Posted on 10/06/2015 10:35:57 AM PDT by envisio
I have read a little and did some research on baptism and if there is a need to get baptized as an adult after being baptized as a child.
I looked for the Church’s standing on it and I looked for scripture written about it. My research left me with the half-baked conclusion, in the eyes of the Lord, one only needs baptized once.
I was baptized as a small child without any realization of what was happening. In the 40 years to follow there were plenty of times I was lost, sinning, doing the devils deeds with the liquor and the drugs and the whores and on all fours in the parkinglot puking only to repeat it again the next day for years in my 20s. I never got into any real trouble; no felonies or violence, just drunken antics of a stupid 20something year old. Of course, as we get older, we settle down and put away our childish behavior to be adults. In no way will my wild youth define my legacy since then.
Recent events have tested my faith and questioned a merciful God. Ultimately those events brought me closer to God, and it was my wife’s wish that I completely give my life to Christ. She did and I am quite sure she is sitting by His side right now, praying that I do the same.
I am a sinner. I have confessed my sins and asked for forgiveness. I have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. I want to complete it with water. I want to get baptized again, but I don’t want it to be vain. I don’t want to do it for myself as a vain show that’s not necessary just to make me feel better. I want to do it because God wants me to do it.
So, since you folks are far more learned on the teachings of the bible, and FReepdom is unmatched in advice dealing with church and God, my question is… Even if the original baptism was done at a time when I did not know what was happening… Is a second baptism common? Is it vain? Will it make me complete in my transition to being born again? Is it necessary?
Mr. Copeland used at least 2 dozen different experts and sources. To disagree with him is to disagree with them, and ultimately (and unfortunately for you) to disagree with God.
Please reconsider the Church of Christ position on baptism. To teach that is is not necessary is akin to teaching repentance is not necessary. I leave you with another cut and paste from post 198.
c. Since the conjunction kai "and" joins the two commands
together, what is said of one command applies to the other
1) If they were to baptized "because of" remission of sins...
2) ...then they were also to repent "because of" the
remission of sins!
d. This would present two problems
1) Where else are people told to repent "because" their
sins are already forgiven?
2) Peter would have failed to tell them what to do to
remove their guilt!
Ananias is a saint and an unimpeachable witness in the book of Acts. When one casts aspersions on his veracity casts them on Saul/Paul as well, for it is Saul/Paul, not to mention the Lord Jesus who told Saul to go to him for instruction, who is giving the account here. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Acts, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verses seven to sixteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
bold emphasis mine
Not quite. "For" can and does here mean "on the basis of" as one of its implementations in English. Doing his/her best the translator translates, the interpreter interprets, and the translator tries not to take on the task of interpreting. That is why I went back to the Greek and enunciated on what is permitted for this broad word "eis" from Wittman's "The Gospels: A Precise Translation" in its Glossary regarding the preposition εἰς, citing from The Greek Lexicon second revised version by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, which devotes five columns to this word and its uses.
To rest your argument on the English is not a wise approach. To translate this as "so that" or "in order that" (which is what you want) is to choose a meaning in context that would not occur to the Greek-speaking brain of the first-century follower of the Jesus whose baptism of them only inducted them into discipleship. Baptism did not obtain salvation for them. Only belief in His work substituting for them did that. Actually, Peter was not converted even the night before Jesus was crucified, was he, even though he was baptized not only by John Baptiser, but by Jesus at he beginning of his training?
Now why would Peter even imagine that baptism of water would produce salvation as its effect on the spirit of the one baptized? And what if, as often seems to happen, the one baptized just walks back into his old patterns and never demonstrates conversion, but reversion. Were his sins really remitted? Does he have to be baptized again if he is to avoid the Lake of Fire? Oh, my, what a mess you have if your theory is of the Gospel. As well as losing your salvation. Etc.
You can bring up all the scholars you want, but they can never supersede the Holy Scripture, which explains itself. Remember, the primary target audience of the New Testament was the Greek-speaking Gentile, who never heard pf English. It is the context communicared in Greek of what this disciple has learned about the mind and culture of Christ that effects a correct interpretation of Peter's use of εἰς in this exclamation, not consorting to a centuries-later "scholar" who himself is prejudiced by his own viewpoint.
