Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Divine Healing Technician Training Course

[Hill Top]

So it would seem there is no one size fits all when it comes to healing. You have the woman with the issue that was healed on her faith where Jesus perceived that virtue went from Him, but with these four men it would seem it was their faith that got their friend healed, then you also have the message in James where it implies the faith of the righteous is enough.

You seem to think the sick man didn't have faith.
I don't think that's the case.
If he didn't have the faith to be healed he wouldn't have allowed four men to pick him up and take him anywhere.

I tend to look at things of God such as healing in a purpose and orderly manner of process. In other words even though there might be many aspects to healing, it all has to have a solid step through process at its root. The challenge to my understanding on this is that there are so many different cases that don't seem to follow a concise pattern.

All healing requires the faith of someone.
It requires the gracious answer by God to the request.
That is the "pattern".

[Hill Top]

In my opinion, I don't think anyone who has been saved by the immersion into Christ would refuse the outward sign of the immersion in water at some point. Even though it is not required for salvation, it is still the right thing to do to outwardly signify the inward change in a person.

How do you think one is "immersed into Christ", if not with water?

To those who say that water baptism is just a show of some kind, or that it is just symbolic of something, I say this.
Water baptism is our actual death with Christ.
It is our actual burial with Christ.
And it is our actual resurrection with Christ to walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:3-6 says so too.
If you don't believe it, then you must look for the proof supplied in verse 7 of Rom 6..."For he that is dead is freed from sin".
Did your method of "immersion" result in your death, burial, and resurrection with Christ to live a life without sin?

[luchnia]

So it would seem there is no one size fits all when it comes to healing. You have the woman with the issue that was healed on her faith where Jesus perceived that virtue went from Him, but with these four men it would seem it was their faith that got their friend healed, then you also have the message in James where it implies the faith of the righteous is enough.

You seem to think the sick man didn't have faith.
I don't think that's the case.
If he didn't have the faith to be healed he wouldn't have allowed four men to pick him up and take him anywhere.

I tend to look at things of God such as healing in a purpose and orderly manner of process. In other words even though there might be many aspects to healing, it all has to have a solid step through process at its root. The challenge to my understanding on this is that there are so many different cases that don't seem to follow a concise pattern.

All healing requires the faith of someone.
It requires the gracious answer by God to the request.
That is the "pattern".

I agree that faith has to be there. In my opinion there is still not a consistent pattern though. Take the example of the lame man that Peter healed at the gate of the temple. He basically asked for money from people as they went in and out, but Peter gave him none. Peter exercised his authority as a representative of Jesus and commanded the man to rise up.

There was no request from the man to be healed by Peter - at least none recorded. This is often the case with faith. It does not request, but commands a situation by calling to manifestation that which is not. To have such power is truly better than much riches! I imagine that was quite the scene that day at the temple gate.

[luchnia]

In my opinion, I don't think anyone who has been saved by the immersion into Christ would refuse the outward sign of the immersion in water at some point. Even though it is not required for salvation, it is still the right thing to do to outwardly signify the inward change in a person.

How do you think one is "immersed into Christ", if not with water?

I am not sure why you continue to ask this question since it has been well explained. Simply ask yourself how one is immersed into anything?

[Hill Top]

How do you think one is "immersed into Christ", if not with water?

I am not sure why you continue to ask this question since it has been well explained. Simply ask yourself how one is immersed into anything?[/quote]
Answer the question.

[Spiritblade Disciple]

Why is a physical element (water) necessary to be "baptized into Christ," but a physical element is not necessary to be "baptized with the Spirit"?

[luchnia]

Why is a physical element (water) necessary to be "baptized into Christ," but a physical element is not necessary to be "baptized with the Spirit"?

I think the problem here is not understanding immersion (baptism) and what that means. There is also the case of going under something or going into something. Many assume that when the word baptism is used it always means being immersed into water. At conversion I became immersed into Christ and His death so I could walk in newness of life but I was not immersed into water at that time.

There are many examples given of being immersed into something. Also, we should consider the difference between being immersed with, by, of, or into, which carry different meanings. It would be interesting to pull each greek meaning of these words to see how they differentiate in context. We find in Matt 3:11 the term "with" being used concerning the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

One can be immersed into fire, by fire, or with fire. In the military baptism by fire means that a soldier has had his first time in battle. It is not known if this is what John the baptist meant when he mentioned the baptism with fire. I don't recall what Dake's notes imply about that, but what if the term means that when this happens these will go into battle of evangelism for the kingdom of God and Christ? Some believe this to be the case because there is no reference of anyone being immersed with fire after John spoke these things.

Dake did an excellent job on the subject of baptism and he realized that in the case of baptism in the Bible each immersion had a certain agent that performed it as in the case of the Spirit immersing one into Christ at the new birth. The immersion "into" Christ is where some struggle by making this require water. This results in a dangerous and erroneous doctrine that puts people under bondage. John the baptist also made it clear the difference in what he was doing verses the baptism that Christ would do when He baptized "with" the Holy Spirit and "with" fire.

Many questions can be asked. Where the tongues of fire at Pentecost a baptism "of" fire, "by" fire, or "with" fire, or none of those? If that were to fulfill what the prophet Joel said then Joel did not qualify it as an immersion of sorts. The tongues rested above the people.

A great lesson to learn with the misunderstanding of water baptism is that one can forcefully make God's word mean just about anything and we should see the danger when that happens.

[luchnia]

How do you think one is "immersed into Christ", if not with water?

I am not sure why you continue to ask this question since it has been well explained. Simply ask yourself how one is immersed into anything?

Answer the question.
[/quote]
No thanks.

[Hill Top]

Why is a physical element (water) necessary to be "baptized into Christ," but a physical element is not necessary to be "baptized with the Spirit"?

Because we do the one and God does the other.

Why was water necessary for John's baptism unto repentance?

[Hill Top]

I think the problem here is not understanding immersion (baptism) and what that means. There is also the case of going under something or going into something. Many assume that when the word baptism is used it always means being immersed into water.
At conversion I became immersed into Christ and His death so I could walk in newness of life but I was not immersed into water at that time.

How were you immersed into Christ?

There are many examples given of being immersed into something. Also, we should consider the difference between being immersed with, by, of, or into, which carry different meanings. It would be interesting to pull each greek meaning of these words to see how they differentiate in context. We find in Matt 3:11 the term "with" being used concerning the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

The definition of those words doesn't matter, as the definition of baptism doesn't change.
Baptizo, (Greek)...immersed, dipped, fully whelmed.

One can be immersed into fire, by fire, or with fire. In the military baptism by fire means that a soldier has had his first time in battle. It is not known if this is what John the baptist meant when he mentioned the baptism with fire.

"Fully whelmed" in combat. Something done to him.

"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:"
One is done by a man and the other is done by Jesus.

This is the baptism of fire...the end of the world...12 "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Dake did an excellent job on the subject of baptism and he realized that in the case of baptism in the Bible each immersion had a certain agent that performed it as in the case of the Spirit immersing one into Christ at the new birth.

Scripture please.

The immersion "into" Christ is where some struggle by making this require water. This results in a dangerous and erroneous doctrine that puts people under bondage. John the baptist also made it clear the difference in what he was doing verses the baptism that Christ would do when He baptized "with" the Holy Spirit and "with" fire.

John made it clear that men do one kind of baptizing and God does another kind of baptizing.
Why did John use water for his baptisms?

I'm surprised that you argue against water baptism because "water isn't specified", but have no problem believing some other unspecified method is true.
You can't, or won't even say what that "agent" is.

I think the only way to determine if "your" baptism without water is the way into Christ is by using the supplied proving verse...
For he that is dead is freed from sin". (Rom 6:7)
Those crucified with Christ can't commit sin...which destroys your doubts about 1 John 3:9.
Those born of God cannot commit sin...so can't fall away.