Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[BreadOfLife]

The verb "to bind" is a perfect participle, indicating completed action. What the Apostles bind on earth is already bound in heaven.

NOT in the first part of the verse – only in the second part:

“Whatever you BIND (δήσῃς)…” “…will be held BOUND (δεδεμένον)”

You don't study the Catechism? You weren't confirmed?

I DO study the Catechism.
And in NOT place does it tell what to believe.

It GUIDES me through the Scriptures and gives me 2000 years of constant living tradition with regard to Church teaching (Matt. 28:19-20..

No, the men Jesus chose, the Apostles have the role of teaching everything,

It does not follow that everyone reading a common corpus will have the same interpretation. With regard to this discussion, as I said before, Catholic dogma is just another one of the many interpretations.

Why is Catholic dogma filled with false teaching?

I disagree. Jesus entrusted the Apostles with the message of reconciliation. None of the Apostles are alive today, which is why we depend on the scriptures.

Of course. Paul is simply describing the role of an Apostle. But again, there are NO apostles today.

No. The idea of a Bishopric is not Biblical. So your translation is in error.

So what?

How so? What do you mean?

So what?

Coverup.

Yes, Jesus entrusted the Apostles – AND their successors.

Just as Judas had a successor to his office (Acts 1:20) in Matthias, they appointed Bishops for EVERY region that was being evangelized. And regardless of whether YOU agree with the office of Bishop or not is totally irrelevant. As I’ve already explained, Episkopay, means “Overseership”, means “Bishopric”. In fact, it is the very definition of Bishopric.

As for Catholic dogma – I’m not aware of ANY errors.

Finally – I said that your depiction of God as the Lord of Confusion simply borders on blasphemy since the Scriptures paint Him as the God of Order.

 

[Titus]

As to your presumptuous statement I can NOT a Christian – by whose Authority do you make that claim?

I never give opinions or make assumptions when I'm teaching spiritual matters. Unless it is something other thanScripture. Like ideas on what will be in heaven. I don't speculate on issues that are salvational. Only on things that dont amount to a hill of beans. Even on those subjects I usually keep my mouth shut.
Gods word is not to be presumed.
Religious beliefs must be proved with book, chapter and verse, Sola scripture. Bible only.

By Who's Authority Do I Make The Claim Catholics Are Not Christians?​

Christ's authority which is His law, His gospel.
Since there is only one gospel.
That one gospel is where the power of God saves.
Romans 1:16,
- for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone WHO BELIEVES for the jew first and also for the greek.

Most Catholics are baptized unscriptually as babies.
The gospel that Paul preached teaches that FAITH is the first prerequisite for receiving Gods grace.
Therefore no one can be saved outside of faith.

If I physically fought an atheist man and overpowered him, drug him to a pond and baptized him in immersion.
It would do him no good.
Why? No Faith in Jesus.
Jesus' gospel, Mark 16:15-16,
Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, he who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who believeth not will be condemned.

What comes before baptism?
What two conditions does Jesus require in His gospel?
Which condition does the baby meet?

The baby neither believes nor does he desire to be baptized!

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Catholics try to save unbelievers by sprinkling water on them.
If this was done to you as a baby, you did not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Only that gospel saves friend.
The Catholics have another gospel which is not another, Galatians 1:6-7.

Only one gospel has the power to save, Ephesians 4:5.
And that gospel requires faith, 1Corinthians 15:1-4.
The gospel is for sinners, Romans 3:23.
That all is those who commit sin.
This excludes babies because they are without sin.
Thus not accountable to the gospel of Christ,
Luke 5:32,
- I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.
Babies are going to be with the Lord if they die innocent, young,
Matthew 19:14,
-But Jesus said, Let the little children come to Me and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Children and babies are already saved.
They need no blood of Christ.
Christ blood is for removal, atonement for sin.

No one baptized without faith in Christ and without sin, can be Biblically saved, when they grow to the age of understanding and know right from wrong.
Deuteronomy 1:39,
- Moreover your little ones and your children who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it and they shall posses it.
The catholic gospel,
It is not the gospel of Jesus Christ

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Catholic "church" is simply one of many denominations. There is no mention of the Catholic "church" or "denomination" in the Bible. The first "church" was composed entirely of Jews; Gentiles were admitted later. And arguably, the Orthodox denomination is the oldest.

