Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[CadyandZoe]

Apparently, YOU don’t understand how the Church function.
Allow me to educate you . . .

Jesus left us with a Church that has the Authority to TEACH and to Baptize (Matt. 28:19-20).

Incorrect. God granted Jesus the gifts of "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers "for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ." Ephesians 4:11-12. These gifts are individual men, not a religious organization.

But, as Paul argues in 1Corinthians, the role of an apostle is to build the foundation. 1Corinthians 3 where Paul compares his role as an apostle with Apollos' role as an evangelist. The foundation, in that context, is the original gospel message on which all other Christian doctrine is built. And, bless be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, he has supplied us with a written record of the teaching of the apostles.

Your position is a deification of the organization, which was a problem even during the time of Jesus. It was the Jewish religious organization that sensed the threat of a coming King of Israel. (John 11:47-48)

The church doesn’t “Tell” us what to believe – but rather, guides us in our walk with Christ by feeding us with knowledge and wisdom.

Theoretically, that might be the case. But even so, we measure the authenticity and the reliability of such guidance against the scriptures. I would be unwise to accept the guidance of someone who taught another gospel. Sad to say, Catholic doctrine is filled with false gospels and bad doctrine.

Anyway, you have YET to explain your fallacy of “belief Authority” in the light of the fact that there are tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL believe that teach different doctrines.

No, it is up to you to show why the presence of differing Protestant sects necessarily disproves the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. There are many reasons why a church spits but I guarantee it isn't because of Sola Scriptura. In my view, the essential and central question is why members of the Catholic Church felt the need to protest the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Secondly, was it doctrine or force of arms that kept the church united all those years? You know the answer.

If “Belief Authority” is our standard – why don’t you all believe that teach the SAME things?

Don't you know? I think you can at least guess the reason can't you? What you can't seem to see or understand is that "Unity" under Catholicism was enforced by arms and death threats.

God is not the Author of confusion – but of ORDER.

God is the author of everything.

The Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered - so any doctrines that differ from it are splinter beliefs.

So what. The only relevant question centers on the doctrines under examination at the time. And the ONLY way to know who was right is to read the Bible.

The ONLY reason you refused to answer the question is because you cannot offer a valid explanation for your “Belief Authority” nonsense.

I did answer your question previously, and my answer was to dismiss the premises on which your conclusion was built. I don't accept your conclusion that Sola Scriptura led to divisions and splits, just as I don't accept your premise that it was Catholic "guidance" that kept the church together.

Finally - you don’t seem to understand how Papal Authority works, either. Paul had every right to rebuke Peter because of his behavior. Peter wasn’t TEACJING error – he was behaving badly.

Peter was doing both at the same time. And don't miss the point. If Peter and Paul can disagree, then so can we.

Papal Infallibility and Authority is about TEACHING on faith and morals and administration.
When it comes to his negavior - he's on his own . . .

Was Christ the one who offered indulgences? I don't think so.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Just for clarification, the church is not the "followers of Christ", but rather is comprised of those believers who have been baptized into his body which is the church (Acts 2:38-47). Those in the church are his, and are owned by him since he "purchased it with his own blood", Acts 20:28.

In my view, the followers of Christ are necessarily those who have been baptized into Christ. These are one and the same thing.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

In my view, the followers of Christ are necessarily those who have been baptized into Christ. These are one and the same thing.

Baptized INTO Christ. Not water.

we must make a distinction

 

[DJT_47]

In my view, the followers of Christ are necessarily those who have been baptized into Christ. These are one and the same thing.

Jesus had many followers during his earthly ministry but just being a follower doesn't mean you are his. A follower doesn't mean you are a Christian. Believing in and having morals based on Christian principles doesn't mean you're a Christian. Believing in God and/of Christ doesn't mean you are a Christian. There's a difference, a clear distinction that differentiates one that's a member of the body of Christ and one that's not. I do understand your point, but it's misleading.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Baptism saves us according to 1 Peter 3:20-1. It's NOT a public declaration of anything. That's man contrived nonsense not found in the bible. In Acts 8, Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in the middle of nowhere in front of no one. Who was his baptism a "public declaration" to?

Faith in teh death and Resurrection of Jesus alone for the payment of your sin is what saves you. It is the Holy spirit who regenerates you when you trust in HIs death! Water Baptism does not save. Baptism is for those who are already believers in Christ!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Incorrect. God granted Jesus the gifts of "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers "for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ." Ephesians 4:11-12. These gifts are individual men, not a religious organization.

