It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Mystery of Baptizing

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:45 PM
While true baptism is this:

Paul spoke of Moses, when the people were walking through the parted red sea with the pharoahs army chasing, that baptism was like this, when he said, Be Still and Know God.

The red sea was wars, and anger, and he said, man/daugher of peace, be still and meditate and know God, within, basically.

Be like WATER - Empty your mind

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:52 AM
reply to post by piequal3because14

Consider what the Gnostics say about “baptism”:

The baptism which we previously mentioned is called "garment of those who do not strip themselves of it," for those who will put it on and those who have received redemption wear it. It is also called "the confirmation of the truth which has no fall." In an unwavering and immovable way it grasps those who have received the restoration while they grasp it. (Baptism) is called "silence" because of the quiet and the tranquility. The Tripartite Trac, Chapter 15.

It seems odd then that two key sources of 1st Century history have names that suggest "baptism": Tacitus and Tranquillus. Could baptism really represent a form of censorship or coverup?

Religion is allegory and each religious idea holds a hidden meaning applicable to the real world. You want "eternal life"? Be "good" and you will live forever in literal words (above) written upon a page. If you are "bad", you will "burn" below in more ways than one.

posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Siberbat

Originally posted by windword

Enjoyed the reading between Siberbat, windword and others in this thread.

I agree tradition was important. I'm not sure about the exact origins of baptism, but just wanted to throw a few thoughts to see what the resident historians think.

I think some of the difficulty comes with the period of John and Jesus being a difficult for modern minds to interpret or even comprehend. The separation we perceive of politics and religion as modern day people wasn't apparent to the people of John the Baptist.

The Jewish people were also trapped between the tithes to the Judean temple and King Herod, as well as the requirement to also pay tribute to the Romans. It was a time of spiritual, political, and social turmoil; to ancient peoples these three spheres weren't necessarily separate.

Using the lens of history, was it Jesus' intention to start a new religion? What did baptism mean politically and socially for these figures?

According to the Mandaean book of John, John the Baptist may have been sternly critiquing Jewish customs. In the Mandaean book, mourning for the dead is not a encouraged custom for example. Mandaeans consider John to be the true prophet; not just greater than Jesus for Jesus is portrayed as a traitor.

While the Mandaean book of John was published later, the book contains valid historical information evidenced by its primary sources; from this we can say that at least some percentage of its text may be an accurate representation of John the Baptist's teachings? (Or is the book purely an attack on Christians?)

In this case, John and Jesus are very similar in this area; both attacking the powers of the time through parables and teachings. Many 'prophets' arose at this time, at least one tried to part water and was beheaded, and claims of divine births were perhaps part of the people's desire to get out from under their rulers.

In this light, I'm not sure I'm as interested in how baptism is seen now, but I'm very curious as to exactly what it meant then for the local people and if Jesus and John became rivals in some way in later history.

After all, Jesus did speak of false prophets and John survived his passing.

(For those looking, unfortunately, it is highly unlikely the conversations between Jesus and John in the Mandaean book are actual historical events. It's a bit more like a Plato vs Socrates method of writing perhaps ... I'm not sure if there are any other reliable sources for John's opinions on Jesus.)

posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by Siberbat

Siberbat, I'm not sure what Bible you're reading, but there are LOADS of information within scripture, that says otherwise.

Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

John 3:3,5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase "born again" is "anothen" which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where "anothen" is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?

Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism?

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic.

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul.

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation.

There is also a definite parallel between John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: (1) John 3:5 – enter the kingdom of God / Titus 3:5 – He saved us. (2) John 3:5 – born of water / Titus 3:5 – washing. (3) John 3:5 – born of the Spirit / Titus 3:5 – renewal in the Spirit.


posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 05:23 AM
reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

I'll see your wall of text, and counter with my own.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION is the unbiblical teaching that a person MUST be water baptized in order to go to Heaven. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Word of God is abundantly clear that Baptism is only an ordinance, to be observed by each individual believer AFTER salvation, as a public profession of one's faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism is symbolic of Christ's death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:4-5); and is our public profession of faith.

Baptism is NOT a sacrament, i.e., there is no mystical power (efficacy) by being dunked in water. No grace is bestowed. Apart from water baptism's spiritual meaning, you are only getting wet. Being baptized doesn't make someone a believer, anymore than walking into a garage makes someone an automobile. As mentioned, water baptism is symbolic of the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:4-5). In water baptism, we are identifying ourselves with our Savior, signifying that we have already believed on Him. Nowhere in the Bible was anyone ever baptized; until AFTER they were saved.