I didn't read all of your post, but read the end. The Catholic "church" is simply another denomination. It is absurd, as I have regularly pointed out, that the Catholic denomination existed before ALL of them. If that were the case, why wouldn't it be mentioned in Scripture? It is a joke to claim that "the Catholic Church is the Original Tree". Revelation, the lase "book" in the New Testament, makes no mention of the Catholic "church" (denomination, etc.) That is just a false statement of Rome (among many others).

Noe read this carefully: Romans killed Jesus. But He was resurrected and defeated Rome!

Soooo, according to YOUR logic – we should shun ALL Italians because of what pagan Rom did.
THAT’s about as stupid as an anti-Semite referring to Jews as “Christ-killers”.

YOU are just as guilty for the suffering and death of Jesus as ANY Roman or anybody els, for that matter. You should KNOW that by now . . .

And, as a matter of fact – the Catholic Church IS the Original Tree of Christianity that Protestantism splintered from. Even your most respected Protestant scholars like J.N.D. Kelley agree with this historical fact. It was the ONLY Christian Church until the East-West Split in the 11th century.

Jesus and the Apostles built the Church.
Protestant MEN invented “denominations” . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I never give opinions or make assumptions when I'm teaching spiritual matters. Unless it is something other thanScripture. Like ideas on what will be in heaven. I don't speculate on issues that are salvational. Only on things that dont amount to a hill of beans. Even on those subjects I usually keep my mouth shut.
Gods word is not to be presumed.
Religious beliefs must be proved with book, chapter and verse, Sola scripture. Bible only.

By Who's Authority Do I Make The Claim Catholics Are Not Christians?​

Christ's authority which is His law, His gospel.
Since there is only one gospel.
That one gospel is where the power of God saves.
Romans 1:16,
- for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone WHO BELIEVES for the jew first and also for the greek.

Most Catholics are baptized unscriptually as babies.
The gospel that Paul preached teaches that FAITH is the first prerequisite for receiving Gods grace.
Therefore no one can be saved outside of faith.

If I physically fought an atheist man and overpowered him, drug him to a pond and baptized him in immersion.
It would do him no good.
Why? No Faith in Jesus.
Jesus' gospel, Mark 16:15-16,
Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, he who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who believeth not will be condemned.

What comes before baptism?
What two conditions does Jesus require in His gospel?
Which condition does the baby meet?

The baby neither believes nor does he desire to be baptized!

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Catholics try to save unbelievers by sprinkling water on them.
If this was done to you as a baby, you did not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Only that gospel saves friend.
The Catholics have another gospel which is not another, Galatians 1:6-7.

Only one gospel has the power to save, Ephesians 4:5.
And that gospel requires faith, 1Corinthians 15:1-4.
The gospel is for sinners, Romans 3:23.
That all is those who commit sin.
This excludes babies because they are without sin.
Thus not accountable to the gospel of Christ,
Luke 5:32,
- I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.
Babies are going to be with the Lord if they die innocent, young,
Matthew 19:14,
-But Jesus said, Let the little children come to Me and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Children and babies are already saved.
They need no blood of Christ.
Christ blood is for removal, atonement for sin.

No one baptized without faith in Christ and without sin, can be Biblically saved, when they grow to the age of understanding and know right from wrong.
Deuteronomy 1:39,
- Moreover your little ones and your children who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it and they shall posses it.
The catholic gospel,
It is not the gospel of Jesus Christ

That was quite a rant.
A load of manure – but quite a rant . . .

FIRST of all – you are presuming that ALL Catholics are Baptized as babies.

Secondly – you say that Baptism is ONLY for those old enough to consent – but that’s NOT what the Bible says:
Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you AND YOUR CHILDREN and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Matt. 19:14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Question:
Babies in the OT were circumcised at 8 days of age and entered into the Covenant with God. A Covenant ais a sacred agreement between 2 or more parties.

Did anyone ASK their permission?
Did they consent to this?
Did they come to God on their own?
OR was it based on the faith of their parents?

The very SAME is true with Baptism. That’s why we read that Peter Baptized the ENTIRE household of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14).

Paul Baptized the ENTIRE households of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16) and the Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:23-33). He didn’t’ just Baptize the adults.
This is why Paul refers to Baptism as the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29, Col. 2:12-17).

So – you are STILL committing the sin of presumption when you condemn ALL Catholics as “non-Christians”.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Gods word is not to be presumed.
Religious beliefs must be proved with book, chapter and verse, Sola scripture. Bible only.

