Sermon - Baptism In The Early Church
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 мар 2022
- Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video.
You can get more at apologiastudios.com :
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get our TV show, After Show, and Apologia Academy, etc. You can also sign up for a free acount to recieve access to Bahnsen U. We are re-mastering all the audio and video from the Greg L. Bahnsen PH.D catalogue of resources. This is a seminary education at the highest level for free.
#ApologiaStudios
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Instagram: apologiastu... 
Развлечения
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Visualizer)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Eminem - Tobey (feat. Big Sean & Babytron) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9xn0OHEZZ8Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to support Apologia Church and watch more content like this? Subscribe to Apologia All Access!
ean.link/bahnsenu
How is it not possible that these baptism instructions refers to new believers in Christ and not necessarily meaning that therefore since infants can't follow these instructions, infants can't be baptized?
Every serious student of the Bible should avail himself the book "Classic Baptism by James W. Dale" and "Meaning and Mode of Baptism by Jay E. Adams"
Such a blessed teaching
Good stuff
Learn a lot tq
Broken Wharfe is republishing Stander and Lowe this year in the UK.
Thank you
Eusebius was the one of two books i wanted this year. Im a weirdo though
The earliest church records leans with credo baptist( believers baptism) view, but with baptismal regeneration view (baptism is moment of salvation). To add we also don’t see original sin till Austin’s of hippo. Many say infant baptist is to resolve original sin, but the earliest church has many references of viewing new horns as innocent and coming in an empty slate from any sin or understanding.
Would it be weird if I moved to Phoenix just so I could be a part of his Church? I love this pastor! Also, was I supposed to fast before being baptized?! I definitely did not do that.
I suspect several have had that thought
If you’re able and really want to, why not??
@@jeremyjohnson4106 I'm not able. Just fantasying lol
@Timothy Pilipos Right. But there wasn’t a Bible then, so it may have been commanded but not written. Probably best to do what the Church did, no?
2nd London Confession 22.5 could be said to suggest it: "solemn humiliation, _with fastings,_ and thanksgivings, upon special occasions, ought to be used in an holy and religious manner".
It would have been nice if he would have addressed the notion that Justin Martyr seems to support baptismal regeneration.
33:35 An argument from silence is not saying that something happened despite there being no direct evidence of it; it's actually the opposite: claiming that something did not happen because there are no sources that mention it, which is exactly the argument Dr. White used against infant baptism.
I appreciate that he stated that people study Church history with a bias. He certainly has a bias that blinds him to things he himself said and showed.
The early Church unanimously believed that baptism regenerated, that they were born again, saved by baptism, through the promise given in those waters.
Thus houshold baptisms with none excluded by age. Thus the surety of the Ethiopian after baptism, went away rejoicing.
Jews who circumcised their babies the 8th day, and those who brought their babies to Jesus to be blessed (Whom Jesus said forbid them not to be brought to Him to be blessed) were not instructed against baptism of babies, on the contrary, the gift is for your children and as many as the Lord calls. He promises the Spirit in baptism, that same Spirit that John the Baptist received while yet in his mother's womb.
Infant baptism, or any age restrictions, were NEVER discouraged in the early church. Even the Didache didn't forbid baptism for the young and infants. It was an instruction for those who became believers through the hearing of the gospel. It wasn't needed for the infant who was brought by the faith of those Christians who want life for their children. "Forbid them not" should still ring in the ears of those who would restrict little ones from being blessed in the waters of baptism.
Salvation is God's work, God's gift in Christ. Faith trusts God's promise. Baptism gives this promise Acts 2:28, 1 Pe 3:21, Acts 22:16. Otherwise your faith is believing in your own believing.
Do you see how Naaman the leper was healed dipping in the waters of the Jordan? That's where the word was put for him, in those waters. It was quite a miracle wasn't it? Baptism is a greater miracle where God actually does something for you; He saves you. He unites us with, and in, His death. The thief on the cross was given the word of promise from the Living Water, the Word, God in the flesh. We are given that same promise, the Word in the waters of baptism. God puts His Name on you there. It's an adoption and more than that even.
"Baptism now saves you" in 1 Pe. 3:21 means what it says.
That's very clear, isn't it? But there are many whom are not content with the simple promise in the word of God so they listen to the twisted interpretations of the serpent.
The clear scriptures:
In the day you eat of it you shall surely die. (The lie: You shall not die...)