But, as Paul argues in 1Corinthians, the role of an apostle is to build the foundation. 1Corinthians 3 where Paul compares his role as an apostle with Apollos' role as an evangelist. The foundation, in that context, is the original gospel message on which all other Christian doctrine is built. And, bless be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, he has supplied us with a written record of the teaching of the apostles.

Your position is a deification of the organization, which was a problem even during the time of Jesus. It was the Jewish religious organization that sensed the threat of a coming King of Israel. (John 11:47-48)

Theoretically, that might be the case. But even so, we measure the authenticity and the reliability of such guidance against the scriptures. I would be unwise to accept the guidance of someone who taught another gospel. Sad to say, Catholic doctrine is filled with false gospels and bad doctrine.

No, it is up to you to show why the presence of differing Protestant sects necessarily disproves the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. There are many reasons why a church spits but I guarantee it isn't because of Sola Scriptura. In my view, the essential and central question is why members of the Catholic Church felt the need to protest the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Secondly, was it doctrine or force of arms that kept the church united all those years? You know the answer.

Don't you know? I think you can at least guess the reason can't you? What you can't seem to see or understand is that "Unity" under Catholicism was enforced by arms and death threats.

God is the author of everything.

So what. The only relevant question centers on the doctrines under examination at the time. And the ONLY way to know who was right is to read the Bible.

I did answer your question previously, and my answer was to dismiss the premises on which your conclusion was built. I don't accept your conclusion that Sola Scriptura led to divisions and splits, just as I don't accept your premise that it was Catholic "guidance" that kept the church together.

Peter was doing both at the same time. And don't miss the point. If Peter and Paul can disagree, then so can we.

Was Christ the one who offered indulgences? I don't think so.

What part of “WHATEVER YOU bind or loose“, do you NOT understand?
What part of “Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME", are you still having difficulty with??

We read in Acts 1:20 that the role of Apostle was am OFFICE.
Acts 1:20
“‘Let another take his office.’

The Greek word used here for “office” is “Episkopay” (Bishopric).

As for Sola Scriptura – you have YET to show where the Scriptures actually TEACH this 16th century Protestant invention. So far – ALL you’ve done is use it as an excuse for your cowardly refusal to address why there are so many perpetually-splintering Protestant factions that all teach different doctrines. In short – if Scripture is our SOLE Authority – then God did a pretty LOUSY jon teaching everyone. Why didn’t He make sure they ALL understood the Scriptures the SAME way?

Answer: THAT’S why He left us with a Church – to TEACJ the Scriptures (Matt. 28:19-20).

As to your gripes about the history of the Church – you wrongly conflate “doctrine” with bad behavior.
There have been some very BAD players in Church History – BOTH Catholic AND Protestant – and blood was shed on BOTH sides. But I would be as big a FOOL to blame Protestant doctrines for this nonsense as a Protestant would be to blame Catholic doctrines for the same.

Just as the behavior of the Jewish leaders doesn’t nullify Judaism – the behavior of religious leaders within Christianity doesn’t nullify Christianity. That’s what Jesus was talking about in (Matt. 15:9 and Mark 7:5-9), when He condemned their human traditions and precepts. He wasn’t knocking ALL Tradition because, as a Jew – HE also observed Tradition (Matt 23:2).

Let me know when you’re ready to have a grown-up conversation . . .

 

[DJT_47]

Faith in teh death and Resurrection of Jesus alone for the payment of your sin is what saves you. It is the Holy spirit who regenerates you when you trust in HIs death! Water Baptism does not save. Baptism is for those who are already believers in Christ!

Your words and not consistent with the words of the bible. Being a believer means nothing in and of itself. If you're a believer then you must obey.

Mark16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief + baptism = salvation

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Your words and not consistent with the words of the bible. Being a believer means nothing in and of itself. If you're a believer then you must obey.

Mark16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief + baptism = salvation

That does not say water baptism there

Why would I want to confuse water baptism. With spirit baptism? why give man credit for the work of God?

 

[DJT_47]

That does not say water baptism there

Why would I want to confuse water baptism. With spirit baptism? why give man credit for the work of God?

Baptism in that passage is water baptism no different from the baptism commenced by John. You do realize that it's upon baptism that you receive the Holy Ghost and not before. And what do you mean by Spirit baptism and based on what scripture?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Baptism in that passage is water baptism no different from the baptism commenced by John. You do realize that it's upon baptism that you receive the Holy Ghost and not before. And what do you mean by Spirit baptism and based on what scripture?

