religion

[tourists24]

Yes. But not sure I understand your question.

I take baptism, the total immersion into God, to be spiritual in nature. I think rituals are awesome but true interaction with God happens in unseen, spiritual dimension.

No particular direction with the question besides of wondering your idea of baptism. I’ve always understood baptism by water. But I know the Bible has descriptions other than just that

 

[tourists24]

Two different baptisms.

Understood. Just curiosity

 

[BrownFlush]

But I know the Bible has descriptions other than just that

There is no description like this in the Bible....

I take baptism, the total immersion into God, to be spiritual in nature. I think rituals are awesome but true interaction with God happens in unseen, spiritual dimension.

 

[BrownFlush]

Understood. Just curiosity

What do you believe the Bible teaches about both?

 

[tourists24]

What do you believe the Bible teaches about both?

I've never really delved into studies about it really, which is why I asked Integrity. I've always known full immersion as the way for baptism. But there are some parts that describe baptism in other ways. Matthew 3:11 and Acts 1:4-5 mentions this. I'm not insinuating anything other than what they say.

 

[BrownFlush]

Matthew 3:11 and Acts 1:4-5 mentions this. I'm not insinuating anything other than what they say.

Some believe that the fire in Matt. 3:11 is connected with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
I don't believe this what is being taught. It's a text that you have to dig in.
John was in the middle of a discussion of judgment in which fire was the punishment. He was speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees and urging these wicked people to produce good fruit (v 7-9).
In verse 10, he warned of the punishment they would receive if they failed to bring forth good fruit, saying that a tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and cast into fire.
After he says that, he talks about Jesus' ability to baptize with fire in verse11. Then, in verse 12, he pictured Jesus as one who would separate the wheat from the chaff, and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. This was a picture of judgment. The text demands that the fire discussed here is the fire of punishment. The fire of verse 11 is the same as the fire of verses 10 and 12. In verses 10-12, John spoke of fire three times.
The first and last time obviously refer to the fire of punishment. The same has to be true of the fire in verse 11. The context demands it.
It would be a horrible thought to be baptized (immersed) in fire. John was warning the Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus would do this to those who did not bring forth good fruit.

John also mentioned that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. To be immersed with the Spirit would be to receive abundant and overwhelming spiritual gifts miraculously and ability to do the miracles. John was indefinite as to who Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit.
Some in the audiance would be immersed with fire because of their failure to bring forth good fruit. John's audience was mixed. Some would receive the baptism of fire; others would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John was not out to identify who specifically would receive which baptism, he was saying that Jesus could and would administer two different baptisms that he could not.

 

[Integrity]

In the Bible, one of several baptisms is in water.
"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water . . . . and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him" (Acts 8:36, 38)
"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized" (Acts 110:47)?
John's baptism was in water (Matt. 3:13-16; Jn. 3:23)
The New Testament reveals that baptism is in water "having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,"Eph. 5:25
This is the same baptism the Ephesians submitted to that put them in Christ -Eph.3: 26-27
"in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ "-Peter 3: 20-21
Nothing here about....

The baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of fire is not water baptism.

This confirms that the term baptism when used in religious books cannot be exclusive referring to water baptism and it means something more than just a religious water ritual as I contended that is why I take baptism, the total immersion into God, to be spiritual in nature. I think rituals are awesome but true interaction with God happens in unseen, spiritual dimension.

@BrownFlush,

Do you even believe in the unseen Kingdom of God?

 

[BrownFlush]

This confirms that the term baptism when used in religious books cannot be exclusive referring to water baptism and it means something more than just a religious water ritual as I contended that is why I take baptism, the total immersion into God, to be spiritual in nature. I think rituals are awesome but true interaction with God happens in unseen, spiritual dimension.

@BrownFlush,

Do you even believe in the unseen Kingdom of God?

Spinner, I never said water baptism was the only baptism. I just commented about two others.
You denied the baptism that put one "in Christ" where "all" spiritual blessings are, was water baptism. These verses affirm it was. It is the "one baptism" in Eph. 4:4
No where in the Bible did anyone look at someone and say, " Be immersed in "spiritual nature". No where is one "immersed in a "spiritual nature" for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) or to wash away their sins (Acts 22:16) You may view it as some ritual and write it off, but the Apostles and Jesus commanded water baptism for the purpose of putting one in Christ where all spiritual blessings are, to be saved, to be added to the church, and to wash away their sins.

"And Philip commanded the chariot to stop and he and the Eunuch stepped out of the chariot and they both were immersed in a spiritual dimension." - 2 Integrity 2:18

I'm in the "unseen kingdom of God". The church in the NT is the spiritual kingdom of Christ.

 

[BrownFlush]

@Integrity
To make future discussions easier, could you give the parts of the Bible you believe are from God and the parts that are just religious writings of men?
No need to waste time with all those writings you deny are inspired by God.

 

[FromOffTheStreets]

Spinner, I never said water baptism was the only baptism. I just commented about two others.
You denied the baptism that put one "in Christ" where "all" spiritual blessings are, was water baptism. These verses affirm it was. It is the "one baptism" in Eph. 4:4
No where in the Bible did anyone look at someone and say, " Be immersed in "spiritual nature". No where is one "immersed in a "spiritual nature" for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) or to wash away their sins (Acts 22:16) You may view it as some ritual and write it off, but the Apostles and Jesus commanded water baptism for the purpose of putting one in Christ where all spiritual blessings are, to be saved, to be added to the church, and to wash away their sins.

