Justified Saint Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 How can some maintain that baptism is nothing more than a public showing of one's faith to his or her church/congregation when a baptism happens in complete privacy in the Bible like with the eunuch in Acts? Why do some continue to downplay the significance of baptism and give it unbiblical purposes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lumberjack Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 where did John baptize? where was Jesus baptized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 [quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 6 2004, 01:03 AM'] where did John baptize? where was Jesus baptized? [/quote] the Jordan River!! Woohoo! Do I win anything. sup lumberjack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lumberjack Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 WHAT UP MY INSOMNIATIC BROTHER! you DO WIN SOMETHING! 3000 lbs of HOT STEAMY CABBAGE!!!! WOO FRIKKIDDY WHOOOOO!!!! hahaha wait...ok, the judges will give it to you this time...but the correct answer was: [b]The "not-so-private" Jordan River.[/b] just give your cabbage 2-3 weeks for delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 [quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 6 2004, 02:13 AM'] WHAT UP MY INSOMNIATIC BROTHER! you DO WIN SOMETHING! 3000 lbs of HOT STEAMY CABBAGE!!!! WOO FRIKKIDDY WHOOOOO!!!! hahaha wait...ok, the judges will give it to you this time...but the correct answer was: [b]The "not-so-private" Jordan River.[/b] just give your cabbage 2-3 weeks for delivery. [/quote] :rotfl: its good to see you bro.. sleepy time 4 me. its bed time at the apollo.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justified Saint Posted April 6, 2004 Author Share Posted April 6, 2004 (edited) That seems to be the pattern of Protestant thought lumberjack, deharmonize scripture and simply ignore what doesn't fit with their theology. But we must continue to ask, how can baptism be [b]only[/b] a public showing of one's faith if there are examples of private baptism in the Bible? I strongly suspect we won't be seeing an answer to that. Edited April 6, 2004 by Justified Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lumberjack Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 and all of the sudden, the question changes before your very eyes. ... like a Chia Pet. I'll be back later with an update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justified Saint Posted April 6, 2004 Author Share Posted April 6, 2004 No, question hasn't changed at all, you just naturally assumed there was some sort of conflict between the Catholic position and Jesus being baptized in the Jordan River. Notice my original phraseology, "how can some maintain that baptism is [b]nothing more than[/b]..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justified Saint Posted April 7, 2004 Author Share Posted April 7, 2004 I shall be looking forward to your update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justified Saint Posted April 8, 2004 Author Share Posted April 8, 2004 Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Hehe. good for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulls Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 [quote name='Justified Saint' date='Apr 5 2004, 10:32 PM'] How can some maintain that baptism is nothing more than a public showing of one's faith to his or her church/congregation when a baptism happens in complete privacy in the Bible like with the eunuch in Acts? Why do some continue to downplay the significance of baptism and give it unbiblical purposes? [/quote] how do you know there weren't witnesses? the eunuch didn't get baptized "into" anything, like a church or congregation like your question states. that's not the way it works. "As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" Acts 9:36 Phillip explained to the eunuch about Jesus. If baptism was necessary as the Catholic church believes it to be necessary, why wouldn't [b]Phillip[/b] tell the eunuch that he needed to be baptized, that he couldnt be "saved" without it, instead of the eunuch himself requesting that he be baptized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justified Saint Posted April 9, 2004 Author Share Posted April 9, 2004 [quote]how do you know there weren't witnesses?[/quote] Well, we can certainly speculate - there may have been witnesses. It must have been relatively private though, it doesn't mention anything of being in front of a congregation of believers so that he may show his faith, afterall they are traveling on a road in between cities. Also, it does say that they [b]both[/b] went down to the water suggesting that it was probably just the two of them. Nothing in the context implies that there were others around, at least no groups or crowds of believers - again they are traveling and in a chariot at that. [quote]the eunuch didn't get baptized "into" anything, like a church or congregation like your question states. that's not the way it works.[/quote] And when did I say it did work like that? It is the Protestant contention that baptism is to show one's faith to their community of believers and nothing more. Notice that once they come upon some water the eunuch asks to be baptized. Why the rush? What is the hurry especially when people are supposed to get baptized infront of their churches (as the Protestant would say at least) ? What good is the "sign" and "symbolisim" of baptism if it isn't being "showed" to anyone? [quote]Acts 9:36[/quote] It is actually Acts chapter 8 [quote]Phillip explained to the eunuch about Jesus. If baptism was necessary as the Catholic church believes it to be necessary, why wouldn't Phillip tell the eunuch that he needed to be baptized, that he couldnt be "saved" without it, instead of the eunuch himself requesting that he be baptized? [/quote] Just eariler the eunuch was reading something from Isaiah that he didn't understand and then he heard and learned about who Jesus was - how could he even know what baptism was if Phillip didn't tell him??? Also again, once they come upon some water the eunuch immediately asked to be baptized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 this was the exact issue i left my protestant routes it was the concept that got the ball moving towards CAtholicsm. I think there is a verse in i believe 1 Peter where it compares the saving ability of Baptism to that of Noahs Ark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulls Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 [quote]Well, we can certainly speculate - there may have been witnesses. It must have been relatively private though, it doesn't mention anything of being in front of a congregation of believers so that he may show his faith, afterall they are traveling on a road in between cities. Also, it does say that they both went down to the water suggesting that it was probably just the two of them. Nothing in the context implies that there were others around, at least no groups or crowds of believers - again they are traveling and in a chariot at that. [/quote] fair enough. [quote]And when did I say it did work like that? It is the Protestant contention that baptism is to show one's faith to their community of believers and nothing more. Notice that once they come upon some water the eunuch asks to be baptized. Why the rush? What is the hurry especially when people are supposed to get baptized infront of their churches (as the Protestant would say at least) ? What good is the "sign" and "symbolisim" of baptism if it isn't being "showed" to anyone? [/quote] i never heard that i was supposed to be baptized in front of my church. you are implying that. maybe from experience with other protestants, that's the way they do things....but thats not biblical and thats not the standard for everyone. the "sign" was seen by phillip. the eunuch is a new believer.....he doesn't have a church yet! why should he wait just to meet other believers, when there's one right in his presence, to be obedient to what Jesus says? [quote]It is actually Acts chapter 8[/quote] yup, ma bad. [quote]Just eariler the eunuch was reading something from Isaiah that he didn't understand and then he heard and learned about who Jesus was - how could he even know what baptism was if Phillip didn't tell him???[/quote] exactly. this is why it would make more sense if phillip urged the eunuch to be baptized, rather than the other way around. do you think when he told him the good news about Jesus, he said that believing is not enough, but you have to be baptized to literally have you sins washed away? if so, it might have followed that phillip would be the one to emphasize the baptism. [quote]Also again, once they come upon some water the eunuch immediately asked to be baptized. [/quote] precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now