This is My Body given for you. (The lie: It's not His Body...)
Baptism now saves you. (The lie: Baptism doesn't save you...)
Humm, are you seeing how the twisting is done? Mankind loves their ideas of god, but not God. The truth is, mankind loves the lies and loaths the Bread from heaven.
Naaman boasted of better waters in Syria, his homeland. "We have better ways than God", we think. But his servant spoke wisely, Why not hear the word of the prophet.? "Why not simply wash and be clean?"
What great assurance we have in the promise of God. It is a chasing after the wind to put faith in your own faith?
You will never have enough obedience. You will never have enough faith, enough repentance, enough, of all that you need when looking at yourself.
God's grace is sufficient, because Jesus given to us by those means God gives Himself to us, through word and sacrament, is sufficient.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal 3:27)
Or you can say "It isn't so" and keep chasing the wind.
Very important topic since I grew up in the Greek Orthodox Church. So learning history is a big deal considering the Orthodox Church gave us the Bible (as they say)
Does anyone have an answer to this, I hear often that our feelings cannot be a basis in which spiritual matters can be concluded because feelings in humans can be flawed(if I’m getting the argument right, one person can feel to do harm and think it is right but another will think doing good is right so it isn’t a consistent basis of inference), how does this differ from human logic at all or specifically trying to use logic and reason to convince someone the Bible is true. If just the mere ability of different feelings can be different disqualifies it, how does this differ from logic and reason? Thanks
I’m not trying to prove that feelings are a way to display truth, I’m using that specifically as an example. Feelings can be inconsistent from human to human just as logic is, it’s questioning the veracity of consistency itself.
If you’re not going to use reason, what would you use??? Jesus specifically said the love God with all of your mind as part of the greatest commandment. I would suggest that looking at the context of the verse in question is going to help a great deal. There is also the context of the writer and writing and the recipients and what is going on at the time. Next, try looking up a word or topic and see what the Scriptures say from Genesis to Revelation in context. By doing all the above, you can make some conclusions as to what you need to understand. The problem I have noticed is that too many people will take one or two verses out of context and teach or latch on to them as if that’s all there is to understand. Romans 10:9-10 have been taken out of context and have led to many people misrepresenting what Paul is saying. Not a good or valid way to understand Scripture.
Who is this pastor and how can we hear more about the history of the early church? Thanks
James White. Check out the Dividing Line. He has a show, he knows Greek and Hebrew and has done many debates. He's very well versed in the Bible.
If you search for him on sermon audio you will find a whole series on church history
Dr. White’s app, Alpha and Omega Ministries, is great too.
His name is Dr. James White. Here is a link to a playlist of him teaching through Church history: ruclips.net/p/PLJFEiE4GKkvC-Wd0ABjmz_2o_T3gTTINO
@@gch8810 Wow! Thank you very much for sharing this playlist!
Was anyone able to find Baptism in the Early Church, by H. F. Stander, J. P. Louw?
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:23
Jesus lives
Jesus Christ is Lord
Jesus loves you repent
You're a sinner in need of a Savior
Amen
He died for you on the cross
Actually, book burning can have its place...cf the Acts of the Apostles.
He makes it seem as if justin martyr didn’t teach baptismal regeneration and then quotes him talking about how john 3 is talking about baptism. That’s weird
The Church taught Baptismal regeneration. And they learned it from the Apostles. It is the Truth.
Correct. James White couldn't resist citing that passage as apparently excluding infant baptism because Justin says baptism is not like when one's parents gave birth without one's choice, but Justin clearly believed someone is born again at the moment of baptism.
Towards the beginning of his next sermon on church history he explains that Justin Matyr believed in baptismal regeneration.
ruclips.net/user/livetYmTiSGgtWM?feature=share
I pronounce Didache as Dai-duh-ki because we pronounce Niobe the same way (Nai-o-bi). Fight me.
Who is this pastor, and how can we learn more about the early church's history?
This is Pastor Dr James White, elder at Apologia Church.
@@amberaldrich5720 It's a bot copying from others' comments. don't bother.
Become Orthodox.
Pastor this is Alfie Mendaje. For God glory. Apologize chuch is my Church
Baptism washes away sins . Read the conversion of Saul , Paul in Acts 22:16
ALL Early Church Fathers, ALL of them associated being Born Again with water baptism
Read the Book of Concord, the Large Catechism. On Holy Baptism, Lutherans have it correct all day.
