What Does Baptism Mean To You

Status
Not open for further replies.
Satan succeeded in tricking Eve out of her salvation by casting doubt on what God her and Adam what they must do ( v 1) and it is the same thing going on even today...putting a thought in people' s minds.they left something out...There is more then what is written, etc, etc. Do not believe that. God is Infinite in Intelligence. Do you really believe he left a few stones uncovered to cause confusion among us?

Of course God didn't leave stones uncovered. The way He would do that is telling His people "I am now going to ascend into heaven. I will leave you all with a Bible. Good luck. You may not be able to read it, let alone afford your own for a thousand years, but just make it up as you go along."

How is that covering stones? Christ left us a magisterium. His magisterium works hand-in-hand with the scriptures, which were, by the way, officially compiled by said magisterium. Anyone who puts 100% trust in the the NT puts their trust in the bishops who officiated the canon. The magisterium of the Church was left for us as a guide -- a vehicle of God.

You mentioned Satan in tricking Eve. Would it not be devilish to assume you have the power to truly understand the Holy Spirit alone? Would that not be pride? "I know what the Bible means, you don't. I listen to the Holy Spirit. You don't, because if you did, your translation would match mine." This is how a 10 denominations became tens of thousands today. Seems pretty devilish to me.

In other words, he held back information from his Apostles regarding his plans for the NT church? You have to believe that never happened bro. Why would he do such a thing? The Bible even has a verse in I Corinth ins that states " God is not the author of confusion". Satan however is.....John 8 v 44..

No, Christ never held back information. He doesn't want to lead His people into confusion. But if you're asking did the Bible not record everything, the answer is yes. How do we know that? It says so in the Bible. John 21:25 says "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written."

This is precisely why a Church, a vehicle of Christ, is necessary. Of course God is not the author of confusion. That is my whole point.
 
Of course God didn't leave stones uncovered. The way He would do that is telling His people "I am now going to ascend into heaven. I will leave you all with a Bible. Good luck. You may not be able to read it, let alone afford your own for a thousand years, but just make it up as you go along."

How is that covering stones? Christ left us a magisterium. His magisterium works hand-in-hand with the scriptures, which were, by the way, officially compiled by said magisterium. Anyone who puts 100% trust in the the NT puts their trust in the bishops who officiated the canon. The magisterium of the Church was left for us as a guide -- a vehicle of God.

You mentioned Satan in tricking Eve. Would it not be devilish to assume you have the power to truly understand the Holy Spirit alone? Would that not be pride? "I know what the Bible means, you don't. I listen to the Holy Spirit. You don't, because if you did, your translation would match mine." This is how a 10 denominations became tens of thousands today. Seems pretty devilish to me.



No, Christ never held back information. He doesn't want to lead His people into confusion. But if you're asking whether or not the Bible didn't record everything, the answer is yes. How do we know that? It says so in the Bible. John 21:25 says "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written."

This is precisely why a Church, a vehicle of Christ, is necessary. Of course God is not the author of confusion. That is my whole point.
Of course God didn't leave stones uncovered. The way He would do that is telling His people "I am now going to ascend into heaven. I will leave you all with a Bible. Good luck. You may not be able to read it, let alone afford your own for a thousand years, but just make it up as you go along."

How is that covering stones? Christ left us a magisterium. His magisterium works hand-in-hand with the scriptures, which were, by the way, officially compiled by said magisterium. Anyone who puts 100% trust in the the NT puts their trust in the bishops who officiated the canon. The magisterium of the Church was left for us as a guide -- a vehicle of God.

You mentioned Satan in tricking Eve. Would it not be devilish to assume you have the power to truly understand the Holy Spirit alone? Would that not be pride? "I know what the Bible means, you don't. I listen to the Holy Spirit. You don't, because if you did, your translation would match mine." This is how a 10 denominations became tens of thousands today. Seems pretty devilish to me.



No, Christ never held back information. He doesn't want to lead His people into confusion. But if you're asking whether or not the Bible didn't record everything, the answer is yes. How do we know that? It says so in the Bible. John 21:25 says "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written."

This is precisely why a Church, a vehicle of Christ, is necessary. Of course God is not the author of confusion. That is my whole point.
 