Tell me where baptism is in John 3, John 4, Jhn 5 and John 6. When jesus told the people how to be saved.

Why did Jesus in John 3 say he who believes is not condemned, He who does not believe is condemned already.

You can;t make a doctrine on one or 2 passages

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Your words and not consistent with the words of the bible. Being a believer means nothing in and of itself. If you're a believer then you must obey.

Mark16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief + baptism = salvation

And what is that Baptism? The Holy Spirit and not water!

Romans 10:9

King James Version

​

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

No water baptism mentioned here!

John 3: 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

No water baptism here.

1 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 downplayed the water Baptism here. If it were absolutely essential, he would have preached it over and over and over, but you barely here of water baptism in the letters of the apostle to the gentiles.

Romans 1:16-17

King James Version

​

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

It is the gospel alone that saves.

requiring water baptism to be saved is the exact same as the Jewish believers requiring gentile circumcision in order to be saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9

King James Version

​

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Baptism is a work and is the opposite of the gospel Paul taught.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Baptized INTO Christ. Not water.

we must make a distinction

A disciple of Christ is baptized into Christ via the Holy Spirit. If one accepts water baptism also, this is great and I encourage it, but it isn't necessary. I don't know why someone wouldn't get baptized but I want to allow for the possibility that fresh water isn't available or that someone has a physical limitation.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Jesus had many followers during his earthly ministry but just being a follower doesn't mean you are his. A follower doesn't mean you are a Christian. Believing in and having morals based on Christian principles doesn't mean you're a Christian. Believing in God and/of Christ doesn't mean you are a Christian. There's a difference, a clear distinction that differentiates one that's a member of the body of Christ and one that's not. I do understand your point, but it's misleading.

How is the phrase "follower of Christ" misleading?

I know what you mean, though. Someone might adopt the ethics of Jesus as a way of life. But I think confessing that Jesus is Lord carries a lot of weight especially during times of trial, testing or tribulation.

 

[amigo de christo]

Faith in teh death and Resurrection of Jesus alone for the payment of your sin is what saves you. It is the Holy spirit who regenerates you when you trust in HIs death! Water Baptism does not save. Baptism is for those who are already believers in Christ!

Praise be to the glorious LORD . Yes indeed my friend .

 

[DJT_47]

Tell me where baptism is in John 3, John 4, Jhn 5 and John 6. When jesus told the people how to be saved.

Why did Jesus in John 3 say he who believes is not condemned, He who does not believe is condemned already.

You can;t make a doctrine on one or 2 passages

You're doing exactly what you're questioning, by cherrypicking a few scriptures and ignoring the rest. So you're relying solely on John 3, 4, 5, 6? What about the various NT letters or the conversions in Acts? What about Mat 28:19 or the aforementioned Mark 16:15-16? Do you think the entirety of requirements or the entirety of any subject is found in only one verse? Why are there 4 gospels and why are they all needed? Likewise, why all the various letters? The fact is, they all are necessary to piece together the various pieces found in different parts of scripture in order to get the complete picture and to understand the same.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What part of “WHATEVER YOU bind or loose“, do you NOT understand?

I don't know. That phrase by itself can mean anything you want. Considering the context, and Jesus' intent it can only mean one thing.
Jesus tells them that whatever they bind or loose on earth, is already loosed or bound in heaven. In other words, contrary to Catholic teaching, Jesus is not saying that his apostles will have authority to decide what to bind or loose. No. Jesus is saying that they will have authority to identify what heaven has bound or loosed. Understand? Jesus and the Father are in charge.

What part of “Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME", are you still having difficulty with??

Again, context is king. Jesus is talking to his apostles. He is NOT talking to or about anyone after that.

We read in Acts 1:20 that the role of Apostle was am OFFICE.
Acts 1:20
“‘Let another take his office.’

The Greek word used here for “office” is “Episkopay” (Bishopric).

On the contrary, ἐπισκοπὴν doesn't refer to an office; it refers to a function. But even if it was an office, the range of possible candidates that might fill the position that Judas vacated is very limited.

Thus one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time the Lord Jesus associated with us, 22 beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness of his resurrection together with us.”​

Can you find a Catholic Bishop, living today, who might fit these qualifications? I don't think so. No one alive today can testify to what Jesus actually did and what he actually said.