The Apostle John tells us exactly why he wrote the Epistle of 1st John in 1st John 5:13... “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” John states that the sole purpose of his Epistle is to teach us how to KNOW we are saved. Carefully notice that John NEVER mentions the word “baptism,” not even once. That speaks volumes!

John doesn't mention speaking-in-tongues either, solid proof that Charismatics who require tongues as initial evidence of salvation are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Baptismal Regeneration is a lie of the Devil. Romans 4:5 plainly states... “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” How much clearer could the Bible be? A person's faith in Jesus Christ is COUNTED for righteousness. Salvation is of God, and not men. We are saved by HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS; and not our own self-righteousness... but to him that worketh not.

In view of such plain Scriptural teachings, how could anyone teach or believe that water baptism is required to be forgiven of one's sins? It is utter heresy!

Consider that the Bible doesn't mention anyone being baptized with water in the Old Testament for salvation. Genesis 15:6 teaches that Abram (later to be renamed Abraham) believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Romans 4:3 mentions this event, i.e., Abraham's salvation. We are saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ, i.e., Jesus' righteousness is attributed to our record in Heaven by faith (Romans 4:6). Abraham was saved by simple childlike faith in the Lord.

This thief on the cross who believed on Jesus Christ wasn't water baptized.

Over and over the Bible tells us that we are saved BY FAITH alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; Acts 10:43; John 1:12; Galatians 3:26; John 3:16-18). If water baptism were required for salvation, then certainly the Bible would stress its importance for salvation. In fact, the Apostle Paul stated the opposite in 1st Corinthians 1:17, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” Paul proclaimed that Jesus DIDN'T send him to baptize. There you have it! Paul stated in Romans 10:1 that his heart's desire was for Israel to be saved, so Paul definitely would NOT have made such a statement in 1st Corinthians 1:17 if water baptism were necessary to be saved. Amen!

posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 06:09 AM
Baptism isn`t for babies its a persons (adults) choice to be baptized by full emersion which symbolises rebirth (born again) and taking your first breathe anew, this nonsense they do with babies meh. How can a baby turn from sin or make a commitment.

John baptized with water on adults and Christ who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 3:11
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Remember the thief on the cross next to Jesus was saved without baptism of water.

Luke 23:39-43
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[a]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” 23:39-43

It was in belief of who He is.
edit on 12-7-2013 by gps777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by Siberbat

John doesn't mention speaking-in-tongues either, solid proof that Charismatics who require tongues as initial evidence of salvation are wrong, wrong, wrong

I agree with that. Speaking in tongues is one of the many gifts of the holy spirit, but just because you may not have one or more of them certainly does NOT mean you aren't a Christian.

Consider that the Bible doesn't mention anyone being baptized with water in the Old Testament for salvation. Genesis 15:6 teaches that Abram (later to be renamed Abraham) believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Romans 4:3 mentions this event, i.e., Abraham's salvation. We are saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ, i.e., Jesus' righteousness is attributed to our record in Heaven by faith (Romans 4:6). Abraham was saved by simple childlike faith in the Lord.

This thief on the cross who believed on Jesus Christ wasn't water baptized

Agreed. Water baptism isn't the only baptism. You also have baptism of desire and baptism of blood. The thief on the cross had a baptism of desire. And by extension, all of the OT prophets that predated Christ you could say had a baptism of desire. Water is merely the normative means of baptism.

However the view that baptism is not necessary for salvation is just plain wrong, and has only been around since some time after Martin Luther. All the Early Church Fathers agreed (these were folks taught by disciples, or usually within three degrees removed from them) that baptism was indeed necessary for salvation.

On a related note (and I'm sure the flames will follow) there is no such thing as "once saved, always saved." It's not biblical.

As far as faith alone, I believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin). Read carefully 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5.

Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions "justification by faith alone" or "salvation by faith alone." The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.

Your quote from Paul is one text that Protestants occasionally mention. In 1 Corinthians 1:14–17 Paul wrote that he was glad that he himself had baptized so few of the Corinthians, since they could not say that they were baptized in his name; and he went on to say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. . . ."

Needless to say, this passage doesn’t say anything about baptism only representing spiritual realities, or not really saving. It doesn’t say anything about how those who accepted Paul’s preaching of the gospel were then saved. Paul didn’t write, "For I was not sent to baptize but to pray with people to accept Jesus as their personal Savior" (or even "to lead people to faith"). Paul didn’t pit faith against baptism.

Nor did he pit preaching against baptism. He would hardly have contradicted the great commission in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Paul’s point was not that God didn’t want him to baptize, only that preaching was the driving force of his evangelistic ministry.

In short, Paul’s remark doesn’t remotely support your view of baptism, or justify a figurative interpretation of all the other passages. Yet this is the closest thing to a proof-text!

But I'll end it here, lest we begin a tangent!

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in