barnhart wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 10:23 am
I have never considered forward vs. backward baptism. Is this distinction meaningful in some traditions?
It is a big deal to some, others not as much.
I found this -
One reason for the face forward aspect of baptism is that baptism pictures our crucifixion with Christ and John 19:30 says that when Jesus died on the cross “he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.” Therefore baptism face forward is a literal application of the Scripture.
It is truly amazing to me how scriptures are used to support all these varying practises for water baptism. And even for those who don't water baptise at all. It really makes me wonder at times as who is being led by the Holy Spirit and who is not. Or perhaps God is more interested in our hearts attitude toward Him and others than getting us all onboard with how to baptise in water. I would think the baptism in the Spirit is what He desires the most as this is what He choses as His means to empower believers to carry out His work on the earth.
Sudsy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 4:36 pmIt is truly amazing to me how scriptures are used to support all these varying practices for water baptism.
Sudsy, why does this surprise you? Wouldn't it make sense that, IF there is indeed a right "mode" of water baptism, that it would be found/justified in the Scriptures, of all places...?
Sudsy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 4:36 pmIt is truly amazing to me how scriptures are used to support all these varying practices for water baptism.
Sudsy, why does this surprise you? Wouldn't it make sense that, IF there is indeed a right "mode" of water baptism, that it would be found/justified in the Scriptures, of all places...?
What is amazing to me is how scriptures are used (more specifically the one I pointed to in John 19:30) when determining a 'mode'. It doesn't surprise me that scriptures are used but rather which scriptures are used and how.
I can say the same about the scriptures used to support Calvinism and non-resistance and Spirit baptism and other doctrines also. To other believers it may not be that amazing but when we all believe we are being led by the Holy Spirit in what we believe, then it is amazing to me that He would lead some of us one way and others a different way.
Either He is guiding some into all truth and others not (which is puzzling to me) or perhaps the truth about water baptism mode, for instance, He isn't guiding anyone as it is not that important. However, some do believe that mode of baptism is clearly revealed in scripture so their Spirit leading is a black and white issue. So, who is truly Spirit lead ?
Romans 8:14 says - 'For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.' What does this verse mean to you if we have all these different leadings ?
Sudsy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 3:39 pmWhat is amazing to me is how scriptures are used (more specifically the one I pointed to in John 19:30) when determining a 'mode'. It doesn't surprise me that scriptures are used but rather which scriptures are used and how.
I can say the same about the scriptures used to support Calvinism and non-resistance and Spirit baptism and other doctrines also. To other believers it may not be that amazing but when we all believe we are being led by the Holy Spirit in what we believe, then it is amazing to me that He would lead some of us one way and others a different way.
Either He is guiding some into all truth and others not (which is puzzling to me) or perhaps the truth about water baptism mode, for instance, He isn't guiding anyone as it is not that important. However, some do believe that mode of baptism is clearly revealed in scripture so their Spirit leading is a black and white issue. So, who is truly Spirit lead?
There IS a third option, distasteful though I realize it may be, and that is that the Scriptures DO actually speak specifically to some of these things, but sincere, Holy Spirit-led believers in different interpretative camps nevertheless face the weight of balancing received tradition/interpretations from those before them against other interpretations, along with the natural hesitance (or even outright refusal) to consider (much less question) that the historical theological strains they have inherited (and committed to) may have been influenced by a deviation in the past, since that that would naturally shake their trust in the whole of their received interpretative tradition and perhaps also the trusted generations who passed it on to them. Just something that crossed my mind as I read your last post, but I realize that doesn't necessarily answer your questions of who is truly Spirit led, or how to apply something like Romans 8:14 if there are different "leadings"...
I do firmly believe, however, that the aforementioned third possibility SHOULD inspire all of us to a greater study of the Scriptures and the practice and writings of those closer to the creation of those Scriptures, as well as toward a commitment to greater honesty on our own parts with the text and with the reality of historical deviations or changes in doctrines or practices (where they can be found/demonstrated) as we compare such things with our current understandings, though.
Sudsy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 3:39 pmWhat is amazing to me is how scriptures are used (more specifically the one I pointed to in John 19:30) when determining a 'mode'. It doesn't surprise me that scriptures are used but rather which scriptures are used and how.
I can say the same about the scriptures used to support Calvinism and non-resistance and Spirit baptism and other doctrines also. To other believers it may not be that amazing but when we all believe we are being led by the Holy Spirit in what we believe, then it is amazing to me that He would lead some of us one way and others a different way.
Either He is guiding some into all truth and others not (which is puzzling to me) or perhaps the truth about water baptism mode, for instance, He isn't guiding anyone as it is not that important. However, some do believe that mode of baptism is clearly revealed in scripture so their Spirit leading is a black and white issue. So, who is truly Spirit lead?
There IS a third option, distasteful though I realize it may be, and that is that the Scriptures DO actually speak specifically to some of these things, but sincere, Holy Spirit-led believers in different interpretative camps nevertheless face the weight of balancing received tradition/interpretations from those before them against other interpretations, along with the natural hesitance (or even outright refusal) to consider (much less question) that the historical theological strains they have inherited (and committed to) may have been influenced by a deviation in the past, since that that would naturally shake their trust in the whole of their received interpretative tradition and perhaps also the trusted generations who passed it on to them. Just something that crossed my mind as I read your last post, but I realize that doesn't necessarily answer your questions of who is truly Spirit led, or how to apply something like Romans 8:14 if there are different "leadings"...
I do firmly believe, however, that the aforementioned third possibility SHOULD inspire all of us to a greater study of the Scriptures and the practice and writings of those closer to the creation of those Scriptures, as well as toward a commitment to greater honesty on our own parts with the text and with the reality of historical deviations or changes in doctrines or practices (where they can be found/demonstrated) as we compare such things with our current understandings, though.
I realize this is wandering off the topic but it may be time for another thread on how early Anabaptists believe scripture should be studied as they were not too keen on relying on scholars but emphasized the need for Holy Spirit illumination in interpreting scripture. John Claess (Jan Claesz), 1544 wrote - 'Search the Word of God, and ask Him for His Holy Spirit, and the same shall instruct you in everything which is needful for you.’
I tend to believe this John (Jan) fellow had a key truth here regarding Holy Spirit guidance in what we need to know that is needful for us and wonder just how far Anabaptism has strayed from this with a more community approach that squelches individual instruction and has resulted in many splits. My view would be a more open view for each church member to focus on being guided by the Holy Spirit and accepting that we all are at different stages of growth and intunement with the Spirit so allow for more diversity in areas such as this.
I think this thread reveals some varied convictions on water baptism amongst Anabaptists and if we could consider just how each other understood water baptism and allowed for these differences instead of trying to force everyone to conform to one belief and practise, I believe it might give more room for spiritual growth.