"And Philip commanded the chariot to stop and he and the Eunuch stepped out of the chariot and they both were immersed in a spiritual dimension." - 2 Integrity 2:18

I'm in the "unseen kingdom of God". The church in the NT is the spiritual kingdom of Christ.

Then why were the disciples not baptized in water after the resurrection to "seal" them & wash away their sin?

If they would have been , then your view on it would have no rival.

 

[Integrity]

Spinner, I never said water baptism was the only baptism. I just commented about two others.
You denied the baptism that put one "in Christ" where "all" spiritual blessings are, was water baptism. These verses affirm it was. It is the "one baptism" in Eph. 4:4
No where in the Bible did anyone look at someone and say, " Be immersed in "spiritual nature". No where is one "immersed in a "spiritual nature" for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) or to wash away their sins (Acts 22:16) You may view it as some ritual and write it off, but the Apostles and Jesus commanded water baptism for the purpose of putting one in Christ where all spiritual blessings are, to be saved, to be added to the church, and to wash away their sins.

"And Philip commanded the chariot to stop and he and the Eunuch stepped out of the chariot and they both were immersed in a spiritual dimension." - 2 Integrity 2:18

I'm in the "unseen kingdom of God". The church in the NT is the spiritual kingdom of Christ.

I do not agree.

 

[Integrity]

@Integrity
To make future discussions easier, could you give the parts of the Bible you believe are from God and the parts that are just religious writings of men?
No need to waste time with all those writings you deny are inspired by God.

You like things black and white.

I get it.

I too was once hindered by this problem.

I will continue to pray for you my brethren!

 

[BrownFlush]

You like things black and white.

I get it.

I too was once hindered by this problem.

I will continue to pray for you my brethren!

Deflect

 

[BrownFlush]

I do not agree.

Live it up.

 

[BrownFlush]

Then why were the disciples not baptized in water after the resurrection to "seal" them & wash away their sin?

If they would have been , then your view on it would have no rival.

Again?
It's a moot point. It has no bearing about what is written or the importance of baptism.
Peter and Andrew were disciples of John the Baptist (Jn. 1:35). As such, they had been baptized in water. Jesus also made and baptized disciples (Jn. 4:1,2). The apostles were disciples. "He called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles" (Lk. 6:13). Those who refused John's baptism "rejected God's purpose for themselves" (Lk. 7:30). So the inference or necessary conclusion here is the apostles. were baptized in water.
Were the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38)? One of them was. Paul was told to, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). "And he . . . arose, and was baptized" (Acts 9:18). Looks like Paul, "born out of due season", his "season" was recorded and the HS chose not to record the "season" of the others.
Integrity denies what is written because he chooses not to believe it. You deny what is written because something is not written or written how you think it should be.
"My view" is what's written. You deny what's written because "If they would have been" ..You know they weren't ? How? You think it should have been written so to affirm the obvious teaching that is revealed? I can only discuss and be accountable for what's wrote down. I'll go with the HS decision that what he decided to give us was plenty enough to know what to and what it was for.

 

[Integrity]

Again?
It's a moot point. It has no bearing about what is written or the importance of baptism.
Peter and Andrew were disciples of John the Baptist (Jn. 1:35). As such, they had been baptized in water. Jesus also made and baptized disciples (Jn. 4:1,2). The apostles were disciples. "He called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles" (Lk. 6:13). Those who refused John's baptism "rejected God's purpose for themselves" (Lk. 7:30). So the inference or necessary conclusion here is the apostles. were baptized in water.
Were the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38)? One of them was. Paul was told to, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). "And he . . . arose, and was baptized" (Acts 9:18). Looks like Paul, "born out of due season", his "season" was recorded and the HS chose not to record the "season" of the others.
Integrity denies what is written because he chooses not to believe it. You deny what is written because something is not written or written how you think it should be.
"My view" is what's written. You deny what's written because "If they would have been" ..You know they weren't ? How? You think it should have been written so to affirm the obvious teaching that is revealed? I can only discuss and be accountable for what's wrote down. I'll go with the HS decision that what he decided to give us was plenty enough to know what to and what it is for was for.

It is obvious you go by what is seen and not by what is unseen.

 

[BrownFlush]

It is obvious you go by what is seen and not by what is unseen.

Yes.
My faith is not blind like yours obviously is.

 

[Integrity]

Yes.
My faith is not blind like yours obviously is.

That is a most prideful sentiment my friend.

No judgement my friend, you are free.

Carry on?

As you know I believe in grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Why do you believe that you must follow the Bible alone?


Do you believe there’s other aspects of a spiritual life walking with God?

 

[Thebrownblob]

That is a most prideful sentiment my friend.

No judgement my friend, you are free.

Carry on?

As you know I believe in grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Why do you believe that you must follow the Bible alone?


Do you believe there’s other aspects of a spiritual life walking with God?

I believe there are other aspects of spiritual life. Although I do not believe those aspects would be in defiance or opposition of what the book says.

 

[tourists24]

As you know I believe in grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Why do you believe that you must follow the Bible alone?


Do you believe there’s other aspects of a spiritual life walking with God?

I think this may be where you and I are somewhat different. I believe in both at the same time. Your spiritual walk with God is indeed important. It's the personal relationship one gets when they ask Jesus into their heart as savior. As a human, there are many times when I feel led to do something or take an action, but as flawed as I am, I also refer to the bible to make sure I am doing it in a way that glorifies Him most. The teachings are there as a guide to help me fulfill His will. It is absolutely possible I misread what I feel may be the selfish way out. Prayer in guidance but always learning from the gospels can both happen at the same time when living life