Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BBryant]

Ray has said in several of his articles that Paul quit baptizing.  My question is where does it say this in the scriptures?  I was raised to believe that baptism is necessary as a 'representation' of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord -  1Pe 3:21 "the representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also (not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience to God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.."

Can someon explain Peter's statement to me?  I understand that no physical act saves us but I still get confused when reading about baptism being mentioned so many times in the NT.

Thank you.

[theyachtman]

I think the way Paul said "I Thank God that I ONLY baptised Gaius and Crispus" showed almost an apology for literalizing that which should be spiritual . . .

[BBryant]

Thank you, yachtman.  Perhaps within the rest of Paul's statement lies the answer to my question:  "...lest anyone may be saying that you are baptized into my name. Yet I baptize the household of Stephanas also. Furthermore, I am not aware if I baptize any other.  For Christ does not commission me to be baptizing, but to be bringing the evangel, not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ may be made void."

[hillsbororiver]

Ray has said in several of his articles that Paul quit baptizing.  My question is where does it say this in the scriptures?  I was raised to believe that baptism is necessary as a 'representation' of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord -  1Pe 3:21 "the representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also (not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience to God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.."

Can someon explain Peter's statement to me?  I understand that no physical act saves us but I still get confused when reading about baptism being mentioned so many times in the NT.

Thank you.

Hello B,

Is it necessary to be circumcised in the flesh as well? When we are admonished to die to the flesh are we to physically commit suicide? Are these things physical or spiritual?

Is it possible that this baptism is a spiritual transformation? Or is it just a physical ritual with magical ramifications?

If I sound cavalier it is not my intention, I am only wondering how you feel about these other physical, outward manifestations and if you believe they might be necessary as well.

Sincerely,

Joe

[BBryant]

Is it necessary to be circumcised in the flesh as well? When we are admonished to die to the flesh are we to physically commit suicide? Are these things physical or spiritual?

Is it possible that this baptism is a spiritual transformation? Or is it just a physical ritual with magical ramifications?

If I sound cavalier it is not my intention, I am only wondering how you feel about these other physical, outward manifestations and if you believe they might be necessary as well.

Hi Joe,

To answer your question:  I understand that the new covenant eliminated the 'physical' and when we 'die to the flesh' it is spiritual.  As I stated, I also understand that no 'physical rite' is required for salvation.

It is difficult for me to explain - I guess I still have a problem with total spiritual understanding although I know the spirit led me to Ray's site.  I had for years questioned the 'hell' doctrine and his and Mike's articles have been a blessing in answering many of my questions.

My original question here is related to 1Pe 3:21 "the representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also (not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience to God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.." and why Paul ever baptized at all.  

Paul speaks of one Lord, one faith, one baptism which I can understand is the 'immersion' by the Spirit.  But I have yet to get a concise, understandable explanation of why water baptism was done at all.  This may sound like I'm trying to say that baptism is a requirement for salvation but I do not believe that - I'm just trying to understand WHY it was ever used, period.

Thank you for your help.
Barbara

[hillsbororiver]

Hi Barbara, that is a very legitimate question. Perhaps it is answered by John the Baptist himself;

Mat 3:11  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:

Mar 1:8  I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Once you begin your baptism in the Spirit, and by fire (which was not available yet, not until Christ's death and resurrection) would the act which symbolizes this be necessary?


Phi 3:3  For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

This appears to be the very last physical rite of the Old Covenant which Jesus fulfilled, this was the last shadow typifying what the New Covenant would represent.
Remember the increase in understanding and the change of heart the apostles experienced, such as the status of the Gentiles, circumcision, etc. and how it took a period of time (accelerated after Pentecost) to come to these "truths."

The total immersion of water baptism was a shadow of the total immersion of ones life in Christ, of dying to the flesh and being reborn in the Spirit;


Mat 20:22  But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

Luk 12:50  But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

 Rom 6:3  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

1Co 12:13  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.

Barbara, I have attached a couple e-mails Ray has received that ask the very same question, I hope it helps answer this for you;

http://bible-truths.com/email3.htm#baptism

Joe

[BBryant]

Thank you so much, Joe.

Is it not just amazing how one can read a verse of scripture hundreds and hundreds of times and still 'not get it'?  I am so thankful that I was led to Ray's and Mike's site because there have been so many of my questions answered.  Although I've been a 'student' of the scriptures for years and even taught what I thought was truth  :cry: , at some point, I began to realize somewhere deep in my heart/mind that something was wrong because there were so many 'seemingly contradictions'.  How could I know that the answer wasn't in my intellect?  I had to be led by the Spirit to the spiritual truth!  Amen  And, as you can see, I struggle each day with letting go of some of what I thought was the 'way' for so many years.  No one can describe the relief and joy to finally began to understand!  Praise His name!

Please pray for me that the Spirit will continue to lead me.

In His Love,
Barbara

[hillsbororiver]

Barbara, you are very welcome. We are all shedding our old carnal beliefs as the Spirit opens our eyes. There are many here that will study and pray with you, sharing the things the Spirit has opened up to them. Continue to read (and reread) and study Ray & Mike's papers with your bible at your side and bring us your revelations and questions. Welcome to the forum.

Joe

[worm]

do we believe Paul or Ray or Mike or Jesus?

this is what Jesus said to Nicodemus (talking about being "born-again"):
John 3:5
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

could it be more simple?

[hillsbororiver]

do we believe Paul or Ray or Mike or Jesus?

this is what Jesus said to Nicodemus (talking about being "born-again"):
John 3:5
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

could it be more simple?

