PDA

View Full Version : Is Baptism Necessary>?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

FieryProphet25
Mar 5th 2008, 05:57 PM
I have heard many people say that unless you are baptized you are not truely saved. Yet there are many passages of scripture that say faith is all you need to be saved.In fact, the theif on the cross was not baptized yet jesus said to him that this day you shall be with me in paradise. I talked to a catholic priest that said that paradise was referring to purgatory.(which i think it total baloney). What does everyone think? what verse CLEARLY says that it is necessary?

Buck shot
Mar 5th 2008, 06:21 PM
I have heard many people say that unless you are baptized you are not truely saved. Yet there are many passages of scripture that say faith is all you need to be saved.In fact, the theif on the cross was not baptized yet jesus said to him that this day you shall be with me in paradise. I talked to a catholic priest that said that paradise was referring to purgatory.(which i think it total baloney). What does everyone think? what verse CLEARLY says that it is necessary?


I believe you already have the best evidence against "water baptism" being part of salvation with the thief on the cross.

Paul even said he was not sent to baptize in the verse below. Jesus never baptized by water. If it was that tied to salvation Jesus would have taught that we are saved by faith and ________ whatever you can put in the blank.

I believe water baptism is a works that we should do as we start or walk to be like Christ. If it was not an important step our Savior would have not given us the example.

1 Cor 1:17For 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.

When you ask a Catholic Priest about things of this nature remember that they still baptize infants also. I think this would rule them out as scriptural experts on the topic (not saying that I am one either).

dan
Mar 5th 2008, 07:26 PM
I believe you already have the best evidence against "water baptism" being part of salvation with the thief on the cross.

I believe water baptism is a works that we should do as we start or walk to be like Christ. If it was not an important step our Savior would have not given us the example.

1 Cor 1:17For 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.


Traditions come and go, and Jesus has, by His example, given us at least this one. Just as He has caused some Jewish Ceremonial traditions to cease.

faithfulfriend
Mar 5th 2008, 07:41 PM
I have heard many people say that unless you are baptized you are not truely saved. Yet there are many passages of scripture that say faith is all you need to be saved.In fact, the theif on the cross was not baptized yet jesus said to him that this day you shall be with me in paradise. I talked to a catholic priest that said that paradise was referring to purgatory.(which i think it total baloney). What does everyone think? what verse CLEARLY says that it is necessary?

Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Prayer of repentance saves a soul, not baptism.

RJ Mac
Mar 5th 2008, 10:19 PM
Your question is really, what little do I have to do to be saved? One must take in the whole council of God, to say this is not necessary is man's council not God's. What saves (SWDZW) there are nine things that save:

God's grace; Jesus life; Work of the Holy Spirit;

A Christians voice; the name of Jesus; Baptism;

Your personal faith: Personal hope; Personal love;

All nine of these are found in the NT with the word SWDZW salvation, saves, don't settle for one but for the whole council of God. Ac.20:26,27

Take any one of these out and your not in. All nine work together to bring about your salvation. It is God working with you, it is a Christian working with you and its you working with you.

Go ahead, listen to all the arguments to do this and not this, but why not ask God what He calls for you to do and then do them all, do as much as you can to secure your salvation, do not settle for the minimal go for the maximum.

I add one more to the list of nine, for these to me are all vital to your coming into the kingdom but what sustains you over the years is fellowship. I have been a Christian for 24 years and it wasn't the sermons, the classes nor the communions that sustained, in fact I remember few of them. Not that they weren't important for they really were.

But what sustained me was the love of the brethren in my life. it was the brother and sister who took me in and fed me for 6 months. It was those who visited me when I was hurting, who gave me a ride when I needed it, who spoke words of encouragement when I was down. I remember all these, it was the fellowship of the brethren, the love of God flowing from their hearts that sustained my walk with God these past 24 years.

RJ Mac

Keene
Mar 5th 2008, 11:02 PM
Your question is really, what little do I have to do to be saved?


I didn't get that impression at all. Just because this person is asking if it's necessary doesn't mean that they are trying to take shortcuts in their faith. To suggest you know what this person is thinking is not only dangerous, but kinda insulting, IMO.

That said, I don't think baptism is necessary, but I think someone who is saved and hasn't been baptised might want to get baptised...

losthorizon
Mar 5th 2008, 11:18 PM
I have heard many people say that unless you are baptized you are not truely saved. Yet there are many passages of scripture that say faith is all you need to be saved.

Do the “many passages of scripture that say faith is all you need to be saved” negate the other requirements of the gospel of Christ. Surely we are not at liberty to reject the many verses in the Bible that tell of the importance of repentance and baptism in God’s plan of redemption. Jesus said, “except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish”. Doesn’t one have to repent before salvation is ours?


In fact, the theif on the cross was not baptized yet jesus said to him that this day you shall be with me in paradise.
Two questions – (1) how do you know the thief was not baptized with the baptism of John the Baptist? (2) Was Christian baptism commanded by Christ as part of the “Great Commission” (Matt 28) commanded before or after Jesus died on the cross; i.e., before or after the thief was forgiven?


what verse CLEARLY says that it is necessary?
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

The first clause of this passage (he that believeth and is baptized) clearly comes before the second clause (shall be saved). Of course the verse also teaches that the person who does not believe is not a candidate to be baptized. Without belief one who is baptized only gets wet.

Matt14
Mar 5th 2008, 11:20 PM
I have heard many people say that unless you are baptized you are not truely saved. Yet there are many passages of scripture that say faith is all you need to be saved.In fact, the theif on the cross was not baptized yet jesus said to him that this day you shall be with me in paradise. I talked to a catholic priest that said that paradise was referring to purgatory.(which i think it total baloney). What does everyone think? what verse CLEARLY says that it is necessary?

There are many passages that say baptism is necessary. First, let me ask:

Do you think remission of sins is necessary to be saved?

Do you think dying to the old self and being raised a new creature is necessary?

Do you think it is necessary to be a slave to righteousness, or can one be saved and still be a slave to sin?

Scripture shows baptism to be part of all these things:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

If you believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, and are willing to repent and confess His name publicly as Savior, God commands you to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

These follow baptism of the faithful:

Remission of sins -- Acts 2:38; 22:16
Gift of the Holy Spirit -- Acts 2:38
Being added to the church -- Acts 2:47
Salvation -- 1 Peter 3:21
Being raised with Christ -- Romans 6:3-8
Putting on Christ -- Gal. 3:27

Since all these things follow baptism, does it not seem likely that baptism is required by the Lord Jesus?

losthorizon
Mar 5th 2008, 11:20 PM
...That said, I don't think baptism is necessary, but I think someone who is saved and hasn't been baptised might want to get baptised...
In your Bible does Mark 16: 16 reads..."He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved."

redeemedbyhim
Mar 6th 2008, 12:05 AM
There are many passages that say baptism is necessary. First, let me ask:

Do you think remission of sins is necessary to be saved?

Do you think dying to the old self and being raised a new creature is necessary?

Do you think it is necessary to be a slave to righteousness, or can one be saved and still be a slave to sin?

Scripture shows baptism to be part of all these things:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

If you believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, and are willing to repent and confess His name publicly as Savior, God commands you to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

These follow baptism of the faithful:

Remission of sins -- Acts 2:38; 22:16
Gift of the Holy Spirit -- Acts 2:38
Being added to the church -- Acts 2:47
Salvation -- 1 Peter 3:21
Being raised with Christ -- Romans 6:3-8
Putting on Christ -- Gal. 3:27

Since all these things follow baptism, does it not seem likely that baptism is required by the Lord Jesus?

This is what I've always believed. I've been baptized in His Name.
The Word clearly says, "for the remission of sins"...but, then I'm just a simple person and I tend to take statements like that from His Word as to mean what it says.
Years ago I had a encylopedia, under baptisim it said that for approx. the first 300 years after Christ was risen that all recored baptisims were immersed in water in the Name of Jesus. I wish I would have kept that encylopedia...not that it takes the place of His Word, but it was interesting to see.

divaD
Mar 6th 2008, 12:05 AM
In your Bible does Mark 16: 16 reads..."He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved."



That's a good point. Not sure how anyone can argue with that point.

If you don't mind, I have a question for you or anyone else that may have an answer. I'm 50 yrs old now, but when I was 12 or 13 I got saved in a Baptist church and was water baptized. A cpl of yrs later I got involved in drugs and pretty much fell away. Does that time count for being baptized, or am I supposed to be water baptized again, since I fell into sin after being baptized ?

tgallison
Mar 6th 2008, 12:19 AM
I have heard many people say that unless you are baptized you are not truely saved. Yet there are many passages of scripture that say faith is all you need to be saved.In fact, the theif on the cross was not baptized yet jesus said to him that this day you shall be with me in paradise. I talked to a catholic priest that said that paradise was referring to purgatory.(which i think it total baloney). What does everyone think? what verse CLEARLY says that it is necessary?

Baptism is necessary for salvation. But it is not the physical Baptism of John, it is the spiritual Baptism by the Holy Spirit into Christ. Jesus is the living water that cleanses us and makes us whole. That is how the thief on the cross was baptized.

Israel is a physical picture of the spiritual. As the physical lamb was replaced by Jesus, so is the physical water replaced by Jesus. Jesus is all in all.

terrell

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2008, 01:08 AM
That's a good point. Not sure how anyone can argue with that point.

If you don't mind, I have a question for you or anyone else that may have an answer. I'm 50 yrs old now, but when I was 12 or 13 I got saved in a Baptist church and was water baptized. A cpl of yrs later I got involved in drugs and pretty much fell away. Does that time count for being baptized, or am I supposed to be water baptized again, since I fell into sin after being baptized ?
Those who are baptized according to the teachings of the NT, i.e., those who believe, repent and are baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) need not be “re-baptized” when they sin. Christians who sin after the point of conversion are taught to repent of those sins and confess their sins through prayer to God. When this is done God is faithful to “cleanse us from all unrighteousness”.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1Jn 1:9 )

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ..Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37,38,41)

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2008, 01:25 AM
Baptism is necessary for salvation. But it is not the physical Baptism of John, it is the spiritual Baptism by the Holy Spirit into Christ. Jesus is the living water that cleanses us and makes us whole. That is how the thief on the cross was baptized.

Israel is a physical picture of the spiritual. As the physical lamb was replaced by Jesus, so is the physical water replaced by Jesus. Jesus is all in all.

terrell
The baptism that puts the penitent believer “into Christ” is the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4: 5. And that “one baptism” is the baptism of the Great Commission as commanded by Jesus and administered by the hands men. The baptism administered by men is Christian baptism (immersion in water) where the believer is baptized “into Christ’s death” (His blood was shed at His death) and the Holy Spirit applies the blood of Christ to the one being baptized and his/her sins are “washed away”.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. (Rom 6: 3-4)

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Act 22:16)

tgallison
Mar 6th 2008, 03:35 AM
The baptism that puts the penitent believer “into Christ” is the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4: 5. And that “one baptism” is the baptism of the Great Commission as commanded by Jesus and administered by the hands men. The baptism administered by men is Christian baptism (immersion in water) where the believer is baptized “into Christ’s death” (His blood was shed at His death) and the Holy Spirit applies the blood of Christ to the one being baptized and his/her sins are “washed away”.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. (Rom 6: 3-4)

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Act 22:16)

losthorizon greetings

I was sprinkled once, and dunked once and all I got was wet. When I was baptized with the Holy Spirit, I got Jesus.

Why did John baptize with water?

To manifest Jesus as the Messiah.

John 1:31 "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel. therefore am I come baptizing with water."

This is the reason everyone was baptized with water, to let the Jews know their Messiah had come.

Matthew 3:11 "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."

Mark 1:8 "I indeed have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

Luke 3:16

John 1:33

Acts 1:5 "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free: and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Ephesians 4:5 Is speaking of a spiritual baptism.

Paul said, Christ sent him not to baptize. 1 Corinthians 1:17

The water baptism was to declare the Messiah had come. Paul baptized at the first because it was a declaration the Messiah had come. As Israel was set aside it was no longer essential, otherwise Paul would not have said what he said.

We baptize with water to day to declare our stand with Christ. It has nothing to do with our salvation. Our salvation is in the living water.

In Jesus Christ, terrell

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2008, 04:29 AM
...We baptize with water to day to declare our stand with Christ. It has nothing to do with our salvation. Our salvation is in the living water.

Hi Terrell -

Salvation is through the blood of Christ and the church of God baptizes penitent believers today in water for the same reason the apostolic church baptized penitent believers in the first century - - “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Our burial in water symbolizes our participation in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6). The NT does not know of an un-baptized Christian. The believer receives the gift of the Holy Spirit at the point of baptism.
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"(Justin Martyr, "First Apology," 110 AD)

tgallison
Mar 6th 2008, 03:12 PM
Hi Terrell -

Salvation is through the blood of Christ and the church of God baptizes penitent believers today in water for the same reason the apostolic church baptized penitent believers in the first century - - “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Our burial in water symbolizes our participation in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6). The NT does not know of an un-baptized Christian. The believer receives the gift of the Holy Spirit at the point of baptism.
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"(Justin Martyr, "First Apology," 110 AD)

losthorizon hi

Israel was a physical picture of the heavenly. Israel’s promises were physical, at least they thought so. That is why they require a sign. Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe. Our promises are spiritual.

Circumcision of the flesh saved no one, but the circumcision of the heart saves everyone.

Romans 2:29 “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

The blood of bulls and goats saves no one, but the blood of Christ saves everyone.

Hebrews 10:4 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”

The baptism of the dirty Jordan cleanses no one, but Christ the living water cleanses everyone.

John 4:10 “Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.”

Naaman’s leprosy was cleansed by the dirty Jordan, but it was merely a picture of the heavenly. His faith in the water’s ability to cleanse him, is like our faith in Christ, the living water, for which all our sins are forgiven.

No one today circumcises the flesh for salvation.

No one today uses the blood of bulls and goats for salvation.

