Axman
New member
Water baptism is a work of the flesh and should be abolished. As a tradition is has deceptive powers with the ability to corrupt the message of salvation.
toldailytopic: Water baptism: what is it's place today?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Sure, it's a work, but why should it be abolished?
So do Christmas trees. Should we ban Christmas trees? :idunno:
Thats a new one to me. I was under the impression that it was commanded. I found a few bible verses saying as much. Explain your new message.
greatdivide46
New member
The act of baptism may be considered a work by some, but it is not the act of baptism that saves. Only God can save and there is ample evidence in Scripture that He saves when we are baptized. But again its not the act of baptism itself that saves. There is no saving efficacy in baptism at all. But since God says He will forgive us our sins and give us the gift of the Holy Spirit when we are baptized (see Acts 2:38), who are we that we should suggest abolishing baptism?
Axman
New member
It's all in the message. John the baptist preached a baptism (water) of repentence for remission of sins. The new testament is remission through faith in the shed blood of Christ.
Axman
New member
The new testament was not revealed at Pentecost.
1 Corinthians 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.
The ritual of baptism had no power but it was required to be saved(Acts 2:38).
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Axman, are you one of those MAD Bible choppers like me?
Axman
New member
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
This I do believe and sometimes I do get a little mad.:madmad:
Agreed. But what would be the point of making rules against getting baptised?
Sometimes commands change. It was also once a command to not eat any meat. Then that changed. Then came the commands not to eat certain meats. Then that changed.
Axman
New member
Water baptism was required for remission and is a work. His shed blood for remission is received by faith. The two are contrary or in other words both can't be true.
I absolutely agree.
But what would be the point of a rule saying one must not get baptised?
Which one?
I do not believe that I must take communion as a ritual. Nor must I partake in Passover.
greatdivide46
New member
The problem with using 1 Corinthians 1:17 to disprove the necessity for baptism is that Paul was talking about divisions in the church. He was not talking about baptism. In fact the context shows that Paul did baptize some of the people there in Corinth.
greatdivide46
New member
While baptism may be required for remission it is not what causes remission to occur, nor should baptism be considered a work. Certainly Jesus' shed blood is for remission and according to Romans 6:3-4 the only time Christians come in contact with that blood is when we are baptized. Therefore I cannot agree that remission by the blood of Christ and remission occurring when we are baptized are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true. It's kinda like comparing apples and oranges. They're not the same thing at all.
Axman
New member
Did Christ send Paul to baptize or not?
Axman
New member
Under the Baptist's ministry water baptism was required for remission.
Show me the water in Rom 6:3-4.
Water baptism is not a work? How is that?
Both are for remission, one under the law and the other afterward.
You've been on this forum long enough, cut to the chase.
greatdivide46
New member
Did Paul baptize people or not?
- Status