Can you show me where the BIBLE teaches this?
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

 

[Titus]

op: water replaced by Spirit Baptism?



Briefly, Today, Under Grace:
Only ONE Baptism * = "BY" The ONE Spirit = God's OPERATION,
Spiritually Identifying members In (The ONE Body Of) CHRIST!!
(Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27;
Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13 KJB)
-------------------------------------------------
*
ONE BAPTISM Video IF you wish...

Grace, Peace, And JOY In Christ, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided (+ I and II)!
---------------------------
For astute and diligent Bible students:
E-X-P-A-N-D-E-D version coming forthwith... = post 779

Hello,
I watched the entire video by the two gospels preacher @grace bible church by the name Steve Atwood. Video was 28 min.
Steve Atwood wrongly teaches the baptism for believers today is Holy Spirit baptism.
He divides the gospel of Christ into two gospels
First for the Jews, "The kingdom gospel"
Next dispensation for gentiles and jews(everyone) "the church gospel"
His prooftext is 1Corinthians 12:13,
- For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body---whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free and all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Heres why Mr. Atwood is in err.

1st there is no 2nd gospel given to by Paul.
The Bible never teaches this friend.

Listen closely to Paul himself tell you that he preached the same gospel Peter preached AFTER he was already preaching to the gentiles and baptizing them.
Galatians 1:23,
- but they were hearing only, He who formerly persecuted us NOW preaches the gospel which he once tried to destroy.
h

Which gospel Grace ambassador did Paul once try to destroy?
A) the gospel of the kingdom. Peter preached in Acts 2:38 and to the gentile Cornelius in Acts 10:1-48.
B) the church gospel

Notice! The gospel Paul NOW preaches is the gospel he once tried to destroy.

But also,
Paul was water baptizing gentiles during the time he was commanded by the Holy Spirit to preach to the gentiles,
Acts 9:15,
- but the Lord said to Ananias, go, for he(Paul) is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before the gentiles, kings and the children of Israel

Acts 17:8,
- Then Crispus the ruler of the synagogue believed on the Lord with all his household. And many Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized.
Did you know the Corinthian church was made up of Jews and gentiles?
1Corinthians 1:14,
- I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.

Acts 26:20,
- but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea and then to the gentiles that they should repent, turn to God and do works befitting repentance.

Paul taught works in his gospel to the gentiles8.
Also Peter taught the same to the Jews,
Acts 2:38,
-Then Peter said to them, repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Also Jesus preached the same gospel Peter preached,
Matthew 24:14,
- and this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations and then the end will come.
Same gospel here Mark 16:15-16 ; Matthew 28:19-20 ; Luke 24:46-47.

That gospel of the kingdom is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
That same gospel Paul preaches now in his epistles which were preached later in his ministry.
2Thessalonians 1:8,
- in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the "church gospel"

2Corinthians 12:13 is not Holy Spirit baptism.
Paul is teaching water baptism but emphasizing the Spirits work that is involved.

The Spirit revealed the gospel through teaching.
1Corinthians 2:13,
- These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

The Spirit Himself is baptizing in 1Corinthians 12:13 but only by agency.
He is not directly baptizing them.

Jesus also baptized by His agency. His authority.
John 4:1-2,
- Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.
Though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.

Did Jesus baptize?
Yes, to deny this is to deny the Scriptures.
Yet He did not do the physical act of baptism.
Jesus baptized by His authority, His agency.

Likewise 1Corinthians 12:13,
Holy Spirit is doing the baptizing just as Jesus did.
Through His agency.
By the teaching of the Holy Spirit i.e.  word, is Paul and the other apostles baptizing in water.
1Corinthians 12:13,
- for by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body ....
Ephesians 5:26,
- that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.

This baptism is water not Holy Spirit baptism.

Did you know only Jesus Himself baptized His apostles with Holy Spirit baptism?

Mark 1:8,
- I indeed baptized you with water but JESUS will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Is Paul baptizing gentiles? Yes,
Therefore it cannot be Holy Spirit baptism because men baptize men in water.

Matthew 28:19,
- Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
This is Jesus' gospel the same gospel Paul is preaching.
Disciples baptizing men is water.
God directly baptized men with the HS.

Ephesians 4:5,
One Lord, one faith, one baptism
Must be water, for there is one gospel, Matthew 28:19. And that baptism is done by men.

