[Unknown008]

And I would like to have the answer from the opposite opinons concerning Baptism does NOW SAVE..

If you feel is does not SAVE, then what about scripture that says it does?

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

If you're referring to me as well, I'll say that I first believe that we are saved when we accept Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The only thing that made me stumble on that is the case when someone does not have time to get baptised (although he was on the point to do so) and dies. Is he saved? You already answered that too, nobody except the Lord knows.

[JoeT777]

Wait wait wait. I was talking of water baptism, as the 'part' water baptism. I was referring only to the part of baptism, which is water baptism. I know that only Jesus baptizes by the Holy Spirit, and I have clearly said that in previous posts. I was only saying that water baptism is done by man, the baptism of the Holy Spirit by Jesus. Baptism, as a whole, does require both baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit.

A sacrament is an exterior** action ('work' in your vernacular) of an interior change instituted by God. Baptism is a sacrament. Christ mandated baptism – see Matthew 28. The interior change is the spiritual graces that work with the free will and conveyed by the Holy Spirit.

As stated above (Question 62, Article 1), sacraments derive from their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ was baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we consider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this sacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and Resurrection. First, because Christ's Passion put an end to the figurative sacraments, which were supplanted by Baptism and the other sacraments of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is "made conformable" to Christ's Passion and Resurrection, in so far as he dies to sin and begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to man his obligation of conforming himself to Christ's Death and Resurrection. St. Thomas Aquinas , The Summa Theologica III, 66,2 SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The sacrament of Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 66)

As stated before, a sacrament has two parts, matter and form. The matter is water, the form is “In the name of the Father… etc.”

There aren't 'two baptisms' – one symbolic by a priest, another done by the Holy Spirit. Rather only one baptism with both water and Spirit as stated by St. Chrysostom, “Whom indeed the water has its operation; in the same manner our Lord also is said to be anointed, not that He had ever been anointed with oil, but because He had received the Spirit.”

JoeT

[Unknown008]

I'm still confused... in all the cases that I have seen, there is one moment for baptism by water, and another distinct moment by the Holy Spirit. Why not both at the same time, making one whole baptism?

[sndbay]

If you're referring to me as well, I'll say that I first believe that we are saved when we accept Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The only thing that made me stumble on that is the case when someone does not have time to get baptised (although he was on the point to do so) and dies. Is he saved? You already answered that too, nobody except the Lord knows.

This is why Christ was not baptized at birth, but rather was taken and presented to the Lord.

Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord)

No one seems to acknowledge the fact that this is written.

[JoeT777]

I'm still confused... in all the cases that I have seen, there is one moment for baptism by water, and another distinct moment by the Holy Spirit. Why not both at the same time, making one whole baptism?

That's what I said. One baptism - the rite and the spiritual change

JoeT

[Unknown008]

But that's what I was saying too Joe... :(

[sndbay]

I'm still confused... in all the cases that I have seen, there is one moment for baptism by water, and another distinct moment by the Holy Spirit. Why not both at the same time, making one whole baptism?

I trust it is done that way when the individual follows Christ/The Word. Confessing the begotten Son, surrendering to God's will, and baptism by water and Holy Spirit.


Edit: to add

1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

In the name of Father+ Son + Holy Spirit

[JoeT777]

but that's what i was saying too joe... :(

Oops

[JoeT777]

This is why Christ was not baptized at birth, but rather was taken and presented to the Lord.

Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord)

No one seems to acknowledge the fact that this is written.

How do you know the reason why Christ wasn't baptized at birth? He was circumcised on the proper day. Then why isn't circumcision required for salvation? The reason why he was baptized by John was to institute baptize as an entry into the Messianic Kingdom.

[sndbay]

How do you know the reason why Christ wasn't baptized at birth? He was circumcised on the proper day. Then why isn't circumcision required for salvation? The reason why he was baptized by John was to institute baptize as an entry into the Messianic Kingdom.

The reason Christ was baptized by John was to suffer it as fulfillment of surrendering to do the Will of God in righteousness

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Circumcision was the covenant of blood OT, and we today are circumcised of Christ

Col 2:9 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ

Baptism was not ordained until John the Baptist was sent by God as the great prophet calling to the people to come be baptism. (John was Christ's cousin only 6 months older the Christ at his birth)

Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.


Why does the church baptize babies? Do you feel they do it because of the change from circumcision and so baptism replaced it? I don't, Because circumcision still take place by the heart of worship and faith in Christ.

[JoeT777]

Help me understand why Christ, the Messianic Lord of the Kingdom of God, would need to 'surrender to do the Will of God'.

The reason for Christ's baptism was to fulfill the Old Testament law and prophesy; as He said, “I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill the law". Paraphrasing St. Chrysostom, it's here we see the reasons for John indulgence. It's here and during Christ's passion do we see the doors to the Church open, the veil rent, and the Holy of Holies exposed to man. Offering Himself as the manna of life, Christ eclisped the renewal baptism that merely renovated Jew's soul, transforming Baptism to the rebirth of a new spirit of Christian soul. “Not until then, assuredly, were either the heavens opened, nor did the Spirit make His approach. Because henceforth He leads us away from the old to the new polity, both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12 - my emphasis) It's in this verse of Matthew that we are “born again”. Unless a man Baptism, “he has not salvation … For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism so that we will become the adopted sons of God in a personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life.