What Jesus" DID" and what Jesus said is comparing Apples and Oranges. So please don' t use verses out of context..Thank you so much.

Read what Apostle Paul said: read Romans 6 v 3 & 4/Colossis signs 2 v 12.

Paul also stated this: I I Thessalonians 2 v 15: Therefore brethren stand fast, and hold THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT, Whether by word, or our EPISTLE. Meaning of course The Words of the Original Apostles or by The word of God. This disqualifies the RCC which came after Paul made this statement mid first Century.

Paul said this as well: Galatians 1 v 6-8 "I marvel that you are so soon removed from him ( Jesus) that called you into the grace of Christmas unto ANOTHER GOSPEL: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and WOULD PERVERT the Gospel of Christ. But though WE (The Original Apostles) or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than THAT WHICH WE HAVE PREACHED UNTO YOU......LET HIM BE ACCURSED....AMEN!
 
What Jesus" DID" and what Jesus said is comparing Apples and Oranges. So please don' t use verses out of context..Thank you so much.

Read what Apostle Paul said: read Romans 6 v 3 & 4/Colossis signs 2 v 12.

Paul also stated this: I I Thessalonians 2 v 15: Therefore brethren stand fast, and hold THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT, Whether by word, or our EPISTLE. Meaning of course The Words of the Original Apostles or by The word of God. This disqualifies the RCC which came after Paul made this statement mid first Century.

Paul said this as well: Galatians 1 v 6-8 "I marvel that you are so soon removed from him ( Jesus) that called you into the grace of Christmas unto ANOTHER GOSPEL: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and WOULD PERVERT the Gospel of Christ. But though WE (The Original Apostles) or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than THAT WHICH WE HAVE PREACHED UNTO YOU......LET HIM BE ACCURSED....AMEN!

I have many more brother to prove what you have been taught by the RCC is false doctrine. They use this " Magisterium" buzz word as an excuse to teach whatever they wish by perverting the Scriptures as they were intended.

Claiming Peter was the first Pope....There is not one shred of evidence to back that claim. Paul was the Apostle to Rome not Peter. Peter was Apostles to the people in Jerusalem. Mary " The Mother of God" is also twisting and perverting the real truth.
Did you know Mary was never a perpetual virgin? She was only a Virgin and never had a sexual relationship with any man or her husband UNTIL after she gave birth to Jesus. I have news for you...she had other children
Their Names ( The Boys) are as follows: James, Joses, Simon, Judas...and she had daughters as well...Read Matthew 13 v 55 & 56.
Matthew 1 v 25 tells us Joseph " Knew Her Not, UNTIL she brought forth her FIRSTBORN and called his name Jesus.....back to you
 
I have many more brother to prove what you have been taught by the RCC is false doctrine. They use this " Magisterium" buzz word as an excuse to teach whatever they wish by perverting the Scriptures as they were intended.

Claiming Peter was the first Pope....There is not one shred of evidence to back that claim. Paul was the Apostle to Rome not Peter. Peter was Apostles to the people in Jerusalem. Mary " The Mother of God" is also twisting and perverting the real truth.
Did you know Mary was never a perpetual virgin? She was only a Virgin and never had a sexual relationship with any man or her husband UNTIL after she gave birth to Jesus. I have news for you...she had other children
Their Names ( The Boys) are as follows: James, Joses, Simon, Judas...and she had daughters as well...Read Matthew 13 v 55 & 56.
Matthew 1 v 25 tells us Joseph " Knew Her Not, UNTIL she brought forth her FIRSTBORN and called his name Jesus.....back to you
Catholics claim we do not worship Mary....Just Honor her....even though my Bible clearly says the following: Colossians 3 v 17 " And Whatsoever you do in WORD or DEED, do ALL in The name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to GOD and The Father by him. .....no mention of anyone else including Mary....next
 
Catholics claim we do not worship Mary....Just Honor her....even though my Bible clearly says the following: Colossians 3 v 17 " And Whatsoever you do in WORD or DEED, do ALL in The name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to GOD and The Father by him. .....no mention of anyone else including Mary....next
The Catholic Church ( and others) are not the Church started by Jesus and his hand picked Chosen Apostles. If any church does not adhere to the pure doctrine as taught in the First Century Church, then they simply don' t qualify...sorry, but it is truth.
 