 

[Titus]

FIRST of all – you are presuming that ALL Catholics are Baptized as babies.

I don't speculate, assume or presuppose.

I never said all Catholics. Quote me saying all Catholics are baptized as babies.

It is irrelevant because infant baptism is a false gospel.
This should be enough for anyone with an honest heart to know the Catholics do not teach the apostles doctrine, Acts 2:42.

Can you show me where the BIBLE teaches this?
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

Yes I certainly can!
The bible was completed. No more latter day revelation as the catholic church is ever evolving into new doctrines that were never taught by the apostles of Christ.

Galatians 1:6-7,
- I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel, which is not another but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Who can preach anything other than what the apostles had revealed to them through the Holy Spirit?
Does the catholic church teach doctrines that the apostles never taught in their gospel?
Yes
Ever evolving revelation from Catholicism!

Galatians 1:8,
- but even if we(apostles) or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

All the apostles are dead!

Revelation 22:18,19
- for I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book,
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the book of life from the Holy city and from the things which are written in this book.

1Corinthians 4:6,
- Now these things brethren I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written , that none of you may be puffed up on my behalf of one against another.

Deuteronomy 4:2,
- You shall not  add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

All we can speak is the revealed completed revelation of God.
Anything else is not Gods word,
1Peter 4:11,
-if anyone speaks let him speak as the oracles of God....
Colossians 3:17,
- and whatever you do in word or deed do all in the name of our Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.

Man has no authority to change add to or take away from the oracles of God!
Jesus has all authority.
Only He can decide what is and what will be written as the word of God,
Matthew 28:18,
- and Jesus came and spoke to them saying, ALL AUTHORITY has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
How much authority does that leave the catholic church to add to His revelation?
Answer, none

 

[St. SteVen]

Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

Some Christians hold to the belief that Spirit baptism replaces water baptism. I recently held to this belief but I reverted back to my old position that we are to water baptize others and be water baptized.

Never heard of anyone who understood the Baptism with the Holy Spirit to claim that it REPLACES water baptism.

I understand the Baptism with the Holy Spirit to be a subsequent experience to water baptism.

And lest anyone think I MISTAKE the Baptism with the Holy Spirit for the INDWELLING that comes
with a renewed relationship with God, I do NOT.

Acts 1:5 NIV
For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Grailhunter]

Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

Some Christians hold to the belief that Spirit baptism replaces water baptism. I recently held to this belief but I reverted back to my old position that we are to water baptize others and be water baptized.

The story of Baptism

Not addressing the Cessationist branch of Protestantism. Which beliefs vary as to the cessation of miracles after the biblical era….No miracles associated with Baptism, Communion, or God answering prayers, healings, and tongues. Not going to waste my time.

The Jews and the Christians were definitely not the first or only ones that practiced ritual bathing.

Mikveh….mikva'ot, mikvoth, mikvot, is a bath used for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism to achieve ritual purity.
“In general” In Judaism, most forms of impurity are thought to be purified through immersion in any natural collection of water. However, some impurities, such as a zav, require "living water", such as springs or groundwater wells. Living water has the further advantage of being able to purify even while flowing, as opposed to rainwater which must be stationary to purify. The Mikveh is designed to simplify this requirement, by providing a bathing facility that remains in contact with a natural source of water.
In Orthodox Judaism, these regulations are steadfastly adhered to; consequently, the Mikveh is central to an Orthodox Jewish community. Conservative Judaism also formally holds to the regulations. The existence of a Mikveh is considered so important that a Jewish community is required to construct a Mikveh even before building a synagogue, and must go to the extreme of selling Torah scrolls, or even a synagogue if necessary, to provide funding for its construction.

The Mosaic Law emphasized the need for God’s people to be clean, both spiritually and physically. The Israelites incurred various forms of uncleanness from which they had to purify themselves by bathing their bodies and washing their clothes.—Leviticus 11:28; 14:1-9; 15:1-31; Deuteronomy 23:10, 11 --- And priests and Levites were required, on pain of death, to wash their hands and their feet before approaching Yahweh’s altar. Exodus 30:17-21. To some degree this is ritual bathing but after the first Temple was built it is clear that ritual bathing was occurring because excavations have uncover about a hundred ritual baths around the Temple mount.

The Baptism of John the Baptist.

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark 1:4

And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins; Luke:3:3

“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. Matthew 3:11

So what does this mean?