I think the Bible is crystal clear that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and the receiving of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit
But what baptism. The Bible is crystal clear that baptism by the washing of water isn't what matters, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit is. And as for receiving the indwelling, what about Acts 10:44-48 where gentiles are indwelt before baptism.
@@vibeauxssxuaebiv3489 The baptism of the Holy Spirit happened twice, first to the Jews (Acts 2) and then to confirm the Gentiles (Acts 10) and was the fulfillment of a prophecy. I don't see anywhere where the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the same as the indwelling you receive at water baptism.
I'll Stick with RC Sproul for now.........
Btw the circumference of the earth is only 40,000 km.
The Didache doesn't seem anything like the scriptures, so I have a hard time believing that the Apostles wrote it. For example "Any prophet who orders a meal in Spirit will not eat from it" It also contradicts scripture and a big example is that the Bible tells us that Jesus is our high priest, replacing previous priesthoods, but the Didache says "Take every firstfruit of the winepress and of the threshing floor, of your oxen and of your sheep, and give as the firstfruit to the prophets, for they are your high priests."
Generally speaking, the Didache reads more like Monty Python.
None of the baptisms in scripture allow for a narrative that includes a day of fasting before the baptism. I hate to say it, but Calvinists are major offenders when it comes to "traditions of men" and if a day of fasting before baptism evolved from traditions of men, then Jesus didn't speak well of that sort of thing.
Calvinists nowadays are usually Biblicists, who agree with portions of Calvin. Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the prime authority, not Calvin.
@Timothy Pilipos I think his whole point was that it did carry weight, especially because (and I'm not yet accepting this as truth) he claims it dates back to the first or second century. So, you have to ask yourself: if it claims to be the teaching of the apostles, is that true, or is it misinformation from the enemy of Christ?
But, you can't spend a lot of time making arguments from a text, and then say it is nothing. There are a lot of people in the audience there that could be spending their time with education on non-speculative text (the Bible).
@@Bibliotechno I like so much about the reform church, but Calvinists in my opinion are most like gnostics with their "secret knowledge" because they are so incredibly sure about what the Bible does not say even though they acknowledge people who they respect hold opposite views. If those positions are so widely rejected by respectable men, and they are not directly written about in the Bible, why are they so sure and dogmatic? The Calvanist that I have spoken to are also very much into "traditions of men" that Jesus spoke against: it is a criteria they use for truth (has the church held this position traditionally, and we all need to make these confessions and hold to these confessions and demand people who attend our fellowship or get baptized make these confessions...
@@mlauntube What "secret knowledge"? Calvinists have been some of the most open about exactly what they believe, producing several Confessions, Catechisms and Canons laying out their beliefs explicitly so that it can be thoroughly reviewed and argued. Meanwhile, most critiquers hide in the shadows and only accuse without offering a better alternative, probably because if their own theology was exposed to that much light, it would be too obviously unbiblical. Calvinists welcome being challenged biblically, and despite what you claim, they generally take the position that all not directly written falls under adiaphora.
I'd direct your attention to the Westminster Confession 1.10 to show context around traditions of men. Traditions aren't bad per se, and they do carry some weight for us as yours do for you, but we explicitly recognize that they must be in submission to scripture as the ultimate standard by which all matters of faith are judged. We don't place anything above scripture, not even our confessions.
Here's the thing, if you are the first person in 2000 years of church history to ever read a passage of the Bible a particular way, we think that should be met with extreme caution. We don't think it is wrong merely because it is different or new, but we would demand a higher burden of scriptural proof before just tossing out 2000+ years of understanding. Yet as noted, those making such grand claims rarely if ever actually develop their ideas to that point, let alone are open enough to fully examine their beliefs. If they did, most of the time it would be revealed as an ancient heresy long since examined and rejected by the church for being contrary to scripture.
@@oracleoftroy I'm sorry, I was unclear. The parallel with the gnostics was that there was something revealed to them that others could not see. The Calvinist that I have spoken with and have seen on long debates with other Christians that they admittedly respect, they believe that they understand the "mysteries" because they studied so hard. Where their opponents generally claim that the inner workings of the eternal (predestination for example) remain a mystery. I remember the tongue lashing that Job got for being presumptuous, and I think that is a good life lesson for those who tip-toe through the T.U.L.I.P.