What Jesus" DID" and what Jesus said is comparing Apples and Oranges. So please don' t use verses out of context..Thank you so much.

That is precisely the problem. You believe I am taking the scriptures out of context while I believe you are taking the scriptures out of context and are misguided in what it says. And that is a big reason why Christ instituted for us a magisterium -- a Church -- because we can't all claim authority of what Jesus is saying to us. There must be Christian order.

Read what Apostle Paul said: read Romans 6 v 3 & 4/Colossis signs 2 v 12.

Paul also stated this: I I Thessalonians 2 v 15: Therefore brethren stand fast, and hold THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT, Whether by word, or our EPISTLE. Meaning of course The Words of the Original Apostles or by The word of God. This disqualifies the RCC which came after Paul made this statement mid first Century.

Read the verse again. Once more, I am NOT saying the Bible is unnecessary. I LOVE the Bible. I believe every word of it to be true. I believe it is ALL, every single inch of it, truly the inspired Word of God, and I believe every single part must be taken whole-heartedly. You are skimming over the part that says "whether by word of mouth." I agree with the entire verse. "
stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

Once again, I do not hold an Either/Or position on the Bible and the Church. I hold a Both/And position as this is precisely what is even expressed in scriptures AND by the Church. This does not disqualify the Catholic Church, even remotely. In parallels with what the Church teaches in fact, and very vigorously. The teachings of the Catholic Church are not post-Paul. Paul himself trained one of the most celebrated saints in Catholic history -- Ignatius of Antioch -- who wrote about the Catholic Church, by name, and what it teaches. Ignatius was trained by the likes of both Paul and Peter. The legend has it that he was even the child that was taken by Jesus in Mark 9:36. Every verse you're providing, I don't disagree with. However, your personal, fallible, interpretation is another story. Why do you even insist on holding the authority to understanding what Christ is saying through the scriptures? Are you infallible? If your response is simply "Jesus is infallible" then I would agree with that 100%, but that doesn't even begin to answer how your interpretation is infallible. It's precisely this sort of attitude, with all due respect, that has shifted so many interpretations and churches in making claims that the Bible permits homosexuality or abortion or divorce. It's this attitude that upholds pride, that one guy can claim a monopoly on interpretation simply because he speaks Greek or Hebrew or has a degree in theology. It's this sort of attitude that makes people believe the know precisely what is what merely because they were once drug addicts and abusers to now being Christians.

By every means am I thankful that these people have turned to Christ, whether through Catholicism or Protestantism, but the overall I concern I have is when people water down Christianity. I am not speaking to you specifically -- I'm partly speaking to the old me -- but in general, I'm speaking to the idea of not giving Christianity the dignity and fullness it deserves.

Rick, I am not telling you how to return home to the Catholic Church. I am not even attempting to revoke your title as a Christian. I'd be willing to be you are more a Christian now as a Protestant than you were as a Catholic. All I am meaning to do is defend what is being misunderstood.

Not long ago, this forum once accepted both Protestants and Catholics as Christians. Lately, there seems to be a lopsided case that Catholics are not Christians, and those making this case are arguing against a distorted version of what Catholicism is. And despite your Catholic upbringing, you seem to have this position to. You wouldn't be alone -- so many members of the Catholic Church haven't fully understood much of it. It's sad and something the Church is just recently addressing as it is finally getting back into an emphasis on evangelism.

I'm not here to try and convert Protestants to Catholicism. I am here to fellowship in God's name. I am always happy to share the Catholic perspective, but I am in no way attempting to even corner Protestants -- I don't mean to be here with an agenda.
 
Catholics claim we do not worship Mary....Just Honor her....even though my Bible clearly says the following: Colossians 3 v 17 " And Whatsoever you do in WORD or DEED, do ALL in The name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to GOD and The Father by him. .....no mention of anyone else including Mary....next

Rick, the verse is right, the interpretation is right, but the context is wrong. You are suggesting that Marian devotion either equals worship or some means of bypassing God. When we honor our father and mother (which the scriptures clearly state), would it be OK to do so in bypassing God? Of course not. And this is the same concept with Mary.