1. It is clear that the Baptism of John forgave sins…..so much so that the Jews were concerned and eventually ask Christ where he got this authority.

Now if someone wants to debate what the phrase “remission of sins” means…..debate someone else.

2. It is clear that John was dunking people in the Jordan….so water is being used.

3. So if John’s Baptism in the Jordan used water and forgave sins, is there any reason to believe that Christian Baptisms were not done in water and do not forgive sins. The answer….NO.

4. Does the Bible say anywhere that water Baptisms were discontinued…or that baptism does not forgive sin….or that Baptisms are optional or not necessary? The answer ….No.

5. What about what John said about the one that would follow him (Yeshua) would Baptism them with fire? What about the Holy Spirit? John was probably prophesying the day of Pentecost….and certainly tongues of fire and the Holy Spirit was involved.

6. What about regular Christian Baptisms? Is the Holy Spirit involved with those? The answer…Yes. Acts 2:38 is as simple and clear as it can possibly be…Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This verse explains the process and the sequence.
1. Repent of your sins….repent of your sins and continue to sin at will? No. This is a commitment to try to stop sinning.

2. Be baptized in the name of Jesus (I would recommend Yeshua)…this act declares your faith in Christ, both publicly and spiritually.

3. For the forgiveness of your sins….this means your past sins are forgiven and you start out with a clean slate. From that point on, your sins are between you and Christ.

4. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Normal Baptism, normal faith, no if, ands, or buts, you will receive the Holy Spirit.

Discussion….

This is the process to be saved. For those that believe that you do not have to do anything to be saved….they are wrong. But if you think I am incorrect ….by all means try it and send us a postcard. The belief that you do not have to do anything but believe in Christ and you will go to Heaven no matter what you do not do or do is the favorite belief of the OSAS people…..Yuck!

Post 713 has a lot of scriptures associated with Baptism. Thank you @DJT_47.

Some of the scriptures are going define water Baptism and some are going to show the urgency they felt to do it. It appears that they would get Baptized in a mud hole if there was no other water around.

And on the topic of early Christian writings and water baptisms…..

The Didache
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Tertullian
“[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’” (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

Hippolytus
“The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism” (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).

The Recognitions of Clement
“But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).

 

[Grailhunter]

Cyprian of Carthage

“[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’” (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

So what happen during the process of Baptism? The Bible speaks of the “new man” and “born again”…. Jesus answered, I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.

Paul explained it further like this…Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:4

So….buried with Him through baptism into death, and raise to walk in the newness in life…so it appears that baptism is also symbolic of a resurrection as a new man. A new man (or lady) with a clean slate and a connection with the Holy Spirit.

Now for my own personal beliefs….

1. I see Baptism as a spiritual recognition that goes all the way to Heaven where the angels write your name in the Book of Life.

2. I see it as the adoption as a family member of the family of God.

3. I also see a physiological aspect to Baptism. A new person, born again, with no past that God remembers and a clean slate ….. nothing in your past to haunt you…nothing in your past that anybody or the devil can hold against you. Everything a head of you promises to be a wonderful relationship with God and on equal terms with all other Christians.

So then we get into spiritual Baptisms….Of course the phrase spiritual Baptism does not occur in the Bible. If it did we would not be having this conversation. So what does that look like? What is the process? Is it auto-dependant on something else? Does it have an outward expression?….is it just an assumed thing? As far as a person going to church and saying….I am going to do a spiritual Baptism…..Ya, I do not think so. Or a preacher on a pulpit saying, Folks were going to do a spiritual Baptism today…If I heard that in a church I would be expecting them to pull out some beads and rattles and start dancing.

Abnormal Baptisms….are they valid?

Infant Baptisms were controversial even in early Christianity. Maybe just like today some Christians saw Baptisms as non-spiritual…. simply a public or political demonstration, because eventually the Catholic Church started forced Baptisms of conquered Pagans. It is hard to say. As a belief it is tied to the false doctrine of original sin….Our baby has sin all over it! We got to get it washed off! Or sprinkled off! LOL But still the question is, what does infant Baptism do for the person….I have no idea, and I am glad I can say that. I was Baptized as an infant and I was Baptized in a Pentecostal Church at 18. And as far as I am concerned if you want to do an infant Baptism on your baby, that is the way to do it. Dedicate the Baby with a Baptism and let them decide to be Baptized later.