As for Sola Scriptura – you have YET to show where the Scriptures actually TEACH this 16th century Protestant invention.

Deuteronomy 18:20

But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name, a word which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’​

Only true apostles and prophets can speak for God.

Infallibility doesn't rest in an office, such as a Pope. Infallibility rests in the Divine oracles and the only question that matters is, "Did God say it or not? Did Jesus teach it or not? Did God ratify it or not?

So far – ALL you’ve done is use it as an excuse for your cowardly refusal to address why there are so many perpetually-splintering Protestant factions that all teach different doctrines.

Your name calling is noted.

In short – if Scripture is our SOLE Authority – then God did a pretty LOUSY jon teaching everyone. Why didn’t He make sure they ALL understood the Scriptures the SAME way?

I don't accept your premise that universal acceptance of a particular fact claim is automatically proof of a fact claim. Truth is not found in majority rule or confession under duress.

Answer: THAT’S why He left us with a Church – to TEACJ the Scriptures (Matt. 28:19-20).

Incorrect. Jesus himself teaches and John the apostle reiterates that he left the Holy Spirit to teach us.

As to your gripes about the history of the Church – you wrongly conflate “doctrine” with bad behavior.
There have been some very BAD players in Church History – BOTH Catholic AND Protestant – and blood was shed on BOTH sides. But I would be as big a FOOL to blame Protestant doctrines for this nonsense as a Protestant would be to blame Catholic doctrines for the same.

If you hand me a stick, claiming it to be a ruler, and if I measure it against another ruler and find that your ruler is an inch short, then I simply conclude that your ruler is NOT a reliable measuring device. If you hand me a catechism and I compare it to the scriptures and find errors, I am going to conclude that your catechism is in error and an unreliable source of Gospel truth. It's really quite simple.

My comments concerning pedophilia speaks to the reliability of the RCC as an institution. We expect men to fail, but since the RCC attempted a coverup, we are right to conclude that the RCC is not a reliable or infallible source of gospel truth. It cared more about saving face than the boys under their care.

Just as the behavior of the Jewish leaders doesn’t nullify Judaism – the behavior of religious leaders within Christianity doesn’t nullify Christianity. That’s what Jesus was talking about in (Matt. 15:9 and Mark 7:5-9), when He condemned their human traditions and precepts. He wasn’t knocking ALL Tradition because, as a Jew – HE also observed Tradition (Matt 23:2).

Let me know when you’re ready to have a grown-up conversation . . .

I don't agree with your premise that we are talking about Christianity. We are talking about the Catholic Religion, which is simply another pagan religion, wearing the mask of Christianity.

 

[Marymog]

I see nothing in scripture about a centralized leadership. Paul, Peter, and James wrote letters. They were NOT part of a centralized leadership or organization. Study and mediated on Paul's letter to the Galatians for further reference.

For instance, consider Galatians 1:6-10

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!​

​

Here the Apostle declares the basis of authority to be the original gospel message. He boldly asserts that anyone who comes preaching another gospel, including himself, is accursed. (Anathema) You see Mary, the truth itself is the ultimate authority. Followers of Christ are NOT being led by men, including Paul, we are being led by the original gospel. We obey THAT.

Ummmm.....So you do know your post supports "centralized leadership"?

If anyone teaches "contrary to what we have preached to you"........... means THEY (the Apostles) are THE centralized leadership and anyone that preaches AGAINST their leadership is accursed.

You do see that, don't you?

 

[Marymog]

The RCC mocks its own eucharist........?

Lol ....David, you mock the Eucharist. So does the satanic church. Are you in league with them?

 

[Marymog]

This is total nonsense!!! Saying that someone is part of the satanic "church" because they don't agree with your denomination's invented ritual is indicative of your Catholic, demonic accusation of others who aren't part of your cult.

I didn't say anyone was part of the satanic church. The QUESTION was are you in league with them. A question is not an accusation.

Jim, how do you "do this (partake of the Eucharist) in remembrance" of Him like he told us to do?

 

[Marymog]

This is total nonsense!!! Saying that someone is part of the satanic "church" because they don't agree with your denomination's invented ritual is indicative of your Catholic, demonic accusation of others who aren't part of your cult.

Jim B,

"Invented ritual"???

Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me" and we Catholics, for over 2,000 years and for 500 years some Protestants, do it "in remembrance of" Him. And that is an "invented ritual"???????????