Those of us who love Mary only do because we have a greater love for her Son, Jesus. And when we love her, we are doing it because we are imitating Jesus. We recognize what Gabriel said to Mary in Luke 1:28, what Elizabeth said to her in Luke 1:42, and what Mary said in Luke 1:48. None of it equals worship NOR does any of it equal bypassing God.

When people make the claim that Mary was nothing more than an "incubator" for Jesus, how do you think this makes Jesus feel? How would you feel if someone said your mother was nothing more than an incubator for you? How much worse is it saying this of Jesus' mother?

With all due respect, you are only bringing the subject of Mary because you have an agenda -- and your agenda is to corner Catholicism. Why else would you throw in question after question of this, what I call, machine gun questioning, and much of it irrelevant to the subject at hand? "What else can I throw at Catholics? You worship Mary! Hitler was a Catholic and the pope was a Nazi! You practice idolatry with your statues! You call priests father! You worship a 'Cookie Christ!' You worship 'dead saints!' The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon! Catholics support pedophilia! Catholics don't believe in divorce because they want to see people miserable! Catholics add whatever they want to the Bible! Catholics believe in asking priests to forgive their sins, not God! Catholics believe in working your way into heaven!"

I've heard every single one of these, and half of them once came from me at one point. But usually, when one subject is being discussed, I'm bound to find the subject dodged and a series of these statements thrown at me, one after the other.
 
Rick, the verse is right, the interpretation is right, but the context is wrong. You are suggesting that Marian devotion either equals worship or some means of bypassing God. When we honor our father and mother (which the scriptures clearly state), would it be OK to do so in bypassing God? Of course not. And this is the same concept with Mary.

Those of us who love Mary only do because we have a greater love for her Son, Jesus. And when we love her, we are doing it because we are imitating Jesus. We recognize what Gabriel said to Mary in Luke 1:28, what Elizabeth said to her in Luke 1:42, and what Mary said in Luke 1:48. None of it equals worship NOR does any of it equal bypassing God.

When people make the claim that Mary was nothing more than an "incubator" for Jesus, how do you think this makes Jesus feel? How would you feel if someone said your mother was nothing more than an incubator for you? How much worse is it saying this of Jesus' mother?

With all due respect, you are only bringing the subject of Mary because you have an agenda -- and your agenda is to corner Catholicism. Why else would you throw in question after question of this, what I call, machine gun questioning, and much of it irrelevant to the subject at hand? "What else can I throw at Catholics? You worship Mary! Hitler was a Catholic and the pope was a Nazi! You practice idolatry with your statues! You call priests father! You worship a 'Cookie Christ!' You worship 'dead saints!' The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon! Catholics support pedophilia! Catholics don't believe in divorce because they want to see people miserable! Catholics add whatever they want to the Bible! Catholics believe in asking priests to forgive their sins, not God! Catholics believe in working your way into heaven!"

I've heard every single one of these, and half of them once came from me at one point. But usually, when one subject is being discussed, I'm bound to find the subject dodged and a series of these statements thrown at me, one after the other.
Then let' s just agree to disagree. I have tried to show you with scriptures what you are following, much of it was borrowed from the Babylon Mystery Religion...Go to a Library and check it out you may be surprised. Debates never produce anything but bad feelings for one party or the other.

Whatever you believe and follow is your choice. That Choice will get you one thing or the other...Heaven....Lake of Fire....No second chance. When you stand before The only judge he will judge you by what you believed and followed while alive. If You choose the wrong path you cannot go back to get It right. God is not someone you can plea bargain or bargain with all I am going to say. I can only tell you and others the Gospel Truth. If I am wrong on scriptures address which ones?.

Have to go..

Best Wishes!!
 
Right. Note the second part...you are damned if you don't believe. It doesn't say "if you're not Baptized in the proper manner, you are damned".


Right. Nothing in there about having to be Baptized a specific way or with specific words spoken, just like I said.