I'll go with the way Jesus used εἰς in Matthew 12:41 as fitting the doctrine of salvation by faith, not by works.
I see you are making your way through this thread. By now, I hope you have read (post 198) the 2 dozens scholars, experts, commentators and more who pick apart your one dimensional use of the word eis as it applies to Matthew 12:41.
And I hope you picked up on the comments I cut and pasted in post 201. If not - here they are again....
Please reconsider the Church of Christ position on baptism. To teach that is is not necessary is akin to teaching repentance is not necessary. I leave you with another cut and paste from post 198.
c. Since the conjunction kai "and" joins the two commands
together, what is said of one command applies to the other
1) If they were to baptized "because of" remission of sins...
2) ...then they were also to repent "because of" the
remission of sins!
d. This would present two problems
1) Where else are people told to repent "because" their
sins are already forgiven?
2) Peter would have failed to tell them what to do to
remove their guilt!
What you need to do is read Acts 9:17-18 and see which happened first, Paul's sins being forgiven or his baptism.
Paul was healed and the Holy Ghost conferred such that baptized on the basis of sins already forgiven, as a subsequent operation.
. . . such that he was baptized on the basis of sins already forgiven . . .
You would like to infer that, but the logic of it is:
Repent(confess and forsake sins, and He that is righteous and just will abandon your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness, 1 Jn. 1:9 applied), and now being inwardly cleaned, be ritually externally purified by baptism on the basis of sins already confessed and remitted.
What's your problem with that syntax?
“Mr. Copeland used at least 2 dozen different experts and sources. To disagree with him is to disagree with them, and ultimately (and unfortunately for you) to disagree with God.”
Truth is never based on how many people you can find who say the same thing.
To disagree with 2 dozen hand-picked “experts” that agree with one position is not to disagree with God. It is just to disagree with the 2 dozen people the author preferred.
For the record, I also disagree with the “97% of Scientists” who bought into global warming.
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.”
- Luther, before the Diet of Worms
Rather than get off it, one should embrace the written word in Acts, which is able to save one's soul if one has faith as a little child, and abstain from teaching or promoting modern doctrines which contradict Acts. At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
Matthew, Catholic chapter eighteen, Protestant verses one to four,
James, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses nineteen to twenty seven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Deal with that, before careening off into some other rabbit trail.
Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
______________________________________
There’s that word eis again. “Because of”, huh?
So. Jesus went and shed his blood AFTER (because of) the sins had already been forgiven?
Who says Ananias’ words were impeachable? Paul says that is what he said, and, though hearsay, Ananias did say that. But that does not have any sense of imparting a contradiction to the facts of Acts 9, does it? Nor is there any implication of what he said as being inspired. Even Peter said a lot of things that were uninspired by God, though the telling of the scenario in which he lied was inspired.
The Lord actually appeared to Saul and spoke real words, words that told him to go to Damascus where someone would tell him everything he must do. Blessed Ananias was that someone, according to Saul, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It is unprofitable to cast aspersions on Ananias' veracity in telling Saul everything he must do, for in so doing, one denies both Saul, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. That is dangerous modernism.
You impeached Ananias when you wrote: "Acts 22:16 is an iffy procedure proposed by Ananias before Paul’s formulation of his own gospel as taught personally by the Lord Jesus Christ. Ananias’ words were not necessarily inspired words, although the history of him saying them is inspired and inerrant."
It most certainly is...To prove the point Paul, in the 'church epistles' never tells anyone to repent...No once...He teaches people to 'believe on Jesus Christ'...
Repentance is a change of mind...A change of direction in thinking and belief...Repentance is NOT quitting smoking or chasing after loose women...
Repent
μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.
You use Acts 16:30-33 to show that no one has to repent to get baptized; to get saved...But you ignore verse 34 (Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.) where it says EVERYONE believed...That eliminates the possibility that there were any babies there...