Baptized early and then Baptized late. Some would wait to get Baptized on their deathbed thinking they would go to Heaven with no sin, Constantine is said to have done that.

Water pouring on the head or sprinkling on the head was a form of Baptism for those that were too unhealthy to be immersed. Is it a valid Baptism? I have no idea.

Either way my recommendation is Acts 2:38.

Now as I have said, I favor the Holy Ghost churches. But some of them believe that the Baptism did not “take”or you are not saved unless you come out of the water speaking in tongues.

While I believe in tongues and have seen people come out the water speaking tongues, I do not believe it is necessary.

 

[Illuminator]

I don't speculate, assume or presuppose.

I never said all Catholics. Quote me saying all Catholics are baptized as babies.

It is irrelevant because infant baptism is a false gospel.
This should be enough for anyone with an honest heart to know the Catholics do not teach the apostles doctrine, Acts 2:42.


Yes I certainly can!
The bible was completed. No more latter day revelation as the catholic church is ever evolving into new doctrines that were never taught by the apostles of Christ.

Galatians 1:6-7,
- I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel, which is not another but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Who can preach anything other than what the apostles had revealed to them through the Holy Spirit?
Does the catholic church teach doctrines that the apostles never taught in their gospel?
Yes
Ever evolving revelation from Catholicism!

Galatians 1:8,
- but even if we(apostles) or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

All the apostles are dead!

Revelation 22:18,19
- for I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book,
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the book of life from the Holy city and from the things which are written in this book.

1Corinthians 4:6,
- Now these things brethren I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written , that none of you may be puffed up on my behalf of one against another.

Deuteronomy 4:2,
- You shall not  add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

All we can speak is the revealed completed revelation of God.
Anything else is not Gods word,
1Peter 4:11,
-if anyone speaks let him speak as the oracles of God....
Colossians 3:17,
- and whatever you do in word or deed do all in the name of our Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.

Man has no authority to change add to or take away from the oracles of God!
Jesus has all authority.
Only He can decide what is and what will be written as the word of God,
Matthew 28:18,
- and Jesus came and spoke to them saying, ALL AUTHORITY has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
How much authority does that leave the catholic church to add to His revelation?
Answer, none

I'm sorry you are so sadly MISINFORMED. There are no additions to public revelation in the CC,. Doctrines DEVELOP, they do not EVOLVE!!!

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?​

C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.
(God in the Dock, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, 44-47)

The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples:

• doctrines of the afterlife,
• the Trinity,
• the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son),
• the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament),
• the equality of Jews and Gentiles,
• bodily resurrection,
• sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc.

Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine.
READ MORE HERE:

Development Of Doctrine: A Corruption Of Biblical Teaching?

Doctrines agreed upon by all undergo development, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325; the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.

www.patheos.com

 

[Illuminator]

Infant Baptisms were controversial even in early Christianity. Maybe just like today some Christians saw Baptisms as non-spiritual….simply a public or political demonstration, because eventually the Catholic Church started forced Infant Baptisms were controversial even in early Christianity.

Two lies in one sentence. The only controversy over infant baptism was whether or not to baptize on the 8th day of life, which was the Jewish custom for circumcision. That matter was settled in the late 3rd century. Other than that, the CC has not changed its teaching for 2000 years.
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 – these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant – Col 2:11-12 – however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

There is rarely, if ever, any mention of the parents role, a critical component.

Forced baptisms have never been accepted as valid by the CC.
Nice quotes from the ECF, but, but you won't find ANY who oppose infant baptism. In fact, you won't find opposition to infant baptism until well after the Protestant Revolt. It was never a reformist issue. Luther and Calvin baptized infants. Clearly, adult only baptism is a tradition of men.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to understand infant baptism without a baseline understanding of Original Sin, a doctrine that is increasingly abandoned by relativist liberals.

To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin

The Church’s teaching on infant baptism flows from the Church’s teachings on original sin and the sacrament of baptism. Click here for an explanation.

www.catholic.com

 

[Gospel Believer]

actually yes they did, They just came at it from different ways depending on their audience.

That is just plain silly.

 

[Grailhunter]

Two lies in one sentence. The only controversy over infant baptism was whether or not to baptize on the 8th day of life, which was the Jewish custom for circumcision. That matter was settled in the late 3rd century. Other than that, the CC has not changed its teaching for 2000 years.
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 – these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant – Col 2:11-12 – however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

I will disagree on a few point here.....but I am not going to call you a liar....Turd Head.
It is a fact that not all agreed with infant Baptism.
Tertullian is the earliest to reference to the practice of infant baptism. He advised against it.

