I know there have been countless arguments about the acceptable mode of baptism biblically.

While some say immersion is the only acceptable mode, Others believe pouring and sprinkling are also acceptable.

Christians what's your take on this?. Opinions have to go with scriptural backing o not just dogmatic ideas.

BAPTISM DOES TAKE ANYBODY TO HEAVEN. IMMERSION BAPTISM WHICH JESUS CHRIST WENT THROUGH AS A TYPICAL JEW IS THE JEWISH WAY OF BAPTISM. ANY DENOMINATION OR RELIGION MAY ADOPT THEIR OWN SYSTEM OF BAPTISM AS THE BIBLE WAS NOT SPECIFIC ON WHAT TYPE OF BAPTISM WE SHOULD BE PRACTISING.

Baptism comes from a Greek word that means to dip or immense.
It is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
One is dipped into the water to represent death and burial and raised from the water to represent resurrection.
As Christians we do not choose or invent our own ordinances we follow the example of Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 4.5 One Lord, one faith and one baptism.
We can't be baptizing in different ways

Tcwork:
Baptism comes from a Greek word that means to dip or immense.
It is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
One is dipped into the water to represent death and burial and raised from the water to represent resurrection.
As Christians we do not choose or invent our own ordinances we follow the example of Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 4.5 One Lord, one faith and one baptism.
We can't be baptizing in different ways

But if we are going by the meaning of baptism. Does that meaning also apply to Baptism of the Holy Spirit?.....

Where is the Holy Spirit dipping into

freshboi88:


But if we are going by the meaning of baptism. Does that meaning also apply to Baptism of the Holy Spirit?.....

Where is the Holy Spirit dipping into

That is a different topic. Remember a man must be born first by water and then by the Holy Ghost.
Baptism by water means to be dipped into water while baptism of the Holy Ghost is done by the laying of hands by the presbytery.
I guess it's really simple to understand
Come to think of it, when Jesus sent outo his apostles to baptize do you think each was baptizing according to his own style. Maybe Peter would be making the sign of the cross with water, Paul would be sprinkling and James would be giving people water to drink?
No, they all followed the examples of the Savior. I wonder why modern Christian's must change the ordinances of Christ.
Read Isaiah 24.5 to see the curse that follows changing the ordinances of God.

Read also Romans 6.4
Colossians 2.12
Acts 3.38... tells you that they went down into the water to be baptized
Why do you think John choose River Jordan to baptize? John 3.23 states it's because there was much water. He did not need much water to sprinkle did he? And we learn from Mark1.10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Here we learn Christ was coming up out of the water...do you need more to understand that he was dipped.
So I ask you, would you follow the example of Jesus Christ or choose to follow some Christian denomination? Who would you follow.
I do not think any church has the right to change the ordinances of God. What do you think?

In my first post, I quoted Ephesians 4.5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
If u understand this verse, you would know that Christ did not institute various modes of baptism. It was man that did. He did not command one church to sprinkle and another to make the sign of the cross.
Now why is this important?
Paul taught the corinthians in 1cor1.9-10God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
As Christians their should be no divisions we are to be of the same mind... the same teaches and doctrines. Perfectly joined together
In Christianity, we do not have 2 forms of baptism

Tcwork:

That is a different topic. Remember a man must be born first by water and then by the Holy Ghost.
Baptism by water means to be dipped into water while baptism of the Holy Ghost is done by the laying of hands by the presbytery.
I guess it's really simple to understand
Come to think of it, when Jesus sent outo his apostles to baptize do you think each was baptizing according to his own style. Maybe Peter would be making the sign of the cross with water, Paul would be sprinkling and James would be giving people water to drink?
No, they all followed the examples of the Savior. I wonder why modern Christian's must change the ordinances of Christ.
Read Isaiah 24.5 to see the curse that follows changing the ordinances of God.

You cannot say that is a different topic because the same word is used "Baptize". So why does scripture use baptize for for the Holy Spirit when there is no action of dipping or immersing.....do you get the point?.......I am coming from the angle of the meaning of the word and why it is used in that context

But what was the example of the savior, was his baptism by immersion?....can u provide scriptural proof that his baptism was by immersion?

Tcwork:
Baptism comes from a Greek word that means to dip or immense.
It is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
One is dipped into the water to represent death and burial and raised from the water to represent resurrection.
As Christians we do not choose or invent our own ordinances we follow the example of Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 4.5 One Lord, one faith and one baptism.
We can't be baptizing in different ways

So why is this greek word also used for the Holy Spirit. Does it have a different meaning when used in the context of the Holy Spirit?