John MacArthur is the one Calvinist who I think has a good balanced view, but other Calvinists may frown on his exposition as compromised:
ruclips.net/video/d-yGpkq1PVw/видео.html
Man. It isn’t that hard guys. Receive the gospel, repent and be immersed in water for the remission of sin. That is really it. Simple. The Ethiopian did it with Philip. Easy.
If only it was that simple
@@evancase6101 It is. There are 8 clear examples in Acts of folks like you and me coming to Christ via the simple gospel message. The Ethiopian nobleman and Philip is my favorite. The Ethiopian pleaded with Philip to immerse him into Christ when they approached water. Philip would not until he was sure the nobleman understood. There is not a single example of babies being immersed. Not one. Zero. People receive the good news and respond . That’s it. The “household” argument is not valid. We can take each case where households respond if you’d like. Read Jer 31 regarding the New Covenant. This might help. If you were baptized as an infant do you remember it? Why not do it again? This time you submit. You make the call, not your parents or a priest in fancy drab. You.
@@regularguy3202 There are no examples of people being baptized in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit but there is an example of being baptized in Jesus Christ name only so should we only baptize in Jesus name despite Matt 28? Where’s the example of a christian family raising a child in the lord but rejecting the sign of the covenant? Why would discontinuity randomly happen without being addressed after 2000 years?
@@evancase6101 In 1 Cor 1 Paul makes it pretty clear whose name people were immersed in back in the day. How much of the Old Law is being preserved in churches today? Incense, musical instrument, special robes and hats for “priests,” separation of regular folk and the priestly order, special days, and of course the baptism of babies like the circumcision of infants in the Old. Philip would not immerse the Nobleman until he had his confession of faith. John’s immersion was one of repentance and so was Christ’s. Infants cannot repent and to “baptize” them via proxy is not proper. Children are to be taught the truth and when they are old enough to “know the right from the wrong” they make the call. I believe the evidence supports this view more than the other.
@@evancase6101 Evan the verses often used to compare circumcision to baptism is Colossians 2.9-14 or so. Please go there . Reading those verses of course the context is the “circumcision of the heart.” We also see that imbedded into baptism here is an awareness of the sinful nature (the repentance demanded in both John’s and Christ’s immersion). Do you see this? These verses dovetail Romans 6 quite nicely. We are buried with Christ in our baptism and we come up out of the water a new creation-and we have an awareness of it. I’m not asking you to change churches. Just consider these things. The fact that people coming to Christ and becoming part of the body of Christ are “aware” of it. It is a decision. See also New Covenant predicted by Jeremiah (ch 31). Peace.
Read your Bible. If you trust God, obey it.
This is a nice chat, but i hope he doesn't think this is preaching.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Look at every passage containing the word "baptize" and consider the possibility that many modern Christians do not know the difference between John's baptism and the baptism from Christ found in Luke 3:16.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Baptism is with water. That has always been the case, and has always been believed by the Church.
@@bradleyperry1735
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
@@SpotterVideo How does that in any way refute water baptism?
@@bradleyperry1735 It shows that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a part of the salvation process, while water baptism is not.
What is the most important baptism in Luke 3:16?
@@SpotterVideo No. It doesn’t. It shows that you interpret Scripture to suit your presupposition. The early Church did not believe whatever nonsense it is you’re spouting.
White rails against scholars reading their positions into texts and then immediately reads in his protestant baptist positions into the Didache and Justin Martyr. Classic.
You are in error, I see you have not studied Justin Martyr.
@@timrosen1618 lol, I've studied enough to know that Justin Martyr does not agree with James White on baptism.
@@rroymartin Obviously, you have not. “Lol”
@@rroymartin Where is White wrong on Martyr?
James White is wrong on all counts in regards to the early Church. As are all Protestants. Become Orthodox.
I LOVE James White but boy this has to be the worst sermon on the topic He is going back and forth on History we can trust it but we can't trust it all to defend His theory of baptist
He misrepresents Oneness Pentecostals when he says that "they think Matthew 28:19 is a 'later edition'" to Scripture. We believe that Matthew 28:19 is in perfect harmony with the rest of the New Testament and that all the apostles, especially Peter, heard these words spoken from the mouth of Jesus. That is why when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost he says in Acts 2:38 "Repent, therefore, and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of JESUS. He understood the true nature of who Jesus was. The name (singular) of the Father is Jesus (I come in my father's name-John5:43, If you have seen me you have seen the Father (John 14:9), the name of the Son is Jesus (literally translated Jehovah has become our salvation), and the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus (the Holy spirit, who the father will send in my name - John 14:26). Therefore, Jesus is the name that Peter in Acts 2:38, along with Acts 8, Acts10, Acts 19 and Acts 22 correctly baptized in. I'm not trying to be argumentative with what Dr. White believes, just wanted to correctly express what Oneness Pentecostals believe theologically. Colossians 1:19 "For it pleased the father that in him all the fullness should dwell." Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." When you have Jesus, you have it all!!! God bless.