Worm, it actually isn't quite that simple, when Jesus spoke these words He hadn't been crucified and resurrected, there was a transition period during His Ministry. After His death on the cross the New Covenent was implemented, even then the apostles were not immediately transformed or fully understood the implications, that began after Pentecost. Remember the debate among them about circumcism?
 
"There is ONE body, and ONE Spirit, even as ye are called in ONE hope of your calling; ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE BAPTISM, ONE God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph. 4:4-6)

1Co 1:14  I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
 
1Co 1:15  Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
 
1Co 1:16  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
 
1Co 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

One baptism in Spirit.

Physical rituals died on the cross.

Joe

[eutychus]

[One baptism in Spirit.

Physical rituals died on the cross.

Joe[/quote]




 
Heb 9:16
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.  

Heb 9:17
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator livethHeb 9:17

[hillsbororiver]

Good stuff Chuck, the prior 2 verses may clear up your point for others who might wonder why you chose this scripture.

Thanks,

Joe


Heb 9:14  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
 
Heb 9:15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

[eutychus]

Good stuff Chuck, the prior 2 verses may clear up your point for others who might wonder why you chose this scripture.

Thanks,

Joe


Heb 9:14  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
 
Heb 9:15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Joe, thanks,

if people would understand Christ was born under the law and taaught under the law to fullfill all things and that the new test. does not start until
after his death and at pentacost the fire began. less confusion would be around.

peace
chuckt

[rvhill]

Baptism like group prayer, affirmations, sabbath, and communion are not for God or to be saved, they are for our needs. You should do these thing, but not to be saved or any other wrong reason. These things are foolish to God, but God does know us better then we know our selves. I believe if you believe in Jesus you should be baptist, because first it does not hurt. Second was because Jesus was baptist. Third God may want you to be baptist? Think of it as a simple affirmation of faith. I was circumcised, my brother was and so was my father. I would never tell a grown man to be circumcised, but there are reasons to have your son circumcised.

[Lightseeker]

1Pe 3:21 "the representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also (not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience to God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.."

Can someon explain Peter's statement to me?  
 

Barbara,

I would like to weigh in on your original question since I have another POV for you to consider.  Baptism has both a 'form' and a 'reality'.  'Water baptism' is the 'physical form' and a 'baptism of repentance' is the 'spiritual reality'.  Jesus was baptized with water for repentance.  But the only thing Jesus had to repent from was from being led of the law to that of being led of the Spirit, which He received at His water baptism.  According to Strong's the word repentance (Gr. metanoeo) doesn't mean 'I'm sorry'.  It means 'to have a change of thinking'.This 'change of thinking' was required for Him to "fulfill all righteousness".  Jesus had to quit thinking about  being led of the law (imputed righteousness) and start being led of the spirit (imparted righteousness) to usher in and demonstrate the reality of the new covenant and Gospel of the Kingdom of God.  

Our following after the command of the Lord to be water baptized, I believe, is simply our first act of obedience to fullfill righteousness in our own lives.  When we have our 'change of thinking' our conscience is clear before God because we have simply been obedient to His command.
Our 'water form (formality)' is a one time event, but the 'spiritual reality' of 'repenting' is part of our daily walk in Christ where our mind is being conformed to His mind as the Spirit convicts us as to error and we 'repent' or change our thinking.  The result is...in that area of our life our conscience is clear before God as we walk in the 'ressurection life of Christ' in that part of our life.

Hope that makes some sense.  I'm new here so I hope I haven't said anything toooo heretical  

[rvhill]

 Jesus was baptized with water for repentance.  But the only thing Jesus had to repent from was from being led of the law to that of being led of the Spirit, which He received at His water baptism.  According to Strong's the word repentance (Gr. metanoeo) doesn't mean 'I'm sorry'.  It means 'to have a change of thinking'.This 'change of thinking' was required for Him to "fulfill all righteousness".  Jesus had to quit thinking about  being led of the law (imputed righteousness) and start being led of the spirit (imparted righteousness) to usher in and demonstrate the reality of the new covenant and Gospel of the Kingdom of God.  

I do not agree with the ideal that Jesus had any change of thought. God has only a plan A, and Jesus was from the beginning. I see it as Jesus went through baptism not for his sake, but for our sake. Jesus is our example in all things.

[love_magnified]

Jesus was not repentant. That was not the reason he was baptized. He was baptized in order to fulfill the type & shadow requirement of all rabbis to be baptized in water in order to preach. Remember, Christ fulfilled the Law.

But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 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.

[rvhill]

Jesus was not repentant. That was not the reason he was baptized. He was baptized in order to fulfill the type & shadow requirement of all rabbis to be baptized in water in order to preach. Remember, Christ fulfilled the Law.

Were does it say this I have never read it before?

It would make since though

[love_magnified]

In being baptized, Christ was fulfilling the righteousness of the Law being that baptism represented being cleansed from sin. Luke 2 is a good example. Christ's parents performed all duties according to the Law when he was born including physical circumcision.

[Lightseeker]

I do not agree with the ideal that Jesus had any change of thought. God has only a plan A, and Jesus was from the beginning. I see it as Jesus went through baptism not for his sake, but for our sake. Jesus is our example in all things.

RV

I agree that God has only a Plan A.  Jesus, fulfilling the 'imputed' righteousness of the law, by perfectly living according to the law, was part of that plan A. But Jesus didn't just come to give us 'imputed' righteousness by accepting him as Savior.  He also came to reveal a "righteousness apart from the law".  And why do you say, 'he was baptized for our sake', since we still have a scriptural mandate to be  water baptized :?:   If he had been baptized for my sake I shouldn't need to be...just like he died on the cross for my sake...so I/you wouldn't have to.  Your statement "not for his sake, but for our sake" is a very traditional one, but can you support the merit of it with scriptural backing?