Tcwork:
Read also Romans 6.4
Colossians 2.12
Acts 3.38... tells you that they went down into the water to be baptized
Why do you think John choose River Jordan to baptize? John 3.23 states it's because there was much water. He did not need much water to sprinkle did he? And we learn from Mark1.10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Here we learn Christ was coming up out of the water...do you need more to understand that he was dipped.
So I ask you, would you follow the example of Jesus Christ or choose to follow some Christian denomination? Who would you follow.
I do not think any church has the right to change the ordinances of God. What do you think?

1.The presence of water does not mean that immersion took place. You are making assumptions and putting your own interpretation.

2. Matt 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

@ bolded shows that you are making another assumption. Because if you read without bias you will see clearly that the coming up out of the water does not imply immersion. This is because coming up out of the water happened after the baptism had taken place. Pretty Clear!!!!

As soon as Jesus was Baptized. Baptized is a past tense. Indicating that an event has already taken place.

freshboi88:


You cannot say that is a different topic because the same word is used "Baptize". So why does scripture use baptize for for the Holy Spirit when there is no action of dipping or immersing.....do you get the point?.......I am coming from the angle of the meaning of the word and why it is used in that context

But what was the example of the savior, was his baptism by immersion?....can u provide scriptural proof that his baptism was by immersion?

Your question is already answered
BAPTIZO
The word "Baptism" is a transliteration of the Greek word BAPTIZO which means to immerse. So that should satisfy you. But if you are not, do your own study.

Now if you choose to translate baptism of the Holy Ghost as being immersed in the spirit, I would not question that.
You keep asking where baptism by immersion is mentioned but the very word means immersion.

Or do you have another definition for bsptism?

freshboi88:


1.The presence of water does not mean that immersion took place. You are making assumptions and putting your own interpretation.

2. Matt 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

@ bolded shows that you are making another assumption. Because if you read without bias you will see clearly that the coming up out of the water does not imply immersion. This is because coming up out of the water happened after the baptism had taken place. Pretty Clear!!!!

As soon as Jesus was Baptized. Baptized is a past tense. Indicating that an event has already taken place.

To me this is clear, he came up out of the water simply because he was dipped into the water. How much clearner can that be. If water was sprinkled on his head he wouldn't need to come up from that would he?

Question for you,how do you think Jesus was baptized?

Tcwork:

To me this is clear, he came up out of the water simply because he was dipped into the water. How much clearner can that be. If water was sprinkled on his head he wouldn't need to come up from that would he?

@ bolded1 I particularly love your choice of word. "To you". You see what u choose to believe. But scripture is scripture.

@bolded2. You are inferring. The scripture doesn't tell us how the baptism was done. To know let's examine the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch
.

36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! (M)What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water

At first glance does it look like the eunuch was immersed yes!. But does the scripture tell us that No!.

@bolded, They both went down into the water, if went down into the water means immersion, then both Philip and the Eunuch immersed themselves. If came up out of the water, like u said in the case of Jesus means he must have first been immersed, then it means Philip too immersed himself.

Because from this scripture, what ever the eunuch did, Philip did too. And U and I know that this is not the way baptism is done. Like in the case of Jesus, how the baptism was done was not stated.

This is undeniable proof that u r simply inferring and interpreting based on your preconceived opinion not necessarily what scripture says.

Do you have a counter opinion to the case of Philip and the Eunuch?

We could make this simple, since you don't agree that baptism means to immerse and according to you, the bible never told us what baptism means then it's best you don't do what you don't know.
From what you are saying, the act of baptism has been lost. No one can tell what it is or how it was done.
Note pls since baptism actually means to immerse, the scripture wouldn't say baptism by immersion.. it would be like saying immersion by immersion
And I agree with you to an extent, a lot of gospel practice's were lost or changed after the death of Christ and his apostles.
Baptism clearly was one of them.
I choose to believe baptism for what it is, to dip or immense. I choose not to get confused and to follow the example of Jesus Christ.
And as I tried to explain the other time, if you describe baptism of the Holy Ghost as been dipped or covered by the Holy Ghost, you would be perfectly right. Baptism by water then becomes simple for you to understand as being dipped or covered by water

Tcwork:
Question for you,how do you think Jesus was baptized?