Many of you do actually teach this. Mostly scholars. I’ve ran into them myself. Please note that every verse you’ve recited is completely relevant to the Triune God. To be Baptized in Christ is to baptize in the Triune God. To be baptized at all is to be first have a spiritual baptism, the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit. Christ is not a manifestation of God, he is God the Son, and the gospel isn’t dependent on your works, but by His. Turn from the Oneness Pentecostalism and it’s doctrine that gives you a false god and gospel
In his book, The Oneness of God, David Bernard does assert that there is a “strong possibility” that passages like Matthew 28:19 were later additions to scripture. See chapter 10 of his book. Yet he offers no support for this assertion. So I believe Dr White is absolutely correct with his statement that Oneness Pentecostals make the later addition claim. Having spent years in a OP church I’ve certainly heard it argued myself.
@@jeremyjohnson4106 I respect your reading and interpretation of scripture. I don't however understand how I follow a false God. If you believe that Jesus was fully God and fully human then we worship the same God, God the father in creation, God the son in redemption, and God the spirit in action as he dwells in us. Where we differ is that OPs believe that Jesus is the highest revelation of the one true God of the Shema and that he doesn't need to be explained by a philosophically-based and flawed concept, but by the scripture itself. If Peter said to baptize in Jesus name in Acts, then I want to do that because I trust Gods infallible word more than church councils to tell me who God really is. Also, I believe we have the same gospel. It's summed up in Acts 2:38. When we repent we are taking part in Jesus death, when we are baptized in Jesus' name we are taking place in his burial (just as Noah was saved by water), and when we are filled with the holy ghost we are resurrected to new life. I've obeyed the gospel of Jesus and it has utterly changed by life. The sinner's prayer never did, reformed theology never did, but obeying acts 2:38 delivered me from addiction because I finally had the power of the Holy Spirit living inside of me. I would beg anyone to do the same that is unable to break free from the chains of sin. Jesus is able to heal and set free.
@@jermarkjee We must worship God in Truth John4:24. If you do not have the true Jesus, you do not have the Father. 1John2:23. There are many false apostles and teachers who give a different Jesus 2Cor11 and is warned about. You believe that Jesus is the Father in deity, and sin in His human nature. You believe that Jesus is the son only in the sense of His human nature - When the Bible teaches that the Son was with God (the Father) before the foundation of the world John16:28, John1:1, 1John1:1-4, 1John5:7. By taking ALL of Scripture into account, we see that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, yet there is 1 God, and yet, the Son was sent FROM the Father to become human John16:28,Phil2:1-10. To say that the triune God is “philosophical based and a flawed concept” is an unbiblical statement copied from heretics who deny orthodox Christianity. The very fact you say that my God is a flawed concept agrees that we have 2 different Gods. After all, my life and faith is in the 2nd person of the triune God. Not a 2nd manifestation of God. It’s modalism, and it has been deemed heresy ever since it first came out in writing in 180-200AD by praxeas, refuted by tertillian.
Because of your view of OP, you will be brought up learning about the councils in an ahistorical way, along with much of church history. I encourage you to read church history objectively and not with a strong OP bias, you’ll find that the church had these councils to combat heresy as acts15 had to.
Because I’ve said so much already, I will not go into the heretical view of baptism and Acts2:38 as taught by oneness. I prove you have a different gospel by simply showing you have a different and false jesus. Just like all other cults of Christianity (Yes, Oneness Pentecostalism was deemed a cult when it broke off from the Pentecostals and Assemblies of God denomination) just like you would say we’re all of the devil who deny your way of baptism and god (if you disagree you need to read some of your best scholars bendard, Baxter, Davis, etc)I encourage you friend to look back in Matt 3, Luke 3, Mark/John 1 with the baptism of Jesus. Where the triune God is clearly seen and experienced by the believers of that time. Blessings
If you haven’t seen it already, I’d suggest the debates between Dr White and Roger Perkins. Oneness teaching is simply not consistent with NT teaching.
ruclips.net/video/U-KMGuXCs-c/видео.html
Notice how Saul became Paul wasn't by OT or Jews nor mans religions, more like light brighter that wakes man not reading, Gal :1:11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul was free but acted like everyone he preached to and was baptized not because it was needed nor any thing else's outside.
