Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | is baptism important | John 3:5 | Tim Sheasby | 22197 | ||
Ephesians 4:5 says that there is ONE baptism. I believe the Bible implicitly. I believe there is only ONE baptism that we need in order to be saved and that is the one Jesus commanded (Mark 16:16 et. al). This is an immersion in water. As this passage shows the birth in water and the birth in spirit are simultaneous events (Check the Greek grammar if you don't believe me). | ||||||
2 | is baptism important | John 3:5 | jlpangilinan | 22260 | ||
Yes I know that I mean is baptism mentioned in the bible: BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD: only mentioned in 1Co 15:29. This expression as used by the apostle may be equivalent to saying, "He who goes through a baptism of blood in order to join a glorified church which has no existence [i.e., if the dead rise not] is a fool." Some also regard the statement here as an allusion to the strange practice which began, it is said, to prevail at Corinth, in which a person was baptized in the stead of others who had died before being baptized, to whom it was hoped some of the benefits of that rite would be extended. This they think may have been one of the erroneous customs which Paul went to Corinth to "set in order." BAPTISM OF CHRIST: Christ had to be formally inaugurated into the public discharge of his offices. For this purpose he came to John, who was the representative of the law and the prophets, that by him he might be introduced into his offices, and thus be publicly recognized as the Messiah of whose coming the prophecies and types had for many ages borne witness. John refused at first to confer his baptism on Christ, for he understood not what he had to do with the "baptism of repentance." But Christ said, "'Suffer it to be so now,' NOW as suited to my state of humiliation, my state as a substitute in the room of sinners." His reception of baptism was not necessary on his own account. It was a voluntary act, the same as his act of becoming incarnate. Yet if the work he had engaged to accomplish was to be completed, then it became him to take on him the likeness of a sinner, and to fulfil all righteousness (Mt 3:15). The official duty of Christ and the sinless person of Christ are to be distinguished. It was in his official capacity that he submitted to baptism. In coming to John our Lord virtually said, "Though sinless, and without any personal taint, yet in my public or official capacity as the Sent of God, I stand in the room of many, and bring with me the sin of the world, for which I am the propitiation." Christ was not made under the law on his own account. It was as surety of his people, a position which he spontaneously assumed. The administration of the rite of baptism was also a symbol of the baptism of suffering before him in this official capacity (Lu 12:50). In thus presenting himself he in effect dedicated or consecrated himself to the work of fulfilling all righteousness. BAPTISM CHRISTIAN: an ordinance immediately instituted by Christ (Mt 28:19-20), and designed to be observed in the church, like that of the Supper, "till he come." The words "baptize" and "baptism" are simply Greek words transferred into English. This was necessarily done by the translators of the Scriptures, for no literal translation could properly express all that is implied in them. BAPTISM, JOHN was not Christian baptism, nor was that which was practised by the disciples previous to our Lord's crucifixion. Till then the New Testament economy did not exist. John's baptism bound its subjects to repentance, and not to the faith of Christ. It was not administered in the name of the Trinity, and those whom John baptized were rebaptized by Paul (Ac 18:24; 19:7). To make myself clear Johnny |
||||||
3 | is baptism important | John 3:5 | Tim Sheasby | 22278 | ||
Point taken. The one Baptism I referred to earlier is the Christian baptism. The Greek word for baptize, for others reading this discussion, simply means dip or immerse. I believe the reason the King James translators simply transliterated and anglacised the word was because USAGE had changed from the original practice of immersion to that of sprinkling or pouring. If they had translated it as they should have there would not be so much confusion today about the need for baptism by immersion. |
||||||
4 | is baptism important | John 3:5 | jlpangilinan | 22281 | ||
Thanks for the information. Johnny |
||||||