The Apostolic Tradition’s description of the ceremony of baptism shows that it was designed for those who were old enough to take an active part.

In fact, the confession of faith was so integral to baptism that, if a person could not confess the faith themselves, parents or someone else in the family would speak on their behalf.

A century after Tertullian, Cyprian advocated for infant baptism, although for many years this remained the exception to the rule of full immersion. Infant baptism did not become routine until the fifth and sixth centuries.

The Catholic Church is old put not 2000 years.

Baptism has nothing to do with Jewish babies that are 8 days old.....and all to do with choice.

And as far as forced Baptisms....do you want to talk about the history of Charlemagne and Otto I?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Never heard of anyone who understood the Baptism with the Holy Spirit to claim that it REPLACES water baptism.

I understand the Baptism with the Holy Spirit to be a subsequent experience to water baptism.

And lest anyone think I MISTAKE the Baptism with the Holy Spirit for the INDWELLING that comes
with a renewed relationship with God, I do NOT.

Acts 1:5 NIV
For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Most mid-Acts dispensationalists deny the need for water baptism today. The Grace Movement teaches that water baptism was a Jewish rite and that Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 is not for the church. They exclude water baptism on the basis that the only baptism needed today is the baptism of the Spirit, which occurs at salvation.

Source:

What is mid-Acts dispensationalism? What is the Grace Movement, and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

What is mid-Acts dispensationalism? What is the Grace Movement, and is it biblical? How is mid-Acts dispensationalism different from ultradispensationalism and classic dispensationalism?

www.gotquestions.org

This belief is not isolated to Mid Acts Type believers. Just do a search on Google.

 

[Grailhunter]

Most mid-Acts dispensationalists deny the need for water baptism today. The Grace Movement teaches that water baptism was a Jewish rite and that Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 is not for the church. They exclude water baptism on the basis that the only baptism needed today is the baptism of the Spirit, which occurs at salvation.

Source:

What is mid-Acts dispensationalism? What is the Grace Movement, and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

What is mid-Acts dispensationalism? What is the Grace Movement, and is it biblical? How is mid-Acts dispensationalism different from ultradispensationalism and classic dispensationalism?

www.gotquestions.org

This belief is not isolated to Mid Acts Type believers. Just do a search on Google.

This maybe true but just for giggles.....describe what a non-water baptism looks like.

 

[Illuminator]

I will disagree on a few point here.....but I am not going to call you a liar....Turd Head.
It is a fact that not all agreed with infant Baptism.
Tertullian is the earliest to reference to the practice of infant baptism. He advised against it.

First, Tertullian doesn’t reject the practice of infant baptism. He discourages it, but he doesn’t forbid it (that’s an important distinction, since it shows he viewed as possible).
Second, his basis for discouraging it isn’t because the young children don’t know Christ. It’s because he’s concerned that once they’re baptized, they’ll be damned forever if they fall into mortal sin. To understand why he was concerned about this, you need to know something about the controversy giving rise to a heresy called Novatianism.

The Apostolic Tradition’s description of the ceremony of baptism shows that it was designed for those who were old enough to take an active part.

AUTHENTIC Apostolic Tradition can be found on line. See my signature. I don't know what Apostolic Tradition you are referring to.

In fact, the confession of faith was so integral to baptism that, if a person could not confess the faith themselves, parents or someone else in the family would speak on their behalf.

Which explains why PARENTS role is crucial, a point ignored by those opposed to infant baptism.

A century after Tertullian, Cyprian advocated for infant baptism, although for many years this remained the exception to the rule of full immersion. Infant baptism did not become routine until the fifth and sixth centuries.

Cyprian of Carthage​

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

The Catholic Church is old put not 2000 years.

It's as old as the water and blood that flowed from His side on the cross. Don't tell me it started with Constantine.

Baptism has nothing to do with Jewish babies that are 8 days old.....and all to do with choice.

Col 2:11-12 disagrees with your relativist liberal opinion. Paul says baptism is the New Circumcision. Too bad you don't get the connection with the old circumcision as explained in post #792.

And as far as forced Baptisms....do you want to talk about the history of Charlemagne and Otto I?