The Bible didn't state so. It is wrong to say it was done by immersion because that's what I believe. Let's examine the water baptism of Cornelius. The first gentile baptism.

Then Peter said, [b[47“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water.[/b] They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

When this statement was made it was in the house of Cornelius. And there was no mention of a body of water. But Peter still said nothing can stop them from been water baptized. This is a clear contradiction from your first stance that a pool of water must be present.

Again notice that how the baptism was done was not stated. It could have been by pouring, sprinkling or by immersion.

But one thing is certain there was no body of water when Peter made this statement....read the full chapter and tell me if u agree. God bless you!

Tcwork:

Your question is already answered
BAPTIZO
The word "Baptism" is a transliteration of the Greek word BAPTIZO which means to immerse. So that should satisfy you. But if you are not, do your own study.

Stop trying to win the arguement and be open minded.

If u infuse the meaning of the word into every situation where it is used.

Then tell me what form of immersion is done with Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Tcwork:
Now if you choose to translate baptism of the Holy Ghost as being immersed in the spirit, I would not question that.
You keep asking where baptism by immersion is mentioned but the very word means immersion.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit does not signify immersion in anyway. One is not immersed in the Holy Spirit, rather one is filled by the Holy Spirit.

I think u should stick to the new testament, scriptural usage of the word baptize rather than the classical Greek meaning of the word.

Cos from its usage to describe the outpouring and overshadowing of Holy Spirit. It clearly has nothing to do with immersion

freshboi88:


1.The presence of water does not mean that immersion took place. You are making assumptions and putting your own interpretation.

2. Matt 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

@ bolded shows that you are making another assumption. Because if you read without bias you will see clearly that the coming up out of the water does not imply immersion. This is because coming up out of the water happened after the baptism had taken place. Pretty Clear!!!!

As soon as Jesus was Baptized. Baptized is a past tense. Indicating that an event has already taken place.

So coming out of water means sprinkling of water in the synagogue or cathedral.
Baptism means immersion, the disciplines have learnt from this from the Saviour and that is what the Bible teaching churches are doing.

freshboi88:


Baptism of the Holy Spirit does not signify immersion in anyway. One is not immersed in the Holy Spirit, rather one is filled by the Holy Spirit.

I think u should stick to the new testament, scriptural usage of the word baptize rather than the classical Greek meaning of the word.

Cos from its usage to describe the outpouring and overshadowing of Holy Spirit. It clearly has nothing to do with immersion

Water baptism is different from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They are two different topics. So don't miss them up Sir.

worldfezzy:

Water baptism is different from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They are two different topics. So don't miss them up Sir.

I am not. I know their difference. I am only trying to explain the meating of baptism.
If you read all my earlier comments, you should understand where I am coming from.

freshboi88:


Baptism of the Holy Spirit does not signify immersion in anyway. One is not immersed in the Holy Spirit, rather one is filled by the Holy Spirit.

I think u should stick to the new testament, scriptural usage of the word baptize rather than the classical Greek meaning of the word.

Cos from its usage to describe the outpouring and overshadowing of Holy Spirit. It clearly has nothing to do with immersion

If you want to be consistent with your argument let's see how it goes.
I agree with you that baptism by the spirit means to be filled by the spirit so from your reasoning baptism by water would mean to be filled with water or simply to drink enough water.
I tried to explain to you that being baptized in water is quite different from being baprized by the Holy Ghost but you continue to compare the two.
If we keep doing that when would it ever make sense.
I thinks it's clear enough, baptism mean to immerse.
Baptism by water is a physical act of dipping in water.
Baptism by the spirit is a spiritual act. No physical action is needed one if filled with the spirit.
2 different acts.

worldfezzy:

Water baptism is different from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They are two different topics. So don't miss them up Sir.

Do this two different topics use the same word Baptize. Yes!...

The fact that they are two different topics change the meaning of the word Baptize?

If it does...then that means To Baptize doesn't always mean to immerse

If it doesn't, then it means one is immersed in the Holy Spirit. And that's not scriptural

So can u explain from the stand point of the meaning of the Word Baptize

Tcwork:

If you want to be consistent with your argument let's see how it goes.
I agree with you that baptism by the spirit means to be filled by the spirit so from your reasoning baptism by water would mean to be filled with water or simply to drink enough water.
I tried to explain to you that being baptized in water is quite different from being baprized by the Holy Ghost but you continue to compare the two.
If we keep doing that when would it ever make sense.
I thinks it's clear enough, baptism mean to immerse.
Baptism by water is a physical act of dipping in water.
Baptism by the spirit is a spiritual act. No physical action is needed one if filled with the spirit.
2 different acts.