The jailer asked, Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
And what was Paul's response??? Did Paul say you must repent??? Did Paul say you must perform penance??? Nope...Did Paul say you must be baptized to be saved??? Nope...Here's what Paul said:::
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Any one who subscribes to another formula for the church is a deceiver...
you can post all you want, it still doesn’t change the fact that Baptism is not required for salvation... do you not see that you are cherry picking to try to prove a moot point.
if you accepted Jesus today and wasn’t able to get to a pool for your outward public admission of accepting Jesus and be baptized, are you suggesting you wouldn’t be saved?
Per Catholic Tradition. Eucharist is not in the Bible and can confuse those that don’t know what that is
I'm not going to debate this any further with you.
Where does it say Paul repented before he was baptized?
If you have been made spiritually alive in Christ, transformed from death to Life, and are complete in Christ, what more could mere water on the flesh do for you? Seek those things which are above!
The religious wrongly divide the Word, attempting to apply ceremonies and introduce traditions that have no place in the Body of Christ. Rightly divide God’s Word, and stick to His Truth. There is only One Baptism - a spiritual one in this Age. It is done exclusively by God and not by man. Being dunked or sprinkled will not make you any more righteous, and in fact, may introduce doubt into your life, and that is the real danger. I suffered from uncertainty for years over this before I found Peace and Truth in God’s Word. It is our FAITH that pleases God, not water activities. And faith comes from hearing His Word. (Romans 10:17, Hebrews 11:1 & 6)
Believers are COMPLETE IN CHRIST. They are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. A Believer is part of the Body of Christ, with Jesus as the ONLY Head. A Believer is a child of God, joint heir with Jesus, and Blessed with all Spiritual Blessings. Rejoice in this reality and let nobody, religious or otherwise, steal your confidence in Christ or your Joy. We have reached the point where what Jesus promised the woman at the well is fully realized. - John 4:23-24 (AMP) - 23 A time will come, however, indeed it is already here, when the true (genuine) worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth (reality); for the Father is seeking just such people as these as His worshipers.
24 God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).
We have God’s Truth and the Holy Spirit inside. We are made in His image and can fellowship with Him as reborn, spiritually alive children.
Note Paul’s clear Revelation as to what you were before, what you are NOW, and who is responsible for this transformation and why it was done. Note also what part you played. It amazes me religious folks miss this.
Ephesians 2:4-10 (AMP)
4 But God—so rich is He in His mercy! Because of and in order to satisfy the great and wonderful and intense love with which He loved us,
5 Even when we were dead (slain) by [our own] shortcomings and trespasses, He made us alive together in fellowship and in union with Christ; [He gave us the very life of Christ Himself, the same new life with which He quickened Him, for] it is by grace (His favor and mercy which you did not deserve) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ’s salvation).
6 And He raised us up together with Him and made us sit down together [giving us joint seating with Him] in the heavenly sphere [by virtue of our being] in Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
7 He did this that He might clearly demonstrate through the ages to come the immeasurable (limitless, surpassing) riches of His free grace (His unmerited favor) in [His] kindness and goodness of heart toward us in Christ Jesus.
8 For it is by free grace (God’s unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ’s salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;
9 Not because of works [not the fulfillment of the Law’s demands], lest any man should boast. [It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it or take glory to himself.]
10 For we are God’s [own] handiwork (His workmanship), recreated in Christ Jesus, [born anew] that we may do those good works which God predestined (planned beforehand) for us [taking paths which He prepared ahead of time], that we should walk in them [living the good life which He prearranged and made ready for us to live].
In Colossians 2, Paul puts the hammer down. Believers are COMPLETE IN CHRIST. He writes of a spiritual circumcision, a Spiritual baptism through faith, in contrast with all the rudiments of the world - all the religious rituals and ordinances that lead to bondage. These were a “shadow of things to come.” Believers died with Christ from ceremonialism - whether Jewish in origin, or simply paganized Christianity, it matters not. There is no glory in the flesh, only in the Lord. All the ceremonies and rituals do in this age is divide the Body. Note the silly squabbles over infant baptism, immersion versus sprinkling, etc. A proper understanding of the spiritual new birth ends ALL works of the flesh, and all religious bondage. You could perform religious ceremonies all day and every day, and still be a spiritual baby. You need continual fellowship with the Holy Spirit and a steady diet of God’s Word, storing it in your heart, while renewing your mind with His Truth.
