figurative then. what do you think? Ill give that a bit of a study this morning after the kids get off to school. Im learning something new everyday and im sure ive read those verses a million times before! More later!
|
|