The waters became troubled when members of Gladden Baptist Church in Salem, Mo., were unable to access a section of Sinking Creek where they had been baptizing converts for nearly 50 years. In that time, members of the congregation would accompany the pastor and baptismal candidates to the waterâs edge to participate in the service. The elderly and mobility-impaired were taken to the sandbar site in vans.
This all changed when the Park Service placed large boulders blocking the sandbar to vehicle traffic, including wheelchairs.
Faye Walmsley, ONSRâs public-information officer, told the Salem Times a special-use permit has been a requirement for all First Amendment activities â public demonstrations, press events, religious services â for the past 25 years, but âwe have just never actively used the authority until 2006.â...
In short, yes. All the Protestant Reformers including Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin held to infant baptism. Though these three great Protestants disagreed on many things, they all agreed on the Protestant doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. They also agreed that infant baptism is a biblical practice and the best expression of the Protestant gospel. In fact, infant baptism has been the practice of the historic Christian church since the Apostolic period" (R.S.Clark)
Didactic wrote: The Meaning of Baptism Quote; "Here our concern is with the word baptizein, the Greek word usually translated in the New Testament as "to baptize." With the rise of the Anabaptists, this word also became a subject of debate."
Quote; "Here our concern is with the word baptizein, the Greek word usually translated in the New Testament as "to baptize." With the rise of the Anabaptists, this word also became a subject of debate."
John Yurich USA wrote: John For Jesus, Then when you joined the Baptist Church you refused to be Baptized in water which Baptist Churches require to be put on the membership roll?
No, I was asked if I had been baptized after I was saved and I told them yes by the Holy Spirit. I told them I was also immersed in water but I questioned whether it was necessary. He said he would come over to my house and talk to me about it but never did.
HUH... I was just trying to say what better profession of ones faith can you have then to be baptized in the Holy Spirit with power like they were. They were baptized like the Apostles were in the beginning. Obviously God had endorsed their faith.
Again I suggest that you look over Baptism: Truth or Tradition. This goes into quite some detail on the different types and purposes of Baptism. It can be seen that full body immersion was practiced, whenever there was enough water to do so.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Acts 16:25-34 (NKJV) "But at midnight Paul and Silas...So they said, âBelieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.â Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."
It is possible they were baptized in water. Though their wounds were washed, it doesn't mean they were then baptized in that water. The water could have been out of a cistern not big enough for immersion. I guess what I need to say is that immersion in water isn't specifically stated after Acts 11. Also, nowhere after the Gospel of John are Jewish believers said to have been specifically baptized in water. Only Gentiles were specifically said to be baptized in water or even alluded to have been and not past Acts. That is interesting considering all believers were Jews early in church history. Up until Acts 10:44.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: You can count 2 that do NOT hold that view, me and the apostle Paul.
Let us look at one of these texts.
Romans 6:3-7 KJV 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
If we were to count this as water baptism, it would transpire that it was the baptism which was effectual in obtaining these desired spiritual blessings. But we would not wish to believe that, so we refer to the baptism as symbolic of an event previously experienced. Yet symbolism is not mentioned.
However, if this is referring to a spiritual baptism into Christ, dying to sin and rising with him to new life, it makes perfect sense.
John UK wrote: From what JfJ has posted, I surmise that he believes that Spirit baptism is meant, not only in 1 Corinthians 12:13, but also in Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:3-4. Does anyone else hold this view?
You can count 2 that do NOT hold that view, me and the apostle Paul.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: 1) I Corinthians 12:13 baptized by one Spirit. Romans 8:9 if we don't have the indwelling Holy Spirit we are none of His. 2) I Corinthians 1 where Paul said he baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. (verse 17) "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." 3) See also the analogy of baptism and water put forth by Peter (I Peter 3:20-21) 4) There would be no need to add into the great commission the act of baptism if it were simply baptism of the Spirit. 5)Have you?
1) Those verses are some of the ones which lead me to believe the baptism in the Holy Spirit is the one and only baptism (Eph. 4:5). 2) I don't believe it strange of Paul to say because he may not have known if someone was baptized without him realizing it. Also, he did baptize some though he wasn't sent for that reason. 3) The analogy then says, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh (as water does) but results in a clear conscience (because baptism results in the forgiveness of sins). 4) Ha, simply baptism in the Spirit?! If baptism is just a sacrament, then why no Lord's Supper in commission also? 5) Acts 19:6, Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came.
John for JESUS wrote: JOHN UK... I said there are no instances of water baptism beyond Acts 11. Those men in Acts 19 were baptized by John earlier.
Yes they were baptised within the old covenant. In Acts 19 they are baptised in the new covenant.
Acts 19:4-6 KJV 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
These verses show a separate water baptism and baptism by the Spirit into Christ.
As for the eunuch, Phipil preached unto him Jesus from Isaiah 53 initially, and then showed him the necessity of faith in order to be saved.
Was baptism important to the eunuch? Why?
Acts 8:36-37 KJV 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
JOHN UK... When you say "Of course Phillip included baptism...", what do you base that off of? It doesn't say he did! If we can speculate, then I could say the Ethiopian was in Israel before and heard John the Baptist preach and having not gotten baptized, regretted that decision, and now wanted to make up for it. I said there are no instances of water baptism beyond Acts 11. Those men in Acts 19 were baptized by John earlier. Funny thing is, Paul doesn't say that's good because John's Baptism is the same as the baptism Jesus commanded. Also, as soon he informed them they were baptized. They were just standing there and were baptized by the Holy Spirit. Collosians isn't talking about water baptism and specifically says so!
No, gentlemen, a person can be a Christian, before he is baptized. It is one thing to say a believer will be baptized, but quite another to say he has to be baptized to be saved. This makes it a salvation by works, which is no salvation at all. This is unfortunately one of the errors of The Church of Christ also.
Ah, but as far as public profession of faith! One would expect that before baptism and by the act of of baptism itself!
Luke 12 8 "And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man shall confess him also before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.---NASB
John for JESUS wrote: Wet, wet, wet... I believe these Gentiles were baptized in water. But what for? They already made a public profession of Christ by being baptized on the Holy Spirit. It seems to me this was part
Since when is Baptism of the Holy Spirit a public profession?
I didn't even think of that, John Y, good point because I joined a Baptist church and they said I had to be baptized. I was a bit uncomfortable though. Behind the pulpit, there is a glass wall with a tub behind it. After the morning service, while everyone was still sitting, I had to go change and then walk behind the glass where I was on full display; every eye was on me, and the lights were shining bright. Following a few words, I was immersed into the water. Now don't misunderstand, it was a good thing and all, but I was mortified to be on display like that; thinking it would have been a little less, well, you would have to see the setup along with how many onlookers there were. I am a very private person who would rather blend in than be on display so I was really outside my element. I guess baptism is a public testimonial so maybe I just don't realize that's how it's always done, and how it needs to be done.
John for JESUS wrote: John UK... Acts doesn't tell whether Philip said water baptism is part of the gospel message.
Then why does an Ethiopian request baptism in water? Of course Philip included baptism as a physical sign of having believed in preaching Jesus to him.
You reckon there is no baptism after Acts 11?
Acts 19:2-5 KJV 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Are you the only person in the world who does not see baptism in water as a testimony of having died with Christ and risen with Christ to new life in Christ? (Colossians)
Ours is not to reason why, but simply obey Christ. And to follow Christ in water baptism. Or do you think you are greater than he?