This is strong meat, but it will transform your life. We are identified with Christ in death. And raised with Him to new life. THIS Baptism is NOT MADE WITH HANDS.
Colossians 2:10-14 (AMP)
10 And you are in Him, made full and having come to fullness of life [in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—and reach full spiritual stature]. And He is the Head of all rule and authority [of every angelic principality and power].
11 In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, but in a [spiritual] circumcision [performed by] Christ by stripping off the body of the flesh (the whole corrupt, carnal nature with its passions and lusts).
12 [Thus you were circumcised when] you were buried with Him in [your] baptism, in which you were also raised with Him [to a new life] through [your] faith in the working of God [as displayed] when He raised Him up from the dead.
13 And you who were dead in trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh (your sensuality, your sinful carnal nature), [God] brought to life together with [Christ], having [freely] forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 Having cancelled and blotted out and wiped away the handwriting of the note (bond) with its legal decrees and demands which was in force and stood against us (hostile to us). This [note with its regulations, decrees, and demands] He set aside and cleared completely out of our way by nailing it to [His] cross.
Can you see it! Hallelujah!! How could any religious ceremony top that?
And then Paul makes it even more clear. Believers are done with the outward show, the religious trappings that have a form of godliness but deny the power. (2 Timothy 3:5) Prayerfully read this last passage with regard to the topic at hand.
Colossians 2:16-23 (AMP)
16 Therefore let no one sit in judgment on you in matters of food and drink, or with regard to a feast day or a New Moon or a Sabbath.
17 Such [things] are only the shadow of things that are to come, and they have only a symbolic value. But the reality (the substance, the solid fact of what is foreshadowed, the body of it) belongs to Christ.
18 Let no one defraud you by acting as an umpire and declaring you unworthy and disqualifying you for the prize, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions [he claims] he has seen, vainly puffed up by his sensuous notions and inflated by his unspiritual thoughts and fleshly conceit,
19 And not holding fast to the Head, from Whom the entire body, supplied and knit together by means of its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20 If then you have died with Christ to material ways of looking at things and have escaped from the world’s crude and elemental notions and teachings of externalism, why do you live as if you still belong to the world? [Why do you submit to rules and regulations?—such as]
21 Do not handle [this], Do not taste [that], Do not even touch [them],
22 Referring to things all of which perish with being used. To do this is to follow human precepts and doctrines.
23 Such [practices] have indeed the outward appearance [that popularly passes] for wisdom, in promoting self-imposed rigor of devotion and delight in self-humiliation and severity of discipline of the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh (the lower nature). [Instead, they do not honor God but serve only to indulge the flesh.]
Believers are spiritually minded, they have the mind of Christ.
Colossians 3:1-4 (AMP)
1 IF THEN you have been raised with Christ [to a new life, thus sharing His resurrection from the dead], aim at and seek the [rich, eternal treasures] that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
2 And set your minds and keep them set on what is above (the higher things), not on the things that are on the earth.
3 For [as far as this world is concerned] you have died, and your [new, real] life is hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, Who is our life, appears, then you also will appear with Him in [the splendor of His] glory.
Final thought - Paul states that there is ONE Body, ONE Spirit, and ONE Baptism. If there is only ONE Baptism, there cannot be two. You must either agree with God’s Word, or with religion. Oh, and there is only ONE HEAD of the Body, religion has messed that up as well.
Ephesians 4:4-6 (AMP)
4 [There is] one body and one Spirit—just as there is also one hope [that belongs] to the calling you received—
5 [There is] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of [us] all, Who is above all [Sovereign over all], pervading all and [living] in [us] all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.