How to Be Baptized Without Getting Wet
When most people think of baptism they think of water. Whether it be immersion, sprinkled, splashed, or sprayed, they think water has something to do with it.
Did you know the Bible teaches it is possible to be baptized without getting wet?
Consider John the Baptist. That he baptized with water is clear (John 1:31; Mark 1:5). Everyone John baptized got wet.
However, in Matthew 3:11 the only man to be called Baptist in the Bible identifies two other baptisms that do not include water.
“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:” - Matthew 3:11
The Holy Ghost is spiritual and so is not made of water, and I’m pretty sure the baptism with fire would evaporate any moisture left on anyone who participates in that fiery furnace (Isa 4:4: Mal 3:2).
Then there is the baptism of the nation Israel unto Moses in 1 Corinthians 10:2. They walked across the sea on dry ground and the Egyptians who were dunked in the water drowned.
After Jesus was baptized with water by John, he spoke of another baptism for himself which would end in his death. The only water involved in the death of Jesus was that which flowed out of him (John 19:34).
“But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” - Luke 12:50
Many Baptisms: Some Dry, Some Wet
There are many different baptisms in the Bible and most of them are dry.
Baptism has become synonymous with water baptism, but baptism does not mean water. A better definition would be how someone is identified with something.
This is why Paul describes a baptism into the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Everyone who is saved by the gospel of Christ today is identified with the Lord in his second baptism unto death.
“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” - 1 Corinthians 12:13
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” - Romans 6:3
Baptism into Christ is identification with Christ. We become crucified with Christ without ever touching water (Gal 2:20).
(Mark 1:4). In the present dispensation of grace, our sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ through his death.
There is only one baptism Paul says is necessary in the church, and it does not include water or a priest to perform it. It is performed by the operation of God when we believe the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ (Eph 4:5).
“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” - Col 2:12
If you think baptism must always include water, then you are a little wet behind the ears.
Baptism does not require water, there are many examples in the Bible, and the one baptism you need does not require a single drop.
One baptism. With water. Read the creed. Know the creed. Live the creed and you live in harmony with Christ’s Church, His Body.
@@bradleyperry1735 I say, one baptism. With the Holy Ghost. Read the bible. Know the bible. Live the bible (and NOT the doctrines of man aka creeds) and you will actually be IN the body of Christ and not have to settle for merely living in harmony.
People have been questioning God’s authority since the beginning and have replaced him with the authority of corruptible men.
For many denominations councils, creeds, and catechisms of the church are lifted up to a position of ultimate authority over the Bible. For the Roman Catholic religion the Magisterium is the final word on matters of truth just like the Reformed religion has John Calvin and his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Though creeds and catechisms can be useful for the preservation of truth, they cannot create truth. The bible is truth and the word of God, the creeds are just mans attempt to summarize that truth. Man's creed is fallible, God's word is not.
@@mysteryofchrist7287 Not Roman Catholic. The Creed preceded the Bible. It is the fullness of the Christian doctrine, and everything you believe as a Protestant stems from the creed, and from the Roman church.
The “traditions of man” don’t apply to Christ’s Church, which He founded. He didn’t give us a book. We don’t idolize a book that was given in completeness like the Mohammedans do. Your position doesn’t even have a foundation in Scripture itself.
Very important point. John the Baptist said that the Baptism that Christ would bring would be that of the Spirit. He contrasts that with the one with water. Obviously there was one with water that was a ritual but when i read the book of Act with this in mind, it changes its impact.
Baptism in the early church was ways done in the name of Jesus Christ which is the fulfillment of Matt 28:19. After 325AD with the pagan doctrine of the trinity & it being forced on the church, those are no longer church leaders. Those are pagans
So just to be clear, we can't trust the early church's unanimous agreement that baptism is in fact "for the remission of sins" and an essential part of New Testament salvation and new birth, BUT let's totally give over to the doctrine of the Trinity, an admitted development through philosophical means over time. Oneness believer here. The OGs.
I was taught that “ for “ means “ because of”, in order that” . Similar to when we say someone got 10 years “ for “ theft.