Nor does the dirty water of the Jordan cleanse anyone from their sins.

Hebrews 9:23 “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.”

Hebrews 10:22 “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”

1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

1 John 5:8 “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.”

In Jesus Christ, terrell

thethinker
Mar 6th 2008, 03:44 PM
John,s baptism was old covenant while the baptism with the Holy spirit is new covenant. There were many kinds of water baptism under the old covenant order with John's being one of those.

So why did Jesus command water baptism? He commanded it because the old covenant order did not completely end until ad70 with the destruction of the Jewish state and the whole Mosaic economy. Therefore, John's baptism also ended in ad70 because it was of the Mosaic economy.

The old covenant order did not end abruptly as most people think. It was phased out over a generation and came to its full end in ad70. For example, Paul continued to observe the days of purification in which animal sacrifices were to be offered (Acts 21:26). But later in Galatians 2 he denounced all of that.

Since the post ad70 church is on the side of the full end of the Mosaic economy, then John's baptism has been abolished with ALL other old covenant things.

Matt14
Mar 6th 2008, 04:37 PM
John,s baptism was old covenant while the baptism with the Holy spirit is new covenant. There were many kinds of water baptism under the old covenant order with John's being one of those.

So why did Jesus command water baptism? He commanded it because the old covenant order did not completely end until ad70 with the destruction of the Jewish state and the whole Mosaic economy. Therefore, John's baptism also ended in ad70 because it was of the Mosaic economy.

The old covenant order did not end abruptly as most people think. It was phased out over a generation and came to its full end in ad70. For example, Paul continued to observe the days of purification in which animal sacrifices were to be offered (Acts 21:26). But later in Galatians 2 he denounced all of that.

Since the post ad70 church is on the side of the full end of the Mosaic economy, then John's baptism has been abolished with ALL other old covenant things.

Interesting thought, but there is a difficulty:

If the baptism that Jesus commanded was to cease, what do you make of His great commission?

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Does that sound like the Lord was teaching a "transition period?" Or does it sound like the delivery of an perpetual commission?

Not only that, and even more telling, is the teaching that Peter delivered in Acts 2 (inspired by the Holy Spirit, John 4:26; 16:13):

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

The command was the same for all, and there is no hint that a change would come.

To top it off, the New Covenant began at a certain point in time:

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

There is a specific point in time when the New Covenant became effective: at the death of Christ. There was no "phasing in" of the covenant. When Jesus died, it was here.

And the New Covenant is an eternal one, so there is to be no change in what the apostles taught at Pentecost. There was a kingdom in place both before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and after.

Paul said in about AD 62:

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,

So Paul was in the kingdom, before AD 70.

John said:

Rev 1:9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

John says he was in the kingdom, after AD 70, likely around AD 90.

The terms church and the kingdom are used interchangeably by Jesus:

Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

One enters the church by being baptized into Christ, as we read in Acts 2:41,47:

Act 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

This image of people being added to the church/kingdom is a vivid one, and agrees with John 3:5:

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Sorry this post has gotten long, but I just wanted us to look together at how scripture agrees with itself on this point. Baptism is necessary for remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16), and therefore for salvation.

CoffeeBeaned
Mar 6th 2008, 04:52 PM
The will of the Father also includes our being baptized for the forgiveness of our sins, so that we can be saved and go to heaven. In Mark 16:16 Jesus says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned." Who shall be saved? "He who believes and is baptized." This is such a simple command to obey in the way the Lord says to do it. Notice the divine order: 1) Believe + 2) Baptism = 3) Saved. Jesus says that both belief and baptism are required to be saved. But men, at the prompting of Satan, are trying to tell us many other different things that are contrary to what Jesus says. Men have taken what the Lord said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved," and have changed it in every way possible to suit themselves. The following is what Jesus says and also ways in which man has tried to change what the Lord has said.
1) As we have just seen Jesus says in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

2) There are those who in reality say that, "He that does not believe and is not baptized will be saved," because they say God is going to save everyone. This is the Universalist who says that everyone is going to be saved and no one is going to be lost. This sounds good, but we know this is not true because of what our Lord said in Matthew 7:13-14, that many are going to be lost and only few are going to be saved.
3) Then there are others who essentially say that, "He who believes and is baptized will not be saved." They say that no one is going to be saved. This is the Atheist who says that there is not going to be an eternity and that when you are dead, you are like the dog Rover, you are dead all over. But again we know that this is false. We have already seen that few will be saved, but the majority will be lost.
4) Still others imply that, "He who does not believe but is baptized will be saved." These are those who practice infantbaptism, but an infant certainly cannot believe. Of course an infant is not accountable but is innocent and is not lost.
5) Then there are also those who essentially say that, "He who believes and is not baptized will be saved." They are trying to tell us that we are saved by faith only and that baptism is not necessary to be saved, but all that you have to do is believe. Again, like the other three, this is contrary to what the Lord has said in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." On the day of judgment we are only going to be judged by what the Lord says and not by what we think or by what others say.

Who are you following? Are you following 1) Jesus, 2) the Universalist, 3) the Atheist, 4) those promoting infant baptism, or 5) those promoting faith only? We can go to heaven only by following what Jesus says and not what man says. The following chart shows what the Lord has said and also the many ways that men have tried to change it. They have changed it every way possible to suit themselves.

1) Jesus in Mark 16:16 says: Believe + Baptized = Saved
2) Universalist says: Not Believe + Not Baptized = Saved
3) Atheist says: Believe + Baptized = Not Saved
4) Infant Baptism says: Not Believe + Baptized = Saved
5) Faith Only says: Believe + Not Baptized = Saved

Our Lord said in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." But there are those who want to ignore what Jesus said in the first half of the verse and only look at the latter half. They do this in an attempt to try to manufacture a loophole in what the Lord has said. They are not willing to accept that Jesus says we must believe and be baptized to be saved. After the Lord has suffered and died for us they are still rejecting what the Lord has commanded us to do. Jesus could not make it any clearer what one has to do to be saved. In Mark 16:16 we only have two choices: either we obey or we do not obey. When we refuse to obey the first part of what Jesus says in Mark 16:16 then the second part of the verse applies to us, "he who does not believe will be condemned."
In the later half of the verse Jesus says "but he who does not believe will be condemned." But there are those who say that Jesus did not say you would be condemned if you were not baptized. People who say this are grasping at straws in trying to avoid what the Lord who is our only Saviour requires. But people are doing this to their own eternal destruction. A person who does not believe Jesus will certainly not be baptized. One who does not believe could go through the motions and get dunked under the water, but he would not be scripturally baptized. He would only get wet. Since one who does not believe could not be scripturally baptized, it would have been useless for the Lord to have mentioned baptism in the latter half of the verse. People may argue against the Lord's requirement of being baptized in order to be saved, but they will not be able to argue with the Lord when they stand before Him on the Day of Judgment. It will be too late then.
The sad thing is that there are many people who try to use "the thief on the cross" as their justification for not obeying the clear and plain command of Jesus to be baptized. On the Day of Judgment it will not be the case of "what about the thief on the cross". The thief on the cross was before the death of Christ and before the New Testament took effect. The Old Testament was still in effect then. We are now under the New Testament. Anyone refusing to obey Jesus on His terms has no legitimate claim on the salvation Jesus offers. They will certainly be held accountable for their disobedience by the eternal loss of their souls. Either we obey what Jesus says or we will go to Hell. If we go to Hell, we will only have ourselves to blame.
People need to stop spending their time in trying to figure out a way to get around doing what the Lord said, but rather they need be willing to submit to the final authority of our Lord. When we stand before the Lord on the day of judgment to be judged by Him, there are going to be many who have chosen not to do what the Lord has said. Rather they have chosen to do what man has said to do. Romans 10:3 tells us that people are "Seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God." The choice is ours. Either we have tried to establish our own righteousness or we have submitted to the righteousness of God. Unless we are forgiven the way that Jesus Christ has specified in the Bible then we will die in our sins and be forever lost and forever separated from God in eternal punishment. We make the decision; but we will reap the eternal consequences. Are you ready for those consequences?
The Lord says in John 12:48, "The word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." We are not going to be judged by what man says or by what we think, but by what our Lord says. This is going to be the standard for our judgment.
For the majority of people, the judgment will be a horrible day, and a day of many terrible surprises. Obedience to our Lord will save any lost person, no matter how evil his past has been, but obedience to a mere human doctrine will not save anyone, no matter how good they have been. It will only cause them to be lost. Speaking of Christ, Hebrews 5:9 says, "And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him." Yes, we must obey our Lord, if we expect Him to save us.
Baptism is not a work of merit that man does. We do nothing for God when we are baptized, except obey Him; but God does something for us. Baptism is God’s chosen way of imparting His saving grace. Baptism is the submission to the command of God that saves. As we read in Acts 10:48, "And He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." God offers salvation to all men, but He conditions that offer with obeying the requirements which He has set out in His word. The Lord has commanded us to be baptized. The Lord has no nonessential commands. In Hebrews 5:9 we saw that no man can be saved by the grace of God without being obedient to the will of God.
Believing and being baptized to be saved, as Mark 16:16 says, does not nullify the grace of God, but it activates it. The fact that baptism is essential to our salvation in no way reflects upon the wonderful grace offered to all; but rather it honors Christ who commanded it. Baptism is a very serious matter. According to the Bible, baptism is for the purpose of our salvation.
In the Garden of Eden, God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God said in Genesis 2:17, "For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." But later in Genesis 3:4 Satan told Eve, "You will not surely die." Satan just added the one word "not" and perverted what God had said. This is what men are doing today. Jesus said in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Men today erroneously teach "He that believes and is not baptized shall be saved." By adding the word "not" men today are perverting the word of God just as Satan did.
Satan does not want anyone to be baptized for the purpose of being saved. Satan tells people that after you think you are saved and your sins are forgiven then you can be baptized. But this is a lie of Satan which will cause many people to be lost. But Jesus promised salvation only to those who believe and are baptized. We cannot afford to be wrong on this vital point. Our eternal destiny depends on our being right with God.

Taken from www.BibleStudyGuide.org (http://www.BibleStudyGuide.org)

thethinker
Mar 6th 2008, 06:06 PM
Interesting thought, but there is a difficulty:

If the baptism that Jesus commanded was to cease, what do you make of His great commission?

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Does that sound like the Lord was teaching a "transition period?" Or does it sound like the delivery of an perpetual commission?

Not only that, and even more telling, is the teaching that Peter delivered in Acts 2 (inspired by the Holy Spirit, John 4:26; 16:13):

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

The command was the same for all, and there is no hint that a change would come.

To top it off, the New Covenant began at a certain point in time:

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

There is a specific point in time when the New Covenant became effective: at the death of Christ. There was no "phasing in" of the covenant. When Jesus died, it was here.

And the New Covenant is an eternal one, so there is to be no change in what the apostles taught at Pentecost. There was a kingdom in place both before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and after.

Paul said in about AD 62:

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,

So Paul was in the kingdom, before AD 70.

John said:

Rev 1:9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

John says he was in the kingdom, after AD 70, likely around AD 90.

The terms church and the kingdom are used interchangeably by Jesus:

Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

One enters the church by being baptized into Christ, as we read in Acts 2:41,47:

Act 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

This image of people being added to the church/kingdom is a vivid one, and agrees with John 3:5:

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Sorry this post has gotten long, but I just wanted us to look together at how scripture agrees with itself on this point. Baptism is necessary for remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16), and therefore for salvation.

Yes your post was quite long. But thanks for it anyway. I hope you can accept that I can't answer every point now.

First, the Lord did NOT teach a "transition period". The transition period is deduced from what the Holy Spirit taught the apostles after Christ.

Second, the commission was indeed "perpetual" as you have said but not in the sense you might be thinking. Paul said that the Gospel had been preached to "every creature" just as Jesus commanded (Colossians 1:23).

Yet he requested prayer for the boldness to preach the gospel or "the mystery of Christ" after that (4:1). The first century church fulfilled the great commission and then passed on their legacy to us TODAY.

You say that the new covenant became effective at the death of Christ. But Romans 8 and Hebrews 7-8 say that Christ ascended into heaven to make "intercession" for the saints. This was AFTER His death. If the new covenant was fully in effect at Christ's death then why the need for intercession?

Answer: He made intercession in order to fulfill the Mosaic requirements of the law.

Search the old covenant law for the conditions for the remission of sins. The priest had to offer the sacrifice and then enter into the holy of holies to make "intercession" for the people. Salvation was not complete until that intercession was finished and the priest returned to the people.

So Christ offered His own precious body as a sacrifice for us according to the the law of Moses. Then He entered into the heavenly sanctuary to make intercession for God's people. This too was required by Moses. After He completed the intercession He returned to the people just as the law of Moses required. Thus our salvation is complete. The new covenant has been fully realized.

He has finished His intercessory work in the heavenly "holy of holies". He has returned to God's people.

It is Christ's death + His intercession that = the new covenant. His death + water baptism = old covenant. There may be a transition from the one to the other. But there can be no mingling of the two.

Matt14
Mar 6th 2008, 08:09 PM
Yes your post was quite long. But thanks for it anyway. I hope you can accept that I can't answer every point now.

First, the Lord did NOT teach a "transition period". The transition period is deduced from what the Holy Spirit taught the apostles after Christ.

Second, the commission was indeed "perpetual" as you have said but not in the sense you might be thinking. Paul said that the Gospel had been preached to "every creature" just as Jesus commanded (Colossians 1:23).

Yet he requested prayer for the boldness to preach the gospel or "the mystery of Christ" after that (4:1). The first century church fulfilled the great commission and then passed on their legacy to us TODAY.

You say that the new covenant became effective at the death of Christ. But Romans 8 and Hebrews 7-8 say that Christ ascended into heaven to make "intercession" for the saints. This was AFTER His death. If the new covenant was fully in effect at Christ's death then why the need for intercession?

Answer: He made intercession in order to fulfill the Mosaic requirements of the law.