It doesn't matter what Charlemagne or Otto I did, or the king of Spain. Forced baptism are invalid.
Try and explain why most Protestant baptisms are accepted as valid by the Catholic Church.

 

[Grailhunter]

First, Tertullian doesn’t reject the practice of infant baptism. He discourages it, but he doesn’t forbid it (that’s an important distinction, since it shows he viewed as possible).
Second, his basis for discouraging it isn’t because the young children don’t know Christ. It’s because he’s concerned that once they’re baptized, they’ll be damned forever if they fall into mortal sin. To understand why he was concerned about this, you need to know something about the controversy giving rise to a heresy called Novatianism.

I understand Christian history.
You have so many heresies running around.
There is not a lot of discussion about infant baptism and it fails common sense. Believing in Christ is a personal choice, Not the choice of your parents.
So it is like the people that say baptism is not required or Christ was just a guy.....you will have to find a scripture that says infant baptism is acceptable, because I see no reason for it to be acceptable.

 

[Grailhunter]

AUTHENTIC Apostolic Tradition can be found on line. See my signature. I don't know what Apostolic Tradition you are referring to.

Usually this is going to apply to the Bible.

Which explains why PARENTS role is crucial, a point ignored by those opposed to infant baptism.

They are not talking about infants.....someone that could not talk due to illness.

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Find this discussion in the Bible.

It's as old as the water and blood that flowed from His side on the cross. Don't tell me it started with Constantine.

The concept of the universal Church was before Constantine.....as far as an organized Church, that could exist out in the open, with church buildings, that occurred under Constantine's supervision, direction, finance, and protection.

Col 2:11-12 disagrees with your relativist liberal opinion.

It is not liberal, it is bibleical and factual.

Paul says baptism is the New Circumcision.

This sounds more like Calvinism.....lack of free-will. But baptism is like circumcision in that it denotes the entry into Christianity.
After the decision to believe in Christ and repentance.

It doesn't matter what Charlemagne or Otto I did, or the king of Spain. Forced baptism are invalid.

I do not see much difference in forced baptism and infant baptism.

It doesn't matter what Charlemagne or Otto I did

And it matters a lot what Charlemagne and Otto I did, because they were doing the will of the Church and protecting the Church.

And I do not see why the Catholic Church would not recognize Protestant baptisms, but at one point I know they did not.

 

[CadyandZoe]

NOT in the first part of the verse – only in the second part:

“Whatever you BIND (δήσῃς)…” “…will be held BOUND (δεδεμένον)”

Incorrect.

I DO study the Catechism.
And in NOT place does it tell what to believe.

Now you are lying to yourself.

It GUIDES me through the Scriptures and gives me 2000 years of constant living tradition with regard to Church teaching (Matt. 28:19-20..

As I said, your church teaches you what to believe. If you should learn the truth about what the scriptures actually teach, you would cease to be Catholic.

Yes, Jesus entrusted the Apostles – AND their successors.

Negative, there are NO successors.

Just as Judas had a successor to his office (Acts 1:20) in Matthias, they appointed Bishops for EVERY region that was being evangelized. And regardless of whether YOU agree with the office of Bishop or not is totally irrelevant. As I’ve already explained, Episkopay, means “Overseership”, means “Bishopric”. In fact, it is the very definition of Bishopric.

Judas didn't hold an office. Judas and the other 11 were hand picked apostles of Jesus Christ. These men served as eye witnesses of what Jesus said and what he did. In addition, these men spoke authoritatively for Jesus as his ambassadors. Matthias was a candidate chosen to take his place because he was with the group since the beginning and traveled with them wherever they went.

No man today can qualify to be an apostle on that basis.

Also, Matthias was chosen by lot; and as far as I know, that's the last we hear from him. Paul, on the other hand, was chosen by Jesus Christ and he ends up writing over half of the New Testament.

As for Catholic dogma – I’m not aware of ANY errors.

There are lots of errors. Chief among them is your pagan view concerning the Eucharist. What Jesus meant figuratively, you take literally and through a magic spell, allegedly turn the bread into the body of Christ.

Finally – I said that your depiction of God as the Lord of Confusion simply borders on blasphemy since the Scriptures paint Him as the God of Order.

Typical sophistry. All you did was repeat a fallacious argument, which you heard somewhere. It isn't original to you and you don't seem to understand it. And you are swimming in a fish bowl.