JoeT

[arcura]

I agree that God is involved in every valid baptism but also is the hand of man and it must be done as Jesus instructed in the name of the Father and the Son and The Holy Spirit. And with water.
Also that an entire household can be baptized as has been done many times over the ages. That's mom, dad and the kids.
That is what I believe and the reason is that the bible tells me so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[sndbay]

Help me understand why Christ, the Messianic Lord of the Kingdom of God, would need to 'surrender to do the Will of God'.

JoeT

Joe,

What I believe is that Our Father in Heaven sent HIS begotten Son.(the soul of who Christ was). And Christ Jesus was born of blood and water. The blood of man that walked this earth was born of HIS mother Mary, and the spiritual body that He was was born of water the Holy Spirit. As a flesh man, Christ walked the same path that we are to walk doing the Will of the Father. As the Son of God given to die for our sin, Christ was raised to sits on the right hand of the Father.

Acts 2:32-33 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.


For us to follow Christ

Matthew 20:3 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

May God reveal the spirtual body of awareness

John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

We had no hope of the Holy Spirit until Christ gave up the Spirit on the cross from His flesh body.

1 Corinthains 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Understand that is how by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that our Inward Bodies can be renewed daily.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man

2 Corinthians 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

Eph 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man

May the Spirit rest within ~in Christ

[balardcarl]

You must ynderstand that Jesus answer to Nicodemus was to the question of being born a second time. Nicodemus had ask how that could be. Jesus response had nothing to do with baptism. Born of the water (natural birth) born of the spirit (second birth). I went to seminary and was taught that it referred to baptism but when yopu put it in proper context as to the question being answered, it is an entirely different matter. Is baptism important? Yes, but to use this passage as proof is to take it out of context.

[balardcarl]

I'd like to respond to something said by SNDBAY. It was the statement "The blood of man that walked this earth was born of HIS mother Mary...". It is a well known fact that the childnever carries the blood of the mother but always the blood of thwe Father. This was one of the reasons a Virgin birth was essential. The flesh was from Mary but the blood was the blood of the Father (God, Himself). So the blood that was shed for the sins of mankind was north human blood but Divine.

[JoeT777]

I'd like to respond to something said by SNDBAY. It was the statement "The blood of man that walked this earth was born of HIS mother Mary...". It is a well known fact that the childnever carries the blood of the mother but always the blood of thwe Father. This was one of the reasons a Virgin birth was essential. The flesh was from Mary but the blood was the blood of the Father (God, Himself). So the blood that was shed for the sins of mankind was noth human blood but Divine.

I don't think it is biologically correct to say that the blood of a child is derived from the father. I would suggest that both flesh and blood of the child comes from the mother. The father contributes DNA which triggers embryonic growth.

What we can say however, is that if believing in the Trinity we become obliged to hold Mary Immaculate as imperative to Christianity (beyond papal decree). The Holy Trinity is God the Father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit; three Persons in a perfect unity as one essence of God. Christ is One Person with two natures perfectly joined, God/Man. Christ is God (uncreated) born of woman, i.e. man. Consequently, Christ is wholly God and wholly man, God/man. The prophecies of the Old Testament tell of God's plan that the Messiah is God (uncreated) born of a virgin woman (creature). Thus, the only way He can be wholly God, and perfectly a whole man, is to be born of woman who is the new Eve before her fall – sinless, i.e. the Immaculate Mary. Therefore we can view Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. Deny the Blessed Virgin Mary as Immaculate is to deny Christ as either God or man and fails to acknowledge Him as Theandros. Consequently, a sublime faith brings us to the improbable; a woman with child who is the perfect union of both God and man, Mary literally full of grace.

JoeT

[sethcferguson]

Where do we read that baptism is a "symbol" and is something not to be taken literally? We are baptized because Jesus commanded it (Matt. 28:19), and after his death, disciples and apostles practiced this very thing. If baptism were nothing but a "higher level" of belief, as it seems some would have us believe- then why is there ALWAYS a distinction made between BELIEVING and BEING BAPTIZED? (Acts 18:8, etc.)Even though that argument alone could hold it's own- Acts 8:35-39 clarifies everything for reader, and leaves no room for error. I believe God knew beforehand, (being the all knowing God that He is),. that confusion might eventually occur as to what "baptism" really is. (as seems to be the case today) Therefore He graciously provided for us the account of the Ethiopian being baptized. And we read that he received Jesus in his heart and became symbolically baptized... I think not. Sorry for the sarcasm-- but look at this step by step process of baptism taking place in Acts 8. You will find after reading the account that there is no denying what took place on this occasion. Therefore, what we find and read in Acts 8 provides the Christian with a reference point for what we should do today. There is a physical action taking place. It is FULL immersion under water. (as he came up out of the water vs. 39) Now scripture like Romans 6 gives us some clarification as to why God thought it appropriate to use the physical act of baptism as an agent unto salvation, as does 1 Peter 3:21. It makes sense. The action of baptism represents Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, NOT a symbol representing a symbol.