Search the old covenant law for the conditions for the remission of sins. The priest had to offer the sacrifice and then enter into the holy of holies to make "intercession" for the people. Salvation was not complete until that intercession was finished and the priest returned to the people.

So Christ offered His own precious body as a sacrifice for us according to the the law of Moses. Then He entered into the heavenly sanctuary to make intercession for God's people. This too was required by Moses. After He completed the intercession He returned to the people just as the law of Moses required. Thus our salvation is complete. The new covenant has been fully realized.

He has finished His intercessory work in the heavenly "holy of holies". He has returned to God's people.

It is Christ's death + His intercession that = the new covenant. His death + water baptism = old covenant. There may be a transition from the one to the other. But there can be no mingling of the two.
Before I can fully answer your post, please answer one question:

When did Christ "return to the people" as the old testament priests?

You said at that point, when He returned to the people, the covenant was complete.

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2008, 11:59 PM
losthorizon hi

Israel was a physical picture of the heavenly. Israel’s promises were physical, at least they thought so. That is why they require a sign. Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe. Our promises are spiritual.

The promise God made to Abraham that in his Seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed is certainly a spiritual blessing that the Israelites understood for salvation is of the Jews – Jesus was born a Jew.


Naaman’s leprosy was cleansed by the dirty Jordan, but it was merely a picture of the heavenly. His faith in the water’s ability to cleanse him, is like our faith in Christ, the living water, for which all our sins are forgiven.
But just as Naaman would have remained in his leprosy if he would have refused to obey the command of the Lord to be immersed in the water of Jordan to wash away his infirmity, so too men and women today will remain in their sins if they refuse to put their faith into action and obey the command of Jesus Christ to be “baptized into His death” (Mark 16:16; Rom 6:3-4).
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Act 22:16)

Jerome1
Mar 7th 2008, 12:50 AM
Christ gave us the great commision,(Matthew28:16-20) so if you are a christian you should be baptized.

RJ Mac
Mar 7th 2008, 01:25 AM
Made this on another post and thought it might add to the the discussion here. Col.2:11,12; my understanding is we are circumcised at our baptism by Christ. If this is true, for I cannot see any other event where we are circumcised, then how important is baptism. Especially in the light of Moses almost being killed by God for not circumcising his son. Ex.4:24-26

RJ Mac

tgallison
Mar 7th 2008, 02:59 AM
Interesting thought, but there is a difficulty:

If the baptism that Jesus commanded was to cease, what do you make of His great commission?

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.



Matt14 Greetings

The purpose of this post is not to bring into question whether Gentiles are to bear fruit or not. But to take an analytical look at the Great Commission.

The apostles had not the least inkling that Jesus had meant for them to witness to the Gentiles. That this was a commandment to the Gentiles, would also be foreign, as day is to night to the apostles. They had been strictly told not to go to the Gentiles. And Jesus had never reversed this commandment not to go to the Gentiles.

Even after Jesus's resurrection, at the day of Pentecost, there were no Gentiles present. Even up to Acts 11 the preaching was to the Jews only.
Matthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Matthew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Acts 2:5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."

Acts 2:10 "Phrygia, and Pamphylia in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes.

Acts 10:28 "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

Just something to consider when you are studying the Gospels.

terrell

tgallison
Mar 7th 2008, 03:07 AM
The promise God made to Abraham that in his Seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed is certainly a spiritual blessing that the Israelites understood for salvation is of the Jews – Jesus was born a Jew.


But just as Naaman would have remained in his leprosy if he would have refused to obey the command of the Lord to be immersed in the water of Jordan to wash away his infirmity, so too men and women today will remain in their sins if they refuse to put their faith into action and obey the command of Jesus Christ to be “baptized into His death” (Mark 16:16; Rom 6:3-4).
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Act 22:16)

losthorizon greetings

Were the Jews looking forward to a Kingdom on earth, or a kingdom in heaven? A physical king or a spiritual king?

I believe in my first post that I said that baptism is necessary for salvation.

We just disagree on who is the baptizer, and the kind of water used.

Blessings, terrell

losthorizon
Mar 7th 2008, 03:41 AM
losthorizon greetings

Were the Jews looking forward to a Kingdom on earth, or a kingdom in heaven? A physical king or a spiritual king?

I believe in my first post that I said that baptism is necessary for salvation.

We just disagree on who is the baptizer, and the kind of water used.

Blessings, terrell
Hi Terrell -we do agree that baptism is part of God’s plan to redeem mankind through the blood of Christ – “not as a result of works, so that no one may boast”. We are baptized “into Christ” and that baptism is “by water and Spirit” (John 3:5). I would agree with Martin Luther, "For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work."
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13).Do you think Naaman would have remained in his leprosy if he would have refused to obey the command of the Lord to be immersed in the water of Jordan to wash away that disease from his body?

tgallison
Mar 7th 2008, 03:52 AM
Hi Terrell -we do agree that baptism is part of God’s plan to redeem mankind through the blood of Christ – “not as a result of works, so that no one may boast”. We are baptized “into Christ” and that baptism is “by water and Spirit” (John 3:5). I would agree with Martin Luther, "For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work."
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13).Do you think Naaman would have remained in his leprosy if he would have refused to obey the command of the Lord to be immersed in the water of Jordan to wash away that disease from his body?

losthorizon

I disagree that it was by human hands, that was the physical baptism unto repentance for Israel.

Of course Naaman would have remained in his leprosy, but it was an earthly picture of the heavenly.

God relates to us with the physical things that surrounds us, that we know and understand, to show us the heavenly that is hard for us finite beings to know.

terrell

losthorizon
Mar 7th 2008, 04:15 AM
losthorizon

I disagree that it was by human hands, that was the physical baptism unto repentance for Israel.

You misunderstand the baptism commanded by Jesus in the “Great Commission”. This is the “one baptism” that is administered by the hands of men as the penitent believer is placed under the “watery grave” where he is “buried with him by baptism into death”. Then the one baptized raises up out of the water a “new man” that he “should walk in newness of life.”
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Rom 6:4 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.

Of course Naaman would have remained in his leprosy, but it was an earthly picture of the heavenly.
You are correct and believers today are to obey the Lord in baptism “for the remission of sins.”

tgallison
Mar 7th 2008, 04:59 AM
You misunderstand the baptism commanded by Jesus in in the “Great Commission”. This is the “one baptism” that it administered by the hands of men as the penitent believer is placed under the “watery grave” where he is “buried with him by baptism into death”. Then the one baptized raises up out of the water a “new man” that he “should walk in newness of life.”
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Rom 6:4 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. losthorizon

You are correct and believers today are to obey the Lord in baptism “for the remission of sins.”

Where is the term great commission found in the Bible? Just asking. Did not do a complete search, but my limited search produced nothing.

The baptism in Matthew 28 was done by man with earthly water. The twelve apostles to the Jews were commanded to do it. The apostle to the Gentiles was not commanded to do it.

It was given to the covenant people, because they had broken the covenant and needed to repent. It was the baptism of John unto repentance, and it was to make known the coming of the Messiah to Israel.

John 1:31 "And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water."

It was continued into the time of the Gentiles, to let the Jews know that salvation had come to the Gentiles as well. To provoke the Jews to jealousy.

Romans 10:19 "But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you."

Look at the baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

The baptizer is not man, but the Spirit of God, and he baptizes us into the living water, the body of Christ.

Romans 6:3. We are baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit.

In physical baptism, man is the baptizer, and the water is of the earth.

In Spiritual baptism, the Holy Spirit is the baptizer, and the water is living water, Jesus.

terrell

CFJ
Mar 7th 2008, 05:19 AM
losthorizon hi

Israel was a physical picture of the heavenly. Israel’s promises were physical, at least they thought so. That is why they require a sign. Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe. Our promises are spiritual.

Circumcision of the flesh saved no one, but the circumcision of the heart saves everyone.

Romans 2:29 “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

The blood of bulls and goats saves no one, but the blood of Christ saves everyone.

Hebrews 10:4 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”

The baptism of the dirty Jordan cleanses no one, but Christ the living water cleanses everyone.

John 4:10 “Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.”

Naaman’s leprosy was cleansed by the dirty Jordan, but it was merely a picture of the heavenly. His faith in the water’s ability to cleanse him, is like our faith in Christ, the living water, for which all our sins are forgiven.

No one today circumcises the flesh for salvation.

No one today uses the blood of bulls and goats for salvation.

Nor does the dirty water of the Jordan cleanse anyone from their sins.

Hebrews 9:23 “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.”

Hebrews 10:22 “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”

1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

1 John 5:8 “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.”

In Jesus Christ, terrell

Well said tgallison. Amen!

Matt14
Mar 7th 2008, 02:54 PM
Matt14 Greetings

The purpose of this post is not to bring into question whether Gentiles are to bear fruit or not. But to take an analytical look at the Great Commission.

The apostles had not the least inkling that Jesus had meant for them to witness to the Gentiles. That this was a commandment to the Gentiles, would also be foreign, as day is to night to the apostles. They had been strictly told not to go to the Gentiles. And Jesus had never reversed this commandment not to go to the Gentiles.

Even after Jesus's resurrection, at the day of Pentecost, there were no Gentiles present. Even up to Acts 11 the preaching was to the Jews only.
Matthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Matthew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Acts 2:5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."

Acts 2:10 "Phrygia, and Pamphylia in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes.

Acts 10:28 "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

Just something to consider when you are studying the Gospels.

terrell


The whole basis of the gospel is salvation for all, not just Jew. God instructed Cornelius and Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles were acceptable before God under the New Covenant. To say that there are "two teachings, one of the Jews, one for the Gentiles" is biblically incorrect.

As proof of this, the Bible offers the examples in Acts 2 and Acts 10.

What was different about the salvation of the Jews in Acts 2, and the salvation of the Gentiles in Acts 10 (Cornelius and family)?

The answer is nothing. And both had to be baptized into Christ. That was the point Peter was making in Acts 10. Since God has shown by this sign that the Gentiles are acceptable, who am I to withhold baptism, he would say (Acts 10:47).

In Acts 10, the falling of the Holy Spirit was a sign that the Gentiles were acceptable. This being the case, what was the purpose of baptizing them if they were already saved? The sign had been given, so baptism would not have been a sign before the people.

The baptism in Acts 10 was in line with the one in Acts 2:38: for remission of sins.

Additionally, the apostles may not have fully understood the great commission in Matt. 28:18-20, but Jesus knew what He was saying. When He used the word "nations" to say who the apostles should teach, He did not just mean the Jews in other nations. He meant the "ἔθνος" (ethnos), which specifically refers to other races, foreign people.

While they may not have understood fully, the command to go into all the world was given, and it referred to all peoples.

tgallison
Mar 7th 2008, 05:22 PM
The whole basis of the gospel is salvation for all, not just Jew. God instructed Cornelius and Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles were acceptable before God under the New Covenant. To say that there are "two teachings, one of the Jews, one for the Gentiles" is biblically incorrect.

As proof of this, the Bible offers the examples in Acts 2 and Acts 10.

What was different about the salvation of the Jews in Acts 2, and the salvation of the Gentiles in Acts 10 (Cornelius and family)?

The answer is nothing. And both had to be baptized into Christ. That was the point Peter was making in Acts 10. Since God has shown by this sign that the Gentiles are acceptable, who am I to withhold baptism, he would say (Acts 10:47).

In Acts 10, the falling of the Holy Spirit was a sign that the Gentiles were acceptable. This being the case, what was the purpose of baptizing them if they were already saved? The sign had been given, so baptism would not have been a sign before the people.

The baptism in Acts 10 was in line with the one in Acts 2:38: for remission of sins.

Additionally, the apostles may not have fully understood the great commission in Matt. 28:18-20, but Jesus knew what He was saying. When He used the word "nations" to say who the apostles should teach, He did not just mean the Jews in other nations. He meant the "ἔθνος" (ethnos), which specifically refers to other races, foreign people.

While they may not have understood fully, the command to go into all the world was given, and it referred to all peoples.

Matt14 Greetings

What particular sentence or verse is untrue in what I stated?

terrell

Matt14
Mar 7th 2008, 05:31 PM
Matt14 Greetings

What particular sentence or verse is untrue in what I stated?

terrell
From reading your previous posts coupled with the one you made to me, you seemed to be implying that although the Jews were told to "repent and be baptized" (with physical water), Gentiles were not so commanded.

Do you agree or disagree that there is one gospel, and one way to respond to both Jew and Greek?

tgallison
Mar 7th 2008, 06:04 PM
From reading your previous posts coupled with the one you made to me, you seemed to be implying that although the Jews were told to "repent and be baptized" (with physical water), Gentiles were not so commanded.

Do you agree or disagree that there is one gospel, and one way to respond to both Jew and Greek?

Matt14

My understanding of the word gospel is "good news".

The good news in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was that Israel's King had come.

The Kingdom of God, means the power of God. The Kingdom of Heaven, means the power of Heaven.

You would have to ask the twelve apostles to the Jews, if they thought the good news was, that salvation had also come to the Gentiles.

The good news that Paul brought was that salvation by grace had come unto the Gentiles.

Are you asking me if there is any difference in Christ, Jew or Gentile, the answer is no.

terrell

Matt14
Mar 7th 2008, 06:26 PM
Matt14

My understanding of the word gospel is "good news".

The good news in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was that Israel's King had come.

The Kingdom of God, means the power of God. The Kingdom of Heaven, means the power of Heaven.

You would have to ask the twelve apostles to the Jews, if they thought the good news was, that salvation had also come to the Gentiles.

The good news that Paul brought was that salvation by grace had come unto the Gentiles.

Are you asking me if there is any difference in Christ, Jew or Gentile, the answer is no.

terrell
Terrell, I read this post, but I do not really understand your answer. :) Sorry, I'm a little dense at times.

Do you see a difference between the gospel taught to the Gentiles, and the one taught to the Jews?