You are not reading the scriptures: Jesus said, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved." Believing (faith) without works (baptism) is dead...and refusing to be baptized is a sign of unbelief. You are reading Mark 16:16 as: "He that believes is saved..."; omitting the promise: "...shall be saved." Now: "...he that believes not shall be condemned." What is it that that person did not believe, according to the first part of the verse? It is the need to be baptized! So it stands to reason that anyone who refuses to be baptized is not believing that their sins will be remitted!
The Apostle Peter, full of the Holy Spirit, declared, "...be baptized everyone of you in (calling upon) the NAME of Jesus for the remission of sins...". The whole world has already been forgiven, and has received mercy which keeps us until we receive Grace (the Holy Spirit) unto eternal life.
 
But if the Holy Spirit revealed something different to me through prayer, study, and extensive Biblical research...does this mean the Holy Spirit intends to lead to confusion or could it mean one of us is wrong? And if one of us is wrong, how do we figure out which one it is?

If I were you, I would make certain it was the Holy Spirit that was doing the "revealing"!
The Church follows the teachings of the apostles and prophets, and not religious traditions of men. Beloved, it is YOUR eternal life that is at stake, so "...make sure your salvation."
 
If I were you, I would make certain it was the Holy Spirit that was doing the "revealing"!
The Church follows the teachings of the apostles and prophets, and not religious traditions of men. Beloved, it is YOUR eternal life that is at stake, so "...make sure your salvation."
I agree :) The truth must ultimately come from the Holy Spirit for it to be valid. No second option.
 
Water baptism, following true "Repentance" brings remission of one's sins. An infant cannot repent or even have a concept of believing in a God that made them, came to save them.
 
You are not reading the scriptures: Jesus said, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved." Believing (faith) without works (baptism) is dead...and refusing to be baptized is a sign of unbelief. You are reading Mark 16:16 as: "He that believes is saved..."; omitting the promise: "...shall be saved." Now: "...he that believes not shall be condemned." What is it that that person did not believe, according to the first part of the verse? It is the need to be baptized! So it stands to reason that anyone who refuses to be baptized is not believing that their sins will be remitted!
The Apostle Peter, full of the Holy Spirit, declared, "...be baptized everyone of you in (calling upon) the NAME of Jesus for the remission of sins...". The whole world has already been forgiven, and has received mercy which keeps us until we receive Grace (the Holy Spirit) unto eternal life.

I believe that if the Mark 16:16 verse is studied carefully, you will see a striking peculiarity about this particular rendering of the Great Comm. and how it relates to baptism.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall saved".

The ordnance may appear to be a prerequisite to salvation however, the negative statement mentions believing alone.:
"He that believeth NOT shall be damned".

In addition, baptism in the early church was the outward declaration of conversion, so then the ordinance has no saving merit.

The distinctive emphasis of these signs causes some scholars to conclude that the disputed ending of Mark was added to support the sign gifts that are listed.
 
I believe that if the Mark 16:16 verse is studied carefully, you will see a striking peculiarity about this particular rendering of the Great Comm. and how it relates to baptism.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall saved".

The ordnance may appear to be a prerequisite to salvation however, the negative statement mentions believing alone.:
"He that believeth NOT shall be damned".

In addition, baptism in the early church was the outward declaration of conversion, so then the ordinance has no saving merit.

The distinctive emphasis of these signs causes some scholars to conclude that the disputed ending of Mark was added to support the sign gifts that are listed.
Totally disagree and have had this idea presented to me personally many times over the years.
Mark 16 v 16 " He that believes AND is BAPTIZED shall be Saved....but he that
believes not, shall be Damned"

Meaning if you believe what Jesus and his apostles taught and OBEY and DO WHAT THEY Taught....You will be saved...If you don' t believe the gospel taught and disobey it..You won' t be saved..but condemned.

Jesus in his final message to his Apostles before he ascended to heaven in
Luke 24 v 45-47; Told them to teach Repentance and remission of sins in HIS Name beginning at Jerusalem. This was fulfilled at the end of apostle peter' s message in Acts Chapter 2. ( Acts 2: verses 37-42).

We also see himself being water baptized by John the Baptist in John 3. He did not need to go through this since he is God, but did it to show us what was coming for true believers after he died and ascended to heaven, and what would be required when his church started. The Holy Ghost came upon him as a symbol of a dove.

He is the Holy Ghost in the fleshly body so this was a symbol for us at his Baptism.
Ask yourself this question; If water Baptism is not essential for New Converts to Christianity...Why would Jesus himself go through with it himself, and did not need it?

Then in John 3 v 3 &5; we read where Jesus tells Nicodemus a man must be born again of WATER And SPIRIT...which was shown in Jesus' Baptism. and shown and
taught in Acts 2 v 38/ Acts 8: v 36-38/ Acts 10 v 44/Acts 19 v 5.

Baby Baptism was not taught or needed...It is for Beleivers...which babies cannot do.
Baby's are " Dedicated" in The Church with the Pastor laying hands on the baby and praying for the baby and parents that God will protect all of them.

Water Baptism for innocent children was never taught or shown by example...
 
I believe that if the Mark 16:16 verse is studied carefully, you will see a striking peculiarity about this particular rendering of the Great Comm. and how it relates to baptism.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall saved".

The ordnance may appear to be a prerequisite to salvation however, the negative statement mentions believing alone.:
"He that believeth NOT shall be damned".

In addition, baptism in the early church was the outward declaration of conversion, so then the ordinance has no saving merit.

The distinctive emphasis of these signs causes some scholars to conclude that the disputed ending of Mark was added to support the sign gifts that are listed.

Baptism is more than an "ordinance" It brings cleansing and remission of sins IF administered "In The Name Of Jesus Christ"
It is a command:
Acts 2:38
King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:48
King James Version (KJV)
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 22:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
 
Baptism is more than an "ordinance" It brings cleansing and remission of sins IF administered "In The Name Of Jesus Christ"
It is a command:
Acts 2:38
King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:48
King James Version (KJV)
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 22:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

NOPE.

It was a cleaning act that Jews did as a ritual but it did not save anyone and can not save anyone Dave. The Jews developed a way in which Gentiles could become Jewish. It was one of a number of things inc,..circumcision, a covenant meal, an agreement to obey Jewish law, and a ritual bath.

It was an outward act that showed they were dying to the old life as a Gentile and were being resurrected to the new life of a Jew.

But it did not save them. Baptism is an act of obedience whereby the believer "identifies" with Christ. We believe Christ 1st and then follow in baptism. I recommend for every single person who comes to Christ and is saved BUT getting baptized have nothing to do with being saved or staying saved.
 
Totally disagree and have had this idea presented to me personally many times over the years.
Mark 16 v 16 " He that believes AND is BAPTIZED shall be Saved....but he that
believes not, shall be Damned"

Meaning if you believe what Jesus and his apostles taught and OBEY and DO WHAT THEY Taught....You will be saved...If you don' t believe the gospel taught and disobey it..You won' t be saved..but condemned.

Jesus in his final message to his Apostles before he ascended to heaven in
Luke 24 v 45-47; Told them to teach Repentance and remission of sins in HIS Name beginning at Jerusalem. This was fulfilled at the end of apostle peter' s message in Acts Chapter 2. ( Acts 2: verses 37-42).

We also see himself being water baptized by John the Baptist in John 3. He did not need to go through this since he is God, but did it to show us what was coming for true believers after he died and ascended to heaven, and what would be required when his church started. The Holy Ghost came upon him as a symbol of a dove.

He is the Holy Ghost in the fleshly body so this was a symbol for us at his Baptism.
Ask yourself this question; If water Baptism is not essential for New Converts to Christianity...Why would Jesus himself go through with it himself, and did not need it?

Then in John 3 v 3 &5; we read where Jesus tells Nicodemus a man must be born again of WATER And SPIRIT...which was shown in Jesus' Baptism. and shown and
taught in Acts 2 v 38/ Acts 8: v 36-38/ Acts 10 v 44/Acts 19 v 5.

Baby Baptism was not taught or needed...It is for Beleivers...which babies cannot do.
Baby's are " Dedicated" in The Church with the Pastor laying hands on the baby and praying for the baby and parents that God will protect all of them.

Water Baptism for innocent children was never taught or shown by example...

I hear you Rick but I can not accept the idea that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

Is the man who accepted Christ before a battle and then dies before being baptized lost and in hell????
Is the thief on the cross in hell today because that did not baptize him. Didn't Jesus say.....TODAY you will be in Paradise????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top