I don't fancy emotional and sentimental arguements . Provide superior arguements that's scripture based.

I do like straight forward discussions. What is your point exactly with saying there are two different acts.

Are you saying the Word baptize means a different thing in the case of the Holy Spirit?

because if u r not, then u have to lift the Greek meaning of the word and explain to me how it fits into the context of the Holy Spirit.

quote author=freshboi88 post=96781024] I know there have been countless arguments about the acceptable mode of baptism biblically.

While some say immersion is the only acceptable mode, Others believe pouring and sprinkling are also acceptable.

Christians what's your take on this?. Opinions have to go with scriptural backing o not just dogmatic ideas.

Jesus didn’t command you to be baptized, so it’s unnecessary. Water baptism was just a shadow or typology of the Holy Spirit baptism. Once the real deal appears, the shadow must disappear.


“But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭13:10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬




The Bible affirms there’s only one baptism

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:4-5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Every cardinal ordinance, including water baptism, was to point to Christ.

Therefore, every of those ordinances must cease to be after the death and resurrection of Christ.

freshboi88:


I don't fancy emotional and sentimental arguements . Provide superior arguements that's scripture based.

I do like straight forward discussions. What is your point exactly with saying there are two different acts.

Are you saying the Word baptize means a different thing in the case of the Holy Spirit?

because if u r not, then u have to lift the Greek meaning of the word and explain to me how it fits into the context of the Holy Spirit.

Funny you have not a single scriptural argument. I have given you some that you refuted.
And I only used your argument against you.
I think you have been sentimental from the beginning but it does not matter.
The Bible belongs to all of us. You dont not expect all the quotations to come from me.
It would be nice if you explain you form of baptism from the Bible also. I would gladly listen and learn from you.

I have given your argument some thought and I think I can understand you more now. You seem to be saying that the Bible failed to explain the process of baptism. Hence no one knows how baptism should be performed or the act of baptism is forever lost.
This school of thought would be 100% correct if baptism does not imply immersion.
But if baptism implies immersion as I profered, then we can continue to follow in that Wise tradition of heaven.

Tcwork:

Funny you have not a single scriptural argument. I have given you some that you refuted.
And I only used your argument against you.
I think you have been sentimental from the beginning but it does not matter.
The Bible belongs to all of us. You dont not expect all the quotations to come from me.
It would be nice if you explain you form of baptism from the Bible also. I would gladly listen and learn from you.

I gave u the baptism of Cornelius and his house hold. U did like u did not see it bro

madegreatbygrace:




Jesus didn’t command you to be baptized, so it’s unnecessary. Water baptism was just a shadow or typology of the Holy Spirit baptism. Once the real deal appears, the shadow must disappear.


“But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭13:10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬




The Bible affirms there’s only one baptism

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:4-5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Every cardinal ordinance, including water baptism, was to point to Christ.

Therefore, every of those ordinances must cease to be after the death and resurrection of Christ.

Wrong interpretation of scripture.

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues b and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Read 47, after the Holy Spirit had fallen on them, Peter still water baptized them. So your point is nullified

quote author=freshboi88 post=96898846]

Wrong interpretation of scripture.

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues b and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Read 47, after the Holy Spirit had fallen on them, Peter still water baptized them. So your point is nullified

Before you start jumping up and down, note this.
The problem most Christians have is that they don’t read the Bible together. Reading the Bible together means reading the whole book from Genesis to revelation consistently, so as to get a better understanding.

Kenneth Hagin once said this:

“ You can’t build a doctrine around the book of acts because the narratives revolve around a young church that had not fully understood the finished work “.


I totally agree with him on this.

Why?

Because the early church didn’t get everything right at the early stage. It is an eyewitness account and not a book of revelation which can be used for doctrines. They made mistakes. They learnt, unlearned and relearned.


Examples?

“But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10:35‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

I’m sure Peter had wished he didn’t make the above statement because God doesn’t accept those who WORK righteousness. He accepts those that have faith in Christ Jesus.

I could give you more instances where they initially got it wrong.


Now consider this:

“I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭1:14-17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

What!

A whole Apostle is thanking God he only baptized a few. He went on further to say Christ didn’t send him to baptize. This is when the full revelation came, when they finally realized the significance of water baptism.