Is there a different message to Jews? A different message to Gentiles? Different requirements for salvation?

tgallison
Mar 7th 2008, 07:13 PM
Terrell, I read this post, but I do not really understand your answer. :) Sorry, I'm a little dense at times.

Do you see a difference between the gospel taught to the Gentiles, and the one taught to the Jews?

Is there a different message to Jews? A different message to Gentiles? Different requirements for salvation?

Matt14

You are asking two different questions.

Is there a difference between the Jew and the Gentile? Outside of Christ, yes. In Christ no.

Romans 3:1-2 "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

Romans 3:30 "Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith."

Different requirements for salvation? No! Both of faith.

terrell

IWantMoshiach
Mar 7th 2008, 09:15 PM
I have heard many people say that unless you are baptized you are not truely saved. Yet there are many passages of scripture that say faith is all you need to be saved.In fact, the theif on the cross was not baptized yet jesus said to him that this day you shall be with me in paradise. I talked to a catholic priest that said that paradise was referring to purgatory.(which i think it total baloney). What does everyone think? what verse CLEARLY says that it is necessary?


I think that if at all possible baptism should be performed especially for gentile converts

grptinHisHand
Mar 7th 2008, 09:24 PM
But NOT necessary for salvation!
g

Matt14
Mar 7th 2008, 09:44 PM
Matt14

You are asking two different questions.

Is there a difference between the Jew and the Gentile? Outside of Christ, yes. In Christ no.

Romans 3:1-2 "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

Romans 3:30 "Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith."

Different requirements for salvation? No! Both of faith.

terrell
I still don't seem to be getting an answer here. Do you believe there are two gospels, one for Jews, one for Gentiles?

Do you believe Jews had to be baptized in water, but Gentiles do not?

Come on, where're not here to dally words. :) Just say what you mean, please.

Matt14
Mar 7th 2008, 09:44 PM
But NOT necessary for salvation!
g
Peter disagrees, 1 Peter 3:21.

Lars777
Mar 7th 2008, 10:00 PM
I will throw this out there for your consideration, Is John the Baptist considered a New Testament Prophet or Old Testament Prophet?

Even though He does not appear until the New Testament He comes before Christ, to pave the way.

So to me John is the last of the Old Testament prophets, as Jesus is the beginning of the New Testament.

To me everything in the Old Testament with all the sacrifices and such was likened to a kindergarden grace so to speak, something that we would understand.

But when Christ came He came with the real deal, He changed everything for he was the fufillment of everything in the Old Testament.

He entered this world with a new way of life, the old way will now fade into the past, everything has changed.

This includes water baptism, for now you will be baptized but with Fire as John himself says, he goes on and says I must decrease and He Jesus must increase.

John is saying that not only he must decrease but what he was doing as well, and that is baptism in water will decrease as well.

Again ask yourself is John a New Testament Prophet or the last of the Old Testament prophets.


The only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ, not water and Jesus but Christ alone, Jesus himself spoke those words, seems kinda simple to me.

The word salvation has become so mechanical in that it is tossed around and we add requirments to it that do not exist, salvation is a gift that is simple to receive, belief is all it takes, that is all.

But that is just looking at the surface level of salvation as it goes deeper than that, and this is where most christians miss the mark, salvation is not about truth known, knowing scripture is not enough, it is truth done that seperates the sheep from the goats.

True faith always has an action to it, I believe therefore I walk.

Water baptism was just a way to prepare peoples hearts, again I draw your attention to Johns own words " I baptize you with water, but He Christ will baptize you with fire, and we all know John is referring to the coming Holy Spirit.

IWantMoshiach
Mar 7th 2008, 10:10 PM
Peter disagrees, 1 Peter 3:21.

Good point!...and to the above poster there is one gospel for jew and gentile its just how one comes into the gospel that is different...both jews and gentiles come in by faith jews are still to be circumcised (see Acts 21:17-26) and baptized while gentiles are baptized only(see Acts 16:32-34)

Gulah Papyrus
Mar 7th 2008, 10:18 PM
For those of you who say baptism is necessary for salvation, are you saying that if I believe that Jesus is real and the Bible is true and I repent and ask Jesus to live in my heart and be the lord of my life and put all of my trust in Him and in all of my ways acknowledge Him and strive for righteousness and 'pray without ceasing'...but don't go through the process of being baptized with water, that when I meet Jesus at the gates of Heaven he will tell me he doesn't know me and I will spend eternity in hell?:hmm:
...seems out of His character to me.

IWantMoshiach
Mar 7th 2008, 10:46 PM
For those of you who say baptism is necessary for salvation, are you saying that if I believe that Jesus is real and the Bible is true and I repent and ask Jesus to live in my heart and be the lord of my life and put all of my trust in Him and in all of my ways acknowledge Him and strive for righteousness and 'pray without ceasing'...but don't go through the process of being baptized with water, that when I meet Jesus at the gates of Heaven he will tell me he doesn't know me and I will spend eternity in hell?:hmm:
...seems out of His character to me.


:idea: But if you do all of what you just posted you will be baptized at some point.

losthorizon
Mar 7th 2008, 10:58 PM
For those of you who say baptism is necessary for salvation, are you saying that if I believe that Jesus is real and the Bible is true and I repent and ask Jesus to live in my heart and be the lord of my life and put all of my trust in Him and in all of my ways acknowledge Him and strive for righteousness and 'pray without ceasing'...but don't go through the process of being baptized with water, that when I meet Jesus at the gates of Heaven he will tell me he doesn't know me and I will spend eternity in hell?:hmm:
...seems out of His character to me.
Regarding baptism I would simply tell you what Peter told those on the Day of Pentecost who asked "What must we do" to be saved – please note baptism, like faith and repentance comes BEFORE “remission of sins”…
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ..Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”(Act 2)
As for what Jesus would say to you – I don’t speak for the Lord. I do know He commanded baptism BEFORE salvation – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…” (Mar 16:16 ). I do know He did not say, “he that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved."

tgallison
Mar 7th 2008, 11:33 PM
I still don't seem to be getting an answer here. Do you believe there are two gospels, one for Jews, one for Gentiles?

Do you believe Jews had to be baptized in water, but Gentiles do not?

Come on, where're not here to dally words. :) Just say what you mean, please.

Matt14 Greetings

Your understanding of gospel and mine may be two different things.

My understanding is that it means good news.

The good news for the Jews was their Messiah--King had come. That is what the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John proclaimed.

JESUS SAID

Matthew 10:5-6 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Matthew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

The good news that Paul brought, that salvation had now come unto the Gentiles as well as the Jews, by grace, in Christ, both Jew and Gentile. The Pauline epistles, were different from the good news of the other Apostles.

It was as foreign to Paul, a Jew of Jews, as it was to the other Apostles, but it was the good news Jesus gave him to give to the Gentiles.

1 Corinthians 11:1 "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."

A picture of the Jews leading the Gentiles to Christ. All one Book foretold.

The baptism of John unto repentance, for the nation Israel, was because they had fallen away, as the chosen people of the Law. It was also to prepare the way for their King-Messiah. It was extended to the Gentiles as well, to show that they were brought into the fold.

The baptism of John was commanded, by Jesus, of the twelve apostles of the Jews.

Paul was not commanded, by Jesus, to baptize. Paul said he was not sent to baptize.

Romans 11:13 "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office."

I believe both Jew and Gentile have to be baptized in water for salvation. It is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, when we in faith believing that God is our salvation, that He has provided a ransom for us, that we can trust Him, that He is good.

The water that the Holy Spirit baptizes us into is the Living Water, the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit seals us in Christ. All we have to do is believe.

I apologize for not making this more clear, but I wouldn't know how to do it.

In Jesus Christ, terrell

tgallison
Mar 7th 2008, 11:52 PM
Regarding baptism I would simply tell you what Peter told those on the Day of Pentecost who asked "What must we do" to be saved – please note baptism, like faith and repentance comes BEFORE “remission of sins”…
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ..Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”(Act 2)As for what Jesus would say to you – I don’t speak for the Lord. I do know He commanded baptism BEFORE salvation – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…” (Mar 16:16 ). I do know He did not say, “he that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved."

Losthorizon

The baptism of John was for the nation Israel, to prepare them for the presentation of their King.

They had fallen away as a chosen nation. They were to repent, and this was a sign.

There were only Jews and proselytes at Pentecost, no Gentiles.

terrell

Gulah Papyrus
Mar 8th 2008, 12:06 AM
:idea: But if you do all of what you just posted you will be baptized at some point.

you know what I mean...hypothetically?

Must you be baptized to get into heaven? I say no, and the Jesus Christ I think I know is not one who would deny me because I wasn't baptized with water...BTW, I have been baptized and I would recommend it, but I absolutely do not think it is neccessary...

...Does your Bible read 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believes in Him, and is baptized with water, shall not parish, but have eternal life"?

losthorizon
Mar 8th 2008, 03:55 AM
Losthorizon

The baptism of John was for the nation Israel, to prepare them for the presentation of their King.

They had fallen away as a chosen nation. They were to repent, and this was a sign.

There were only Jews and proselytes at Pentecost, no Gentiles.

terrell
Terrell - you appear to be confused regarding the baptism of John and the ordinance of Christian baptism commanded by Jesus Christ after His resurrection and before the Ascension. Christian baptism is an immersion in water (genuine H20 variety) and it is to remain in force until He comes again, i.e., the end of time.

It is the “one baptism” that puts the believer into union with Christ and it is to be submitted to by both Jew and Greek. It is for remission of sins; it is where and when one receives the “gift of the Holy Spirit’; and it is where the believer receives the circumcision of the heart.
"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See here is water, what hinders me from being baptized? And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing." (Acts 8:36-39)

losthorizon
Mar 8th 2008, 01:12 PM
...I mean...hypothetically?

Must you be baptized to get into heaven? I say no, and the Jesus Christ I think I know is not one who would deny me because I wasn't baptized with water...BTW, I have been baptized and I would recommend it, but I absolutely do not think it is neccessary...

Then you must believe Peter was wrong when he commanded repentance and baptism BEFORE “remission of sins” (Acts 2:38)? And you must change the words of Jesus in Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” to read ...”He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved."


...Does your Bible read 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believes in Him, and is baptized with water, shall not parish, but have eternal life"?
When I read the full council of God (the Bible) it plainly reveals that belief, repentance and baptism come before the remission of sin. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for instruction in righteousness..."
"Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

RJ Mac
Mar 8th 2008, 01:37 PM
Does one need to be baptized? Again why wouldn't a person investigate the scriptures and do everything we are called to do and not argue the point that you didn't have to do this or that?

1Jn.2:4 The one who says, 'I have come to know Him' and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him...
1Jn.5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.
MK.16:16 he who as believed and has been baptized shall be saved...

But what if.... That question will be taken up by the Lord.

2Th.1:8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We ask people of the world, why not be a Christian, even if we're wrong, you'll live a good confident life and if we're right then you will reap eternal life. Why not investigate and do the right thing. Because that would condemn all my friends since they are not Christians. Is that a sound reason not to get baptized?

RJ Mac

thethinker
Mar 8th 2008, 05:11 PM
Losthorizon said: "The NT does not know of an un-baptized Christian. The believer receives the gift of the Holy Spirit at the point of baptism".

If LH is correct then the thief that hung next to Christ did not enter into "paradise" with Christ as was promised him. Since the thief was NOT baptised in water, then we must infer that Christ's promise was based in falsehood.

And if the believer receives the gift of the Holy Spirit "at the point of baptism" as LH has said, then John the Baptizer was not filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. But the Scripture plainly declares that he was.

Maybe LH might suggest that the mother's "water" for unborn John was the equivalent of baptism for the believing born.

Such absurdities are the result of carrying over old covenant practices into the new covenant age. ALL old covenant practices have been done away, including John's baptism.

Wake up O new covenant people!!

redeemedbyhim
Mar 8th 2008, 05:35 PM
Wasn't the theif on the cross still under the old testament? Wasn't the New Testament not in affect until Jesus had actually died?

Hebrews 9:16,

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

So, if Jesus gave the "keys" to the Kingdom to Peter then shouldn't we obey Acts 2:38?

Matt14
Mar 8th 2008, 06:20 PM
Wasn't the theif on the cross still under the old testament? Wasn't the New Testament not in affect until Jesus had actually died?

Hebrews 9:16,

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

So, if Jesus gave the "keys" to the Kingdom to Peter then shouldn't we obey Acts 2:38?
Yes, exactly. :)

thethinker
Mar 8th 2008, 06:59 PM
Wasn't the theif on the cross still under the old testament? Wasn't the New Testament not in affect until Jesus had actually died?

Hebrews 9:16,

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

So, if Jesus gave the "keys" to the Kingdom to Peter then shouldn't we obey Acts 2:38?

But Peter and the rest of the disciples are dead. They have no successors. Only those who were commissioned directly by God could baptize. There is only one example of a man other than the disciples that baptized. This man was Philip and he had the authority to baptize because he received DIRECT word from the Lord (Acts 8:26).

Therefore, the command to baptize ended with the last man who had the direct authority to baptize. The next time you see a pastor baptize ask of him on what authority he baptizes. And if he takes you the great commission then ask him if he has the gift of prophecy also. For it all goes together.

Only the original disciples could baptize. They're dead. You yourself said that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter. By the way, the word "you" is plural. So Jesus actually gave the keys of the kingdom to all the disciples.

Since all the disciples are dead, then who has the authority to baptize today? Show me from Scripture a man who has this authority.

Matt14
Mar 8th 2008, 08:03 PM
But Peter and the rest of the disciples are dead. They have no successors. Only those who were commissioned directly by God could baptize. There is only one example of a man other than the disciples that baptized. This man was Philip and he had the authority to baptize because he received DIRECT word from the Lord (Acts 8:26).

Therefore, the command to baptize ended with the last man who had the direct authority to baptize. The next time you see a pastor baptize ask of him on what authority he baptizes. And if he takes you the great commission then ask him if he has the gift of prophecy also. For it all goes together.

Only the original disciples could baptize. They're dead. You yourself said that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter. By the way, the word "you" is plural. So Jesus actually gave the keys of the kingdom to all the disciples.

Since all the disciples are dead, then who has the authority to baptize today? Show me from Scripture a man who has this authority.

Apparently Ananias had "authority," since he baptized Paul:

Act 22:12 "Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there,
Act 22:13 came to me; and he stood and said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that same hour I looked up at him.
Act 22:14 Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth.
Act 22:15 For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.
Act 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

The maxim in logic that says, "That which proves too much, proves nothing" holds true in this case. Your argument that the great commission only applies to the apostles proves too much. If the apostles alone had the authority to baptize, that must mean also that they alone had authority to teach and make disciples.

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

If this commission is for the apostles alone, then evangelism would have come to a standstill after the apostles died. And yet, we know this is not the case. In fact, Paul comissioned Timothy:

2Ti 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

The teachings were to be passed on and multiplied.

We have, in effect, the commission straight from God to make disciples by teaching and baptizing. Keep in mind that the apostles were to teach disciples "all things which I have commanded you," Jesus said. Was teaching and baptizing something that Jesus commanded? Yes, of course. Therefore, they should teach them to do that, to teach and baptize.

If what you say is true, the church has absolutely no grounds for evangelizing whatsoever.

Your argument is ineffective because it proves too much.

redeemedbyhim
Mar 8th 2008, 10:06 PM
Apparently Ananias had "authority," since he baptized Paul:

Act 22:12 "Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there,
Act 22:13 came to me; and he stood and said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that same hour I looked up at him.
Act 22:14 Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth.
Act 22:15 For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.
Act 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

The maxim in logic that says, "That which proves too much, proves nothing" holds true in this case. Your argument that the great commission only applies to the apostles proves too much. If the apostles alone had the authority to baptize, that must mean also that they alone had authority to teach and make disciples.

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

If this commission is for the apostles alone, then evangelism would have come to a standstill after the apostles died. And yet, we know this is not the case. In fact, Paul comissioned Timothy:

2Ti 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

The teachings were to be passed on and multiplied.

We have, in effect, the commission straight from God to make disciples by teaching and baptizing. Keep in mind that the apostles were to teach disciples "all things which I have commanded you," Jesus said. Was teaching and baptizing something that Jesus commanded? Yes, of course. Therefore, they should teach them to do that, to teach and baptize.

If what you say is true, the church has absolutely no grounds for evangelizing whatsoever.

Your argument is ineffective because it proves too much.

Thank you for this indepth reply, because I have NEVER heard of baptisim stopping with the original Apostles. That was definatley a new one.
Your response helped me settle the matter brought up by thethinker.
So, thanks again.

Matt14
Mar 8th 2008, 10:14 PM
Thank you for this indepth reply, because I have NEVER heard of baptisim stopping with the original Apostles. That was definatley a new one.
Your response helped me settle the matter brought up by thethinker.
So, thanks again.
You're very welcome. I've never heard that particular thought either, so it was new to me as well!

redeemedbyhim
Mar 8th 2008, 10:30 PM
You're very welcome. I've never heard that particular thought either, so it was new to me as well!

Thank God for smarter and quicker thinkers than me! Whew.

thethinker
Mar 8th 2008, 10:49 PM
Matthew14 said: "he maxim in logic that says, "That which proves too much, proves nothing" holds true in this case. Your argument that the great commission only applies to the apostles proves too much. If the apostles alone had the authority to baptize, that must mean also that they alone had authority to teach and make disciples".

Thanks for bringing up Ananias. I overlooked him. I did NOT say that the great commission applied only to the apostles. So don't put words into my mouth. The great commission was fulfilled concerning them. Remember when Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel every creature"?

Guess what? That mandate was fulfilled concerning the apostles themselves. Paul said so:

"The gospel was preached to every creature UNDER HEAVEN" (Colossians 1:23). Paul clearly said that that the gospel was preached to EVERY CREATURE. Yet He still asked those saints to pray for him that he would have the boldness to preach the "mystery of Christ", that is, the gospel even AFTER that. (Colossians 4:1).

So the great commission continued even after the mandate was fulfilled. But the authority to remit sins through baptism does not continue. Period! Jesus gave the apostles authority to remit sins which they did through baptism.

We do NOT have this authority today. We do not remit sins through baptism. We are totally under new covenant law! Praise Him!

tgallison
Mar 8th 2008, 11:03 PM
Terrell - you appear to be confused regarding the baptism of John and the ordinance of Christian baptism commanded by Jesus Christ after His resurrection and before the Ascension. Christian baptism is an immersion in water (genuine H20 variety) and it is to remain in force until He comes again, i.e., the end of time.

It is the “one baptism” that puts the believer into union with Christ and it is to be submitted to by both Jew and Greek. It is for remission of sins; it is where and when one receives the “gift of the Holy Spirit’; and it is where the believer receives the circumcision of the heart.
"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See here is water, what hinders me from being baptized? And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing." (Acts 8:36-39)

Losthorizon Greetings

I SEE THREE BAPTISMS


1. The baptism of John.

2. The baptism of Jesus.

3. The baptism of the Holy Spirit.


THE BAPTISM OF JOHN

Was for Israel to repent and prepare the way for their Messiah-King.

Malachi 3:1 “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.”

John 1:31 “And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.”

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

Matthew 3:11 “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.”

Acts 2:3-5 “And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Act 19:3-6 “And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”

The baptism of Jesus was for signs and wonders to let Israel know their Messiah had come.

Acts 2:17-18 “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:”

THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT


This is the spiritual baptism of which the water baptism was a picture of.

1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

The Holy Spirit is the baptizer, he baptizes us into the living water, Jesus Christ.


The baptism of Matthew 28:19 was for the Jewish nation. The twelve apostles were the twelve apostles to the Jewish nation. When Jesus said go to all nations, the apostles understood and rightly so that He was telling them to go to all nations where the Jews are scattered and teach and baptize the Jews in Jesus’s name.

You cannot say that the twelve apostles understood that they were to go to Gentiles.

Matthew 10:5-6 “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

When did Jesus change this commandment? He had not told the twelve apostles, as evidenced by their surprise when they learned that salvation had come to the Gentiles. Would he have sent them out with a confused commandment?


WHEN DID THIS CHANGE

Matthew 15:24 “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

The twelve apostles to the Jews were sent to baptize. As commanded by Jesus.

The apostle to the Gentiles was not sent to baptize. As commanded by Jesus.

In Jesus Christ, terrell

redeemedbyhim
Mar 8th 2008, 11:43 PM
Matthew14 said: "he maxim in logic that says, "That which proves too much, proves nothing" holds true in this case. Your argument that the great commission only applies to the apostles proves too much. If the apostles alone had the authority to baptize, that must mean also that they alone had authority to teach and make disciples".

Thanks for bringing up Ananias. I overlooked him. I did NOT say that the great commission applied only to the apostles. So don't put words into my mouth. The great commission was fulfilled concerning the them. Remember when Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel every creature"?

Guess what? That mandate was fulfilled concerning the apostles themselves. Paul said so:

"The gospel was preached to every creature UNDER HEAVEN" (Colossians 1:23). Paul clearly said that that the gospel was preached to EVERY CREATURE. Yet He still asked those saints to pray for him that he would have the boldness to preach the "mystery of Christ", that is, the gospel even AFTER that. (Colossians 4:1).

So the great commission continued even after the mandate was fulfilled. But the authority to remit sins through baptism does not continue. Period! Jesus gave the apostles authority to remit sins which they did through baptism.

We do NOT have this authority today. We do not remit sins through baptism. We are totally under new covenant law! Praise Him!

Did you learn this teaching or is it something you have figured out on your own?
I've never heard of it...so, I'm courious as to where this teaching stems from, is there a particular denomanation that holds this teaching?
Thanks for your time.

thethinker
Mar 9th 2008, 12:09 AM
Did you learn this teaching or is it something you have figured out on your own?
I've never heard of it...so, I'm courious as to where this teaching stems from, is there a particular denomanation that holds this teaching?
Thanks for your time.

My Brother,
I recommend to you the books "Last Days Madness" by Gary Demar and "Biblical Hermeneutics" by Milton S. Terry. Read also some of Gordon H. Clark's books. Clark was a great logician, philosopher and Reformed theologian.

These will get you to looking at Scripture in a more orderly fashion as opposed to picking a verse here and there and forming a body of doctrine.

I have figured out some things on my own. But these great men taught me how to think, most especially Clark.

Your friend,
Think

redeemedbyhim
Mar 9th 2008, 12:28 AM
My Brother,
I recommend to you the books "Last Days Madness" by Gary Demar and "Biblical Hermeneutics" by Milton S. Terry. Read also some of Gordon H. Clark's books. Clark was a great logician, philosopher and Reformed theologian.

These will get you to looking at Scripture in a more orderly fashion as opposed to picking a verse here and there and forming a body of doctrine.

I have figured out some things on my own. But these great men taught me how to think, most especially Clark.

Your friend,
Think

Thank you for responding and being so kind.

Brother Mark
Mar 9th 2008, 01:28 AM
Wasn't the theif on the cross still under the old testament? Wasn't the New Testament not in affect until Jesus had actually died?

Hebrews 9:16,

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

So, if Jesus gave the "keys" to the Kingdom to Peter then shouldn't we obey Acts 2:38?

Didn't Jesus die before the thief on the cross?

redeemedbyhim
Mar 9th 2008, 02:14 AM
Didn't Jesus die before the thief on the cross?

Whether he died before doesn't matter, as Jesus had not yet given the commandment to be baptized.
If Jesus didn't have to die first before the new testament took effect, then the theif would also have had to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, Rom. 10:9. Obviously he couldn't have known that being himself dead.

CFJ
Mar 9th 2008, 08:51 AM
Whether he died before doesn't matter, as Jesus had not yet given the commandment to be baptized.
If Jesus didn't have to die first before the new testament took effect, then the theif would also have had to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, Rom. 10:9. Obviously he couldn't have known that being himself dead.

redeemedbyhim,

If it does'nt matter, whether Christ died before the thief or not, then there is no reconciliation for him and for us. If there is no reconciliation (Rom 5:10-11), then there is nothing else...

In fact, Christ said that His death on the cross, will be His baptism, "But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able." (Mat 20:22)

He also said that we will be baptized in this exact way (when we are crucified)... "And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." (Mat 20:23)

Paul emphasize the cross, more than anything else, because the cross is everything, including our baptism! We are baptized when we enter our Saviour's body - 1Co 12:13 - . "But it's unthinkable that I could ever brag about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. By his cross my relationship to the world and its relationship to me have been crucified." (Gal 6:14)

Only Paul preach the message of the cross, if someone else preached this message before Christ gave it to Paul, our Redeemer would'nt be crucified and there would have been no reconciliation! "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (1Co 2:6-8)

Something happened on the cross (a baptism = baptizo), to make him (Paul) say the following and if one can see the baptism concerning the cross, the following passage makes so much more sense, because there is no way that Paul was against baptism...


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. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
(1Co 1:17-18)

IWantMoshiach
Mar 9th 2008, 09:15 AM
you know what I mean...hypothetically?

Must you be baptized to get into heaven? I say no, and the Jesus Christ I think I know is not one who would deny me because I wasn't baptized with water...BTW, I have been baptized and I would recommend it, but I absolutely do not think it is neccessary...

...Does your Bible read 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believes in Him, and is baptized with water, shall not parish, but have eternal life"?

:D I know what you mean...i was just being argumentative

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2008, 03:40 PM
...Something happened on the cross (a baptism = baptizo), to make him (Paul) say the following and if one can see the baptism concerning the cross, the following passage makes so much more sense, because there is no way that Paul was against baptism...
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. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
(1Co 1:17-18)

Hi CFJ - regarding the thief on the cross – the thief, just as Abraham and Noah was not commanded to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" because the command to be baptized in His name was yet future to all of them. But we are commanded today to be baptized (immersed in water) in the name of God (Matthew 28:18-20).

Paul’s statement that he was not sent to baptize in no way implies that baptism was non-essential to Paul’s’ teaching - he did baptize some. Paul is simply saying that baptizing was not his primary mission – his primary objective was to preach the gospel of Christ – the same gospel that requires faith, repentance and baptism for “the remission of sins”.

At Paul’s conversion, he too obeyed the Lord’s command to be baptized in water. Paul understood the essential nature of baptism. Ananias told Paul…
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)Questions for you CFJ – according to the Bible were Paul’s sins “washed away” before, during or after he was baptized? Does the command say be baptized to wash away your sins or be baptized because your sins have been washed away? Is the baptism described by Paul in Romans 6 (the same baptism that is “into His death”) a reference to water baptism?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Rom 6:4 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. Baptism is a symbol of our sins being “washed away” by the blood of Christ when we are “united with Christ” as we are baptized “into His death” , i.e., baptism symbolizes Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection that the believer participates in when he is immersed in water.

IPet2_9
Mar 9th 2008, 06:11 PM
Spiritual baptism *IS* necessary.

John 13:8b
Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

tgallison
Mar 9th 2008, 07:35 PM
Spiritual baptism *IS* necessary.

John 13:8b
Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

Seems so clear and simple. Amen. Brother.

terrell

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2008, 10:37 PM
Spiritual baptism *IS* necessary.

John 13:8b
Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."
The washing Jesus speaks of here is the “washing with His blood” , i.e., washing with the blood He shed in His death on the cross – the blood the penitent believer contacts by the operation of the Holy Spirit when one is “baptized into His death” when that one goes under the water of baptism…”Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death…”

CFJ
Mar 10th 2008, 12:44 AM
Hi CFJ - regarding the thief on the cross – the thief, just as Abraham and Noah was not commanded to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" because the command to be baptized in His name was yet future to all of them. But we are commanded today to be baptized (immersed in water) in the name of God (Matthew 28:18-20).

Hi losthorizon,

Yet, there was no reconciliation before Christ's crucifixion and His death on the cross. The cross is surely not meaningless..., as Christ says, that His death on the cross, will be a baptism (baptizo) for Himself and we will be baptized in this exact way. Do you believe that the thief was baptized this way?


Paul’s statement that he was not sent to baptize in no way implies that baptism was non-essential to Paul’s’ teaching - he did baptize some. Paul is simply saying that baptizing was not his primary mission – his primary objective was to preach the gospel of Christ – the same gospel that requires faith, repentance and baptism for “the remission of sins”.

Fact is, he was not send to baptize with water and Christ send him, not someone else. This in itself, is a powerful message about what baptism really means..., don't you think?


At Paul’s conversion, he too obeyed the Lord’s command to be baptized in water. Paul understood the essential nature of baptism. Ananias told Paul…
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)Questions for you CFJ – according to the Bible were Paul’s sins “washed away” before, during or after he was baptized? Does the command say be baptized to wash away your sins or be baptized because your sins have been washed away? Is the baptism described by Paul in Romans 6 (the same baptism that is “into His death”) a reference to water baptism?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Rom 6:4 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. Baptism is a symbol of our sins being “washed away” by the blood of Christ when we are “united with Christ” as we are baptized “into His death” , i.e., baptism symbolizes Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection that the believer participates in when he is immersed in water.

Rom 6:3-4, refers to Mat 20:22-23. We are baptized into His death, cannot be clearer, as the baptism refering to His death on the cross. Furthermore, Paul's baptism, when looking at the true meaning, must be in accordance to his own commission, when Christ send him not to baptize with water. This is a very bold statement he made and needs to be addressed. In the Old Testament up to Christ Himself, everything was seen as a type or image of Christ. After Christ, there is no images of Him left, but only antitypes. Baptism with water cannot save us, if it is a type of Christ, only if it is an antitype..., and then it cannot be water, but Christ himself. When we enter His body (antitype), we are saved. The Spirit of God baptize us into His body (1Co 12:13), like Noah was in the Ark to be saved.


Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn't save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life.
(1Pe 3:21) - GW

Which antitype now also saves us, baptism (not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;
(1Pe 3:21) - LITV

Baptism, which is like that water (antitype), now saves you. Being in Christ now saves us, no image of Christ can do this. If water in baptism or the ritual in baptism saves you, then baptism must be a type of Christ, which it is not, it is an antitype. It saves you through Jesus Christ, not as an image or type of Christ, but as an antitype (through Christ) who came back from death to life, as He rightly said in Mat 20:22-23. When we die in our flesh, that very moment, with our own crucifixion, we are baptized, as Christ was baptized and this is the reason Paul was not send, to baptize with water. This is the way I see this spiritual dispensation, you may differ losthorizon, but I won't crucify anyone, if we differ on this. We need to meet Christ personally, don't we?

Some see this personal meeting with Him in spirit, as our true baptism (antitype), others see it as a type or image of Christ in water baptism. This could well be the reason why Christ never baptize people with water, because He cannot use an image or type of Himself, when He is the antitype.

losthorizon
Mar 10th 2008, 02:39 AM
...Yet, there was no reconciliation before Christ's crucifixion and His death on the cross. The cross is surely not meaningless..., as Christ says, that His death on the cross, will be a baptism (baptizo) for Himself and we will be baptized in this exact way. Do you believe that the thief was baptized this way?


Of course no one has suggested the work of Christ on the cross was “meaningless”, CFJ – there would be no salvation without His once for all time sacrifice on our behalf. The thief was saved by Christ because (as God) He could forgive sins. The thief was not “baptized” on the cross. You misunderstand the passage in question – it was addressed to “the twelve” and it is not the “one baptism” in which all Christians must participate. The one baptism that puts one “into Christ” is immersion in water (Rom 6).


Fact is, he was not send to baptize with water and Christ send him, not someone else. This in itself, is a powerful message about what baptism really means..., don't you think?
Are you suggesting Paul never immersed converts in water? Are you suggesting Paul opposed the ordinance of baptism or tried to discourage believers from being baptized in water – “into Christ Jesus”?


Rom 6:3-4, refers to Mat 20:22-23. We are baptized into His death, cannot be clearer, as the baptism refering to His death on the cross. Furthermore, Paul's baptism, when looking at the true meaning, must be in accordance to his own commission, when Christ send him not to baptize with water.
But Christ did send Paul to baptize in water – He sent Paul to “preach the gospel of Christ” and that good news in its entirety includes the commission from Jesus to go and preach to all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…he that believes and is baptized shall be saved…” To misunderstand the importance of the ordinance of baptism established and commanded by Christ is to miss much.

Do you deny the baptism in Romans 6 is a reference to a burial (immersion) in water as taught by the church of God for the past 2000 years?
"I shall not enter into controversy over this text, although over it some have raised the question of infant baptism or believers' baptism, immersion or sprinkling. If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done. I am content to take the view that baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord, and I shall so interpret the text. ~ Charles Spurgeon, Baptism, A BurialBTW - you also never answered my question - according to the Bible were Paul’s sins “washed away” before, during or after he was baptized? Does the command say be baptized to wash away your sins or be baptized because your sins have been washed away?
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

tgallison
Mar 10th 2008, 01:07 PM
Of course no one has suggested the work of Christ on the cross was “meaningless”, CFJ – there would be no salvation without His once for all time sacrifice on our behalf. The thief was saved by Christ because (as God) He could forgive sins. The thief was not “baptized” on the cross. You misunderstand the passage in question – it was addressed to “the twelve” and it is not the “one baptism” in which all Christians must participate. The one baptism that puts one “into Christ” is immersion in water (Rom 6).

Do you deny the baptism in Romans 6 is a reference to a burial (immersion) in water as taught by the church of God for the past 2000 years?


losthorizon greetings

I SEE THREE BAPTISMS


1. The baptism of John.

2. The baptism of Jesus.

3. The baptism of the Holy Spirit.


THE BAPTISM OF JOHN

Was for Israel to repent and prepare the way for their Messiah-King.

Malachi 3:1 “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.”

John 1:31 “And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.”

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

Matthew 3:11 “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.”

Acts 2:3-5 “And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Act 19:3-6 “And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”

The baptism of Jesus was for signs and wonders to let Israel know their Messiah had come.

Acts 2:17-18 “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:”


THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT


This is the spiritual baptism of which the water baptism was a picture of.

1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

The Holy Spirit is the baptizer, he baptizes us into the living water, Jesus Christ.


The baptism of Matthew 28:19 was for the Jewish nation. The twelve apostles were the twelve apostles to the Jewish nation. When Jesus said go to all nations, the apostles understood and rightly so that He was telling them to go to all nations where the Jews are scattered and teach and baptize the Jews in Jesus’s name.

You cannot say that the twelve apostles understood that they were to go to Gentiles.

Matthew 10:5-6 “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

When did Jesus change this commandment? He had not told the twelve apostles, as evidenced by their surprise when they learned that salvation had come to the Gentiles. Would he have sent them out with a confused commandment?


WHEN DID THIS CHANGE

Matthew 15:24 “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

The twelve apostles to the Jews were sent to baptize. As commanded by Jesus.

The apostle to the Gentiles was not sent to baptize. As commanded by Jesus.

WHICH ONE OF THE THREE BAPTISMS ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

terrell

losthorizon
Mar 10th 2008, 10:57 PM
...THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT


This is the spiritual baptism of which the water baptism was a picture of.
You remain confused, my friend - immersion in water is a picture of the death burial and resurrection of Christ and the cleansing the believer receives through the cleansing power of His blood. Baptism pictures what happened when Jesus died, i.e., He was buried and He rose from the grave. The same is experienced by the believer as he is buried in water and raised up out of the water a “new creature” in Christ Jesus. This is not a hard concept to understand.
The mode of [baptism] was commonly immersion. The symbolism of the ordinance required this. It was an act of purification; and hence the need of water. A death to sin was expressed by a plunge beneath the water, and a rising again to a life of righteousness by the return of light and air; and hence the appropriateness of immersion. ~ Hastings Dictionary of the Bible
Paul has drawn a picture of what baptism is like. In Romans 6:4 he tells us that baptism is like death, burial and resurrection. (See also Col. 2:12). The very symbolism of baptism demands going down into and rising from the water. It is impossible to picture burial and resurrection by pouring or sprinkling. Immersion does do it, and nothing else does. ~ Baptism by A.T. Robertson


WHICH ONE OF THE THREE BAPTISMS ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
We’ve been over this point before - I am referring to the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 (one Lord, one faith, one baptism). The only baptism commanded by Jesus (Mark 16:16). The baptism that puts one into Christ when one obeys the Lord and is immersed in water.
The one baptism of verse 5 is best taken to refer to water baptism, the common New Testament means of a believer’s publicly confessing Jesus as Savior and Lord. This is preferred because of the way Paul has spoken specifically of each member of the Trinity in succession. ~ John MacArthur, commentary on the book of Ephesians

tgallison
Mar 11th 2008, 12:09 AM
You remain confused, my friend - immersion in water is a picture of the death burial and resurrection of Christ and the cleansing the believer receives through the cleansing power of His blood. Baptism pictures what happened when Jesus died, i.e., He was buried and He rose from the grave. The same is experienced by the believer as he is buried in water and raised up out of the water a “new creature” in Christ Jesus. This is not a hard concept to understand.
The mode of [baptism] was commonly immersion. The symbolism of the ordinance required this. It was an act of purification; and hence the need of water. A death to sin was expressed by a plunge beneath the water, and a rising again to a life of righteousness by the return of light and air; and hence the appropriateness of immersion. ~ Hastings Dictionary of the Bible
Paul has drawn a picture of what baptism is like. In Romans 6:4 he tells us that baptism is like death, burial and resurrection. (See also Col. 2:12). The very symbolism of baptism demands going down into and rising from the water. It is impossible to picture burial and resurrection by pouring or sprinkling. Immersion does do it, and nothing else does. ~ Baptism by A.T. Robertson
We’ve been over this point before - I am referring to the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 (one Lord, one faith, one baptism). The only baptism commanded by Jesus (Mark 16:16). The baptism that puts one into Christ when one obeys the Lord and is immersed in water.
The one baptism of verse 5 is best taken to refer to water baptism, the common New Testament means of a believer’s publicly confessing Jesus as Savior and Lord. This is preferred because of the way Paul has spoken specifically of each member of the Trinity in succession. ~ John MacArthur, commentary on the book of Ephesians

losthorizon

It wouldn't be the first time I have been confused, but tell me what am I confused about?

What verse or sentence is in error?

terrell

FieryProphet25
Mar 11th 2008, 01:04 AM
Apparently Ananias had "authority," since he baptized Paul:

Act 22:12 "Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there,
Act 22:13 came to me; and he stood and said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that same hour I looked up at him.
Act 22:14 Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth.
Act 22:15 For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.
Act 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

The maxim in logic that says, "That which proves too much, proves nothing" holds true in this case. Your argument that the great commission only applies to the apostles proves too much. If the apostles alone had the authority to baptize, that must mean also that they alone had authority to teach and make disciples.


If this commission is for the apostles alone, then evangelism would have come to a standstill after the apostles died. And yet, we know this is not the case. In fact, Paul comissioned Timothy:

2Ti 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

The teachings were to be passed on and multiplied.

We have, in effect, the commission straight from God to make disciples by teaching and baptizing. Keep in mind that the apostles were to teach disciples "all things which I have commanded you," Jesus said. Was teaching and baptizing something that Jesus commanded? Yes, of course. Therefore, they should teach them to do that, to teach and baptize.

If what you say is true, the church has absolutely no grounds for evangelizing whatsoever.

Your argument is ineffective because it proves too much.

One thing i have wondered about people who believe that "the great commision" applies to Christians today, and not to the apostles is, if we are to be baptized unto salvation, and speak in tongues, then shouldnt those who believe, also be able to drink deadly poison and not be harmed? If that is true, then i will come over to your house and watch you drink some deadly poison and die. Because that is what you will do.DIE. Isnt this substantial proof that not all who believe will recieve the same gifts as the apostles, and that those gifts were only FOR THE APOSTLES? And when the bible refers to baptism, i believe it is refering to the baptism of the holy ghost, not a literal water baptism.

losthorizon
Mar 11th 2008, 01:48 AM
losthorizon

It wouldn't be the first time I have been confused, but tell me what am I confused about?

What verse or sentence is in error?

terrell
Terrell – you misunderstand the purpose and nature of the baptism commanded by Jesus in “Great Commission”...


Originally Posted by tgallison
The baptism of Matthew 28:19 was for the Jewish nation. The twelve apostles were the twelve apostles to the Jewish nation. When Jesus said go to all nations, the apostles understood and rightly so that He was telling them to go to all nations where the Jews are scattered and teach and baptize the Jews in Jesus’s name.

(1) The baptism referred to in Matt 28:19 is the same baptism that is administered by men for the purpose of making disciples of men of "all nations" for the cause of Christ. The baptism administered by men is immersion in water in the name of God. (2) The baptism of the Great Commission is part of the “gospel of Christ” that is to be taken “to all nations” until the end of time, i.e., to be taken to both Jew and Gentle - the “middle wall of partition” was removed when Jesus died on the cross. (3) The baptism of the Great Commission is immersion in water – the point where the penitent believer receives the “remission of sins” and where he/she receives the “gift of the Holy Spirit”.
And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

tgallison
Mar 11th 2008, 02:21 AM
Terrell – you misunderstand the purpose and nature of the baptism commanded by Jesus in “Great Commission”...



(1) The baptism referred to in Matt 28:19 is the same baptism that is administered by men for the purpose of making disciples of men of "all nations" for the cause of Christ. The baptism administered by men is immersion in water in the name of God. (2) The baptism of the Great Commission is part of the “gospel of Christ” that is to be taken “to all nations” until the end of time, i.e., to be taken to both Jew and Gentle - the “middle wall of partition” was removed when Jesus died on the cross. (3) The baptism of the Great Commission is immersion in water – the point where the penitent believer receives the “remission of sins” and where he/she receives the “gift of the Holy Spirit”.
And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

losthorizon

In the scripture you have given there is not one Gentile involved, unless he is a proselyte.

Matthew 10:5-6 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Even the eunuch that Philip witnessed to was a Jew.

Show me scripture were the twelve ever went to Gentiles, other then when Peter went to Cornelius, and that was in Acts chapter 10. If Peter thought Jesus sent him to the Gentiles in Matthew 28, why is Peter saying this in Acts 10:28? "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

terrell

losthorizon
Mar 11th 2008, 03:12 AM
losthorizon

In the scripture you have given there is not one Gentile involved, unless he is a proselyte.

Matthew 10:5-6 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Even the eunuch that Philip witnessed to was a Jew.

Terrell – if we “rightly divide” the word of God we see where the words of Jesus (Matthew 10:5-6) were spoken before His death on the cross; before He removed the “wall of separation” between Jew and Greek; and before He commanded the gospel be taken into the entire world – to those of all nations (Jew and Greek). Jesus came to the Jew first – the gospel was taken to the Gentiles after His Ascension. To deny the gospel of Christ, including the command to baptize in water was to be taken to Gentiles is to deny the reality of the NT.

I would refer you to the conversion of the Roman (Gentile) jailer in Philippi (Acts 16). The jailer asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul answered, “believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved…and he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately."

Here we have an example of the gospel being preached to a Gentile. Please note – the Gentile was told that in order to be “saved” he must believe on the Lord and he was to be baptized in water “immediately”. This he did, thus obeying the Lord’s command to both Jew and Gentile – “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved…”

Again – you fail to understand the Great Commission includes taking the good news to all people (all nations) both Jew and Gentile and that commission includes the command from the Lord to be immersed in water. This is an easy concept to understand.

tgallison
Mar 11th 2008, 02:25 PM
Terrell – if we “rightly divide” the word of God we see where the words of Jesus (Matthew 10:5-6) were spoken before His death on the cross; before He removed the “wall of separation” between Jew and Greek; and before He commanded the gospel be taken into the entire world – to those of all nations (Jew and Greek). Jesus came to the Jew first – the gospel was taken to the Gentiles after His Ascension. To deny the gospel of Christ, including the command to baptize in water was to be taken to Gentiles is to deny the reality of the NT.

I would refer you to the conversion of the Roman (Gentile) jailer in Philippi (Acts 16). The jailer asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul answered, “believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved…and he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately."

Here we have an example of the gospel being preached to a Gentile. Please note – the Gentile was told that in order to be “saved” he must believe on the Lord and he was to be baptized in water “immediately”. This he did, thus obeying the Lord’s command to both Jew and Gentile – “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved…”

Again – you fail to understand the Great Commission includes taking the good news to all people (all nations) both Jew and Gentile and that commission includes the command from the Lord to be immersed in water. This is an easy concept to understand.

losthorizon greetings

Rightly dividing the word is important. All scripture is for us, but all scripture is not to us. The Book of James for instance, written to the Hebrews that were scattered throughout all the nations. Was not written to Gentiles.

Every promise in the Book is not for everyone.

Acts 26:6-7 "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews."

Luke 22:29-30 "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

In Matthew 10:5-6 Jesus instructed the twelve, not twenty, not one hundred, to preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. In other words the promise to the Jews was being fulfilled.

In Matthew 28, there are now only 11 apostles, not twenty, not one hundred, and they are told to teach all nations.

Every nation does not mean Gentiles. The proof is in Acts 2:5. "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout, out of every nation under heaven."

Also, the apostles would tell you they were not told to go to the Gentiles. Who should no better than they.

Also the second commandment to go the second time, was to tell the Jews their Messiah was resurrected.

Another requirement of this commandment was they had to be a witness of the resurrection. Acts 1:21-22 "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."

The baptism of John was to prepare the Jews for the presence of their Lord.

When a King is coming to your house you make preparations. You clean the house.

Where does it say the Philippian jailer was a Gentile?

terrell

CoffeeBeaned
Mar 11th 2008, 03:17 PM
"All Nations" does indeed refer to jews, greeks, gentiles, etc.

The word for all here is 'pas' meaning:

1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
a) some of all types

"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

The word nations or 'ethnos' means:

1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
a) a company, troop, swarm
2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
a) the human family
3) a tribe, nation, people group
4) in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
5) Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians

thethinker
Mar 11th 2008, 04:54 PM
I would refer you to the conversion of the Roman (Gentile) jailer in Philippi (Acts 16). The jailer asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul answered, “believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved…and he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately."

Here we have an example of the gospel being preached to a Gentile. Please note – the Gentile was told that in order to be “saved” he must believe on the Lord and he was to be baptized in water “immediately”. This he did, thus obeying the Lord’s command to both Jew and Gentile – “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved….

You are quite correct in saying that Gentiles were to be baptized. But it was a requirement for salvation ONLY during the transitional period between the going away of the old covenant and the full morning of the new covenant. Baptism was one of those old covenant things.

Baptism too eventually vanished away with the rest of OC ordinances (from God's point of view). We know this is true because there were only a few who baptized and they had authority from heaven to do so. No man today may claim such authority.

The apostles had the authority to "remit sins" when they baptized. This is why people were baptized in behalf of the dead. Some believers died before being baptized. So others were baptized in their behalf for the remission of their sins.

It baptism is still a requirement for salvation in our time, then we should reinstitute the practice of substitutionary baptism for the dead or else they are dead in their sins.

tgallison
Mar 11th 2008, 04:55 PM
"All Nations" does indeed refer to jews, greeks, gentiles, etc.

The word for all here is 'pas' meaning:

1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
a) some of all types

"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

The word nations or 'ethnos' means:

1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
a) a company, troop, swarm
2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
a) the human family
3) a tribe, nation, people group
4) in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
5) Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians

CoffeeBeaned Greetings

I am not disputing the meaning of ethnos(nations). Just the use of it.

Look at Acts 2:5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."

It is obvious there were devout Jews in every nation under heaven. They had come to Jerusalem to worship, the same as the Ethiopian eunuch.

In Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations----."

1. Do you believe that the eleven apostles to the Jews, who are going to sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes, understood the statement, teach all nations, meant they were to go to Gentiles?

2. Do you believe Jesus would have sent the eleven out in confusion, after he previously told them not to go to the Gentiles?

3. If they were sent to the Gentiles, why was Paul called the apostle to the Gentiles?

terrell

CoffeeBeaned
Mar 11th 2008, 06:26 PM
Although the meaning of ethnos can also mean "nations" as we today mean it, as in different countries or geographical entites or multitudes of people living together, it has never been used (TMK) in the new testament to refer to Jews, but has been used in many places to include Gentiles.

thethinker
Mar 11th 2008, 06:49 PM
Although the meaning of ethnos can also mean "nations" as we today mean it, as in different countries or geographical entites or multitudes of people living together, it has never been used (TMK) in the new testament to refer to Jews, but has been used in many places to include Gentiles.

It is not accurate to say that "ethnos" never refers to the Jews:

Acts 10:22: "Cornelius, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among every ethnos of the Jews".

Acts 26:4: "...my manner of life, which was spent from the beginning among my own ethnos at Jerusalem".

Acts 24:17: "Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my ethnos".

In each of these it is Jews that are the "ethnos". And there are more.

CoffeeBeaned
Mar 11th 2008, 08:29 PM
I stand corrected.

Although I did notice that each of these references is specific not general, i.e. MY ethnos, ethnos OF THE JEWS.

Also, I think that each of these is more along the meaning of the word as nations, whereas the word ethnos is specifically used to refer to the gentiles many times.

I do not believe that "every nation" and "all nations" in the following are the same.



In Matthew 28, there are now only 11 apostles, not twenty, not one hundred, and they are told to teach all nations.

Every nation does not mean Gentiles. The proof is in Acts 2:5. "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout, out of every nation under heaven."

The difference is not so much the word nations as it is the word all.

Not sure if I made sense on that last but I'm not sure I can explain my thoughts any better.

tgallison
Mar 11th 2008, 10:13 PM
I stand corrected.

Although I did notice that each of these references is specific not general, i.e. MY ethnos, ethnos OF THE JEWS.

Also, I think that each of these is more along the meaning of the word as nations, whereas the word ethnos is specifically used to refer to the gentiles many times.

I do not believe that "every nation" and "all nations" in the following are the same.



The difference is not so much the word nations as it is the word all.

Not sure if I made sense on that last but I'm not sure I can explain my thoughts any better.

coffeeBeaned

We can do one of two things.

1. We can make the words and definitions fit what we believe or been taught.

2. We can look to see what the apostles understood the words to mean, in their time and place.

If the apostles were commanded to go to Gentiles and preach and baptize, why then some ten years later do you have Peter, who is not the least of the apostles, saying this.

Acts 10:28 "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company , or come unto one of another nation;---."

We understand their language better than the apostles understood it?

There is a lot more problems making it fit what you believe, that taking it at face value.

terrell

Matt14
Mar 11th 2008, 11:21 PM
Matthew14 said: "he maxim in logic that says, "That which proves too much, proves nothing" holds true in this case. Your argument that the great commission only applies to the apostles proves too much. If the apostles alone had the authority to baptize, that must mean also that they alone had authority to teach and make disciples".

Thanks for bringing up Ananias. I overlooked him. I did NOT say that the great commission applied only to the apostles. So don't put words into my mouth. The great commission was fulfilled concerning them. Remember when Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel every creature"?

Guess what? That mandate was fulfilled concerning the apostles themselves. Paul said so:

"The gospel was preached to every creature UNDER HEAVEN" (Colossians 1:23). Paul clearly said that that the gospel was preached to EVERY CREATURE. Yet He still asked those saints to pray for him that he would have the boldness to preach the "mystery of Christ", that is, the gospel even AFTER that. (Colossians 4:1).

So the great commission continued even after the mandate was fulfilled. But the authority to remit sins through baptism does not continue. Period! Jesus gave the apostles authority to remit sins which they did through baptism.

We do NOT have this authority today. We do not remit sins through baptism. We are totally under new covenant law! Praise Him!
Sorry so long getting back to this thread, been very busy.

Thinker, when do you think the New Covenant in Christ's blood was in effect?

Reading Hebrews 9:15-17, do you think the New Covenant was in full force when Christ died on the cross?

If it was (and scriptures say it was), then the things the apostles taught at Pentecost must have been things that were commanded as part of the New Covenant.

Baptism was definitely a part of that covenant, and baptism was not restricted to Jews. Paul baptized folks in Corinth:

Act 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

And at Ephesus:

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

He was baptizing folks in Galatia, as the testimony of Galatians 3:27 tells us:

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

If baptism was only for the Jews, Paul did not know it.

Matt14
Mar 11th 2008, 11:28 PM
One thing i have wondered about people who believe that "the great commision" applies to Christians today, and not to the apostles is, if we are to be baptized unto salvation, and speak in tongues, then shouldnt those who believe, also be able to drink deadly poison and not be harmed? If that is true, then i will come over to your house and watch you drink some deadly poison and die. Because that is what you will do.DIE. Isnt this substantial proof that not all who believe will recieve the same gifts as the apostles, and that those gifts were only FOR THE APOSTLES? And when the bible refers to baptism, i believe it is refering to the baptism of the holy ghost, not a literal water baptism.
If you are familiar with the cessationist perspective on the miraculous gifts, you may remember the idea that the miraculous deeds were present for the confirmation of the word being preached (Heb. 2:4). After the word was complete (the last apostle finished writing by inspiration), then the signs and wonders were no longer needed.

But baptism is always needed, as men will always need to be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 22:16). Evangelism is also still needed. These parts of the great commission are not ended.

Matt14
Mar 11th 2008, 11:33 PM
losthorizon

In the scripture you have given there is not one Gentile involved, unless he is a proselyte.

Matthew 10:5-6 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Even the eunuch that Philip witnessed to was a Jew.

Show me scripture were the twelve ever went to Gentiles, other then when Peter went to Cornelius, and that was in Acts chapter 10. If Peter thought Jesus sent him to the Gentiles in Matthew 28, why is Peter saying this in Acts 10:28? "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

terrell
Terrell, tell me this:

What lesson did Peter learn in Acts 10 and 11 in regard to Cornelius?

What happened in Acts 10:47-48, and why?

Matt14
Mar 12th 2008, 12:04 AM
You are quite correct in saying that Gentiles were to be baptized. But it was a requirement for salvation ONLY during the transitional period between the going away of the old covenant and the full morning of the new covenant. Baptism was one of those old covenant things.

There was no baptism for the remission of sins being practiced under the Old Covenant. Please show me the scriptures, if I am mistaken.


Baptism too eventually vanished away with the rest of OC ordinances (from God's point of view). We know this is true because there were only a few who baptized and they had authority from heaven to do so. No man today may claim such authority.

Then no man has authority to preach and teach, either.


The apostles had the authority to "remit sins" when they baptized.

What about Ananias? (Acts 22:16). He baptized Paul.

What about Philip, also not an apostle.

What about Timothy, who Paul said to teach other men the things Paul had taught him, and teach others as well? (2 Tim. 2:2)

Did remission of sins stop when John died?


This is why people were baptized in behalf of the dead. Some believers died before being baptized. So others were baptized in their behalf for the remission of their sins.

Can you show me where such a thing is commanded?

Just because Paul mentioned it, does not mean he endorsed it.


It baptism is still a requirement for salvation in our time, then we should reinstitute the practice of substitutionary baptism for the dead or else they are dead in their sins.

Come on, now. Let's be realistic. There is a lot more evidence for the necessity of baptism for salvation than there is for "baptism for the dead."

Matt14
Mar 12th 2008, 12:12 AM
coffeeBeaned

We can do one of two things.

1. We can make the words and definitions fit what we believe or been taught.

2. We can look to see what the apostles understood the words to mean, in their time and place.

If the apostles were commanded to go to Gentiles and preach and baptize, why then some ten years later do you have Peter, who is not the least of the apostles, saying this.

Acts 10:28 "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company , or come unto one of another nation;---."

We understand their language better than the apostles understood it?

There is a lot more problems making it fit what you believe, that taking it at face value.

terrell


Peter said this because he was still hung up on the Old Law and the traditions. Remember his dispute with Paul?

The case of Cornelius goes directly against what you are saying, because God wanted Peter to know that he was SUPPOSED to go to the Gentiles as well. :)

If it is as you are saying, and the 12 were never supposed to go to the Gentiles, then God commanded Peter to do something against what you say Christ commanded.

I think that it a pretty solid argument against what you are saying. What do you think?

losthorizon
Mar 12th 2008, 01:38 AM
...The Book of James for instance, written to the Hebrews that were scattered throughout all the nations. Was not written to Gentiles.

I think the book of James (like the entire NT) was written for ALL Christians for ALL time both Jew and Gentile.
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. (2Ti 3:16 -17)
God is not a respecter of person – Christ dismantled the wall that separated Jew and Gentile. You want to separate the gospel of Christ – one plan for Jews and one plan for Gentiles but this notion is contrary to the teaching of Holy Writ. James understood that in the first century, God was “taking from the Gentiles a people for himself “. The Gentiles were admitted to the Lord’s church the same way Jews where admitted – through the ordinance of Christian baptism that puts Jew and Greek “into Christ”. This is the same ordinance that puts one into Christ Jesus today. The words of James are plainly recorded in the book of Acts…
‘Brothers, listen to me, Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God’” (Acts 15:12-14, 19).

Where does it say the Philippian jailer was a Gentile?
Is it your notion that the jailer was a Jew? Are you saying there are no examples of Gentile converts to the Christian faith being immersed in water in obedience to the Lord's command? Do you think Jesus Christ commanded water baptism as part of the Great Commissions that was to be taken to all nations?

losthorizon
Mar 12th 2008, 01:53 AM
You are quite correct in saying that Gentiles were to be baptized. But it was a requirement for salvation ONLY during the transitional period between the going away of the old covenant and the full morning of the new covenant. Baptism was one of those old covenant things.

This is a new one for me, Thinker. Do you have scriptural support for such a notion that goes against 2000 years of church scholarship? When and where exactly did this "transitional period" take place? Wasn't the old covenant "nailed to the cross"?

thethinker
Mar 12th 2008, 08:48 AM
This is a new one for me, Thinker. Do you have scriptural support for such a notion that goes against 2000 years of church scholarship? When and where exactly did this "transitional period" take place? Wasn't the old covenant "nailed to the cross"?


My scriptural support is the fact that all who baptized had direct authority from Christ, God or an angel from heaven. See for yourself. There were no "common" men baptizing people. Since no such authority is being given today, then baptism cesaed when the last man who had the authority to baptize died.

The old covenant did not end apruptly as is most commonly thought. It was "phased" out over a generation. Hebrews used the present participle saying that the old covenant is vanishing away (Ch.8).

The old covenant came to its full end after Christ completed His intercessory work. The old covenant was abolished by these two things:
1. Christ's priestly sacrifice
2. His priestly intercession

Both the sacrifice and the intercession had to be completed for salvation according to the law of Moses. This is standard Partial Preterist interpretation.

losthorizon
Mar 12th 2008, 11:28 AM
My scriptural support is the fact that all who baptized had direct authority from Christ, God or an angel from heaven. See for yourself. There were no "common" men baptizing people. Since no such authority is being given today, then baptism cesaed when the last man who had the authority to baptize died.

The old covenant did not end apruptly as is most commonly thought. It was "phased" out over a generation. Hebrews used the present participle saying that the old covenant is vanishing away (Ch.8).

The old covenant came to its full end after Christ completed His intercessory work. The old covenant was abolished by these two things:
1. Christ's priestly sacrifice
2. His priestly intercession

Both the sacrifice and the intercession had to be completed for salvation according to the law of Moses. This is standard Partial Preterist interpretation.
So the truth is, Thinker – you have no biblical support for a non-biblical notion. That is what I thought. There is no requirement that states "common" men cannot baptize believers – all Christians are priests for the God of Heaven. Baptism is the initiatory rite that but the believer into Christ and it will be that way as long as the church exists on earth, i.e., until Christ comes the second time. You need to re-think your position – it is in error.

Matt14
Mar 12th 2008, 01:38 PM
My scriptural support is the fact that all who baptized had direct authority from Christ, God or an angel from heaven. See for yourself. There were no "common" men baptizing people. Since no such authority is being given today, then baptism cesaed when the last man who had the authority to baptize died.

The old covenant did not end apruptly as is most commonly thought. It was "phased" out over a generation. Hebrews used the present participle saying that the old covenant is vanishing away (Ch.8).

The old covenant came to its full end after Christ completed His intercessory work. The old covenant was abolished by these two things:
1. Christ's priestly sacrifice
2. His priestly intercession

Both the sacrifice and the intercession had to be completed for salvation according to the law of Moses. This is standard Partial Preterist interpretation.
You'll have to deal with Hebrews a little more:

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Hebrews says the testament (New Covenant) is in force after the death of the testator. There is no gradual process. It is in full force when the death occurs.

thethinker
Mar 12th 2008, 06:13 PM
So the truth is, Thinker – you have no biblical support for a non-biblical notion. That is what I thought. There is no requirement that states "common" men cannot baptize believers – all Christians are priests for the God of Heaven. Baptism is the initiatory rite that but the believer into Christ and it will be that way as long as the church exists on earth, i.e., until Christ comes the second time. You need to re-think your position – it is in error.

You say that there is no requirement that states that "common men" cannot baptize. Yet the Christian church has always held that a man must be ORDAINED in order to baptize. It certainly is true in my denomination (PCA).

No "common" man in my denomination is permitted to baptize an individual. A man must be "ordained", that is, he must receive the authority to baptize from a power HIGHER than himself.

What about your denomination? Is the "common" man permitted to baptize in your church? I think not.

This demonstrates that the church intuitively knows that the baptizer must act on some authority HIGHER THAN HIMSELF. And my assertions are not based on intuitive knowledge. They are based on the HISTORICAL fact that all who baptized did so on a HIGHER AUTHORITY whether Christ, God or a messenger from heaven.

So it is written!

Matt14 said: "Hebrews says the testament (New Covenant) is in force after the death of the testator. There is no gradual process. It is in full force when the death occurs".

If your understanding of Hebrews is correct, then why the need for Christ to intercede AFTER His death? Romans 8 and Hebrews 7-8 say that Christ made "intersession" for the people of God.

So what is your view of the intercessory work of Christ?

tgallison
Mar 12th 2008, 06:24 PM
Terrell, tell me this:

What lesson did Peter learn in Acts 10 and 11 in regard to Cornelius?

What happened in Acts 10:47-48, and why?

Matt14 Greetings

What he learned is what you said he had learned 10 years earlier in Matthew 28. That salvation had now come to the Gentiles.

What happened in Acts 10:47-48?

They had just received the baptism of Jesus as evidenced by receiving the Holy Ghost. Now Peter was going to baptized them into Johns baptism.

If you will note this is two baptisms

This was in recognition that salvation had now come to the Jews. It was a sign for the Jews.

Act 19:3-6 “And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”

Here is a picture of the two baptisms reversed from the order of Acts 10:47-48.

There is of course the third baptism, which is by the Holy Spirit.

THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT


This is the spiritual baptism of which the water baptism was a picture of.

1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

The Holy Spirit is the baptizer, he baptizes us into the living water, Jesus Christ.

terrell

tgallison
Mar 12th 2008, 06:46 PM
If it is as you are saying, and the 12 were never supposed to go to the Gentiles, then God commanded Peter to do something against what you say Christ commanded.

Matt14

I separated this sentence because I have a question to ask you.

You have God and Christ as two separate entities. Did you mean to do this?

terrell

CoffeeBeaned
Mar 12th 2008, 07:22 PM
What about your denomination? Is the "common" man permitted to baptize in your church? I think not.

Actually, yes, any baptized Christian can baptize another Christian. As long as you are a disciple (disciple = Christian) then you have the authority to baptize another.

Also, I would not accept the word of a denomination over the Word of God.

Matt14
Mar 12th 2008, 07:43 PM
Matt14 said: "Hebrews says the testament (New Covenant) is in force after the death of the testator. There is no gradual process. It is in full force when the death occurs".

If your understanding of Hebrews is correct, then why the need for Christ to intercede AFTER His death? Romans 8 and Hebrews 7-8 say that Christ made "intersession" for the people of God.

So what is your view of the intercessory work of Christ?

Hebrews says He always lives to make intercession for His people:

Heb 7:24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.
Heb 7:25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

His intercessory work was not completed at second coming in AD 70 as you claim, but rather He always lives to make intercession for anyone who comes to Him according to His word.

tgallison
Mar 12th 2008, 08:09 PM
Peter said this because he was still hung up on the Old Law and the traditions. Remember his dispute with Paul?

The case of Cornelius goes directly against what you are saying, because God wanted Peter to know that he was SUPPOSED to go to the Gentiles as well. :)

If it is as you are saying, and the 12 were never supposed to go to the Gentiles, then God commanded Peter to do something against what you say Christ commanded.

I think that it a pretty solid argument against what you are saying. What do you think?

Matt14


It was not that Peter was hung up on the Old Law and the traditions. It was because he hadn’t been told anything different by Jesus. This was the point and time of the notice of change. And what is the change that Peter has been told? That salvation has now come to the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:7-8 “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)”

TRANSLATION

Peter went to the Jews and Paul went to the Gentiles.

I don’t believe you have an argument solid or otherwise.

terrell

Matt14
Mar 12th 2008, 08:32 PM
Matt14 Greetings

What he learned is what you said he had learned 10 years earlier in Matthew 28. That salvation had now come to the Gentiles.

What I am trying to point out to you is that you are saying the apostles were not supposed to go to the Gentiles at all. But here we have God teaching Peter to go to the Gentiles.

Christ gave the great commission to the apostles in Matt. 28:18-20, but you say this was a command to go only to the Jews.

Why the change? Did Christ restrict the apostles, and God had to straighten them out?

Does this not demonstrate to you that the same gospel Peter had preached to the Jews, he now would preach to the Gentiles?

What more evidence do you need?


What happened in Acts 10:47-48?

They had just received the baptism of Jesus as evidenced by receiving the Holy Ghost. Now Peter was going to baptized them into Johns baptism.

No, no. They had just received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, just as he apostles had on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2, Acts 11:47).

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his family was no more a mark of the point of conversion than the same outpouring upon the apostles in Acts 2 was a mark of their salvation. Few would argue that the apostles were saved in Acts 2. Neither should we say the outpouring on the Gentiles in Acts 10 was a mark of salvation.

Instead, they had to be baptized into Christ for the remission of sins, just like the Jews in Acts 2. This happened in Acts 10:47-48.

The baptism they were baptized with in Acts 10:47-48 was the baptism of the Great Commission, into Christ's name.

tgallison
Mar 12th 2008, 08:35 PM
[quote=losthorizon;1570016]I think the book of James (like the entire NT) was written for ALL Christians for ALL time both Jew and Gentile.
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. (2Ti 3:16 -17)
losthorizon greetings

Rightly dividing the word is important. All scripture is for us, but all scripture is not to us. The Book of James for instance, written to the Hebrews that were scattered throughout all the nations. Was not written to Gentiles.

It is not nice to quote one out of context. This paragraph taken in whole, is true, or untrue?

terrell

Matt14
Mar 12th 2008, 08:57 PM
Matt14 said: "Hebrews says the testament (New Covenant) is in force after the death of the testator. There is no gradual process. It is in full force when the death occurs".

Now that I have answered your question, will you please answer the one from me that you have left hanging?

According to Hebrews 9:15-17, when was the New Covenant in effect?

Simple question, only requires a simple answer.

Thanks!

Matt14
Mar 12th 2008, 09:03 PM
Matt14

I separated this sentence because I have a question to ask you.

You have God and Christ as two separate entities. Did you mean to do this?

terrell

In scripture God and Christ are two separate persons of a united Godhead.

tgallison
Mar 12th 2008, 09:19 PM
What I am trying to point out to you is that you are saying the apostles were not supposed to go to the Gentiles at all. But here we have God teaching Peter to go to the Gentiles.

If you mean at all ever, that is not what I said. Peter was making a case for the Gentiles before his brethren because Christ had told him to call no man unclean.

There is no time that I know of that the 12 apostles to the twelve tribes ever went to Gentiles, other than when Peter went to Cornelius.

Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;"



Christ gave the great commission to the apostles in Matt. 28:18-20, but you say this was a command to go only to the Jews.

That is what the evidence shows the understanding of the apostles to be. Maybe men today understand the Greek better than what the apostles did then.



Why the change? Did Christ restrict the apostles, and God had to straighten them out?

Has everything to with timing. Every thing in its order.


Does this not demonstrate to you that the same gospel Peter had preached to the Jews, he now would preach to the Gentiles?
What more evidence do you need?

Give me some evidence of Gentiles who Peter preached to other than Cornelius.




No, no. They had just received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, just as he apostles had on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2, Acts 11:47).

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his family was no more a mark of the point of conversion than the same outpouring upon the apostles in Acts 2 was a mark of their salvation. Few would argue that the apostles were saved in Acts 2. Neither should we say the outpouring on the Gentiles in Acts 10 was a mark of salvation.

Instead, they had to be baptized into Christ for the remission of sins, just like the Jews in Acts 2. This happened in Acts 10:47-48.

The baptism they were baptized with in Acts 10:47-48 was the baptism of the Great Commission, into Christ's name.


I SEE THREE BAPTISMS


1. The baptism of John.

2. The baptism of Jesus.

3. The baptism of the Holy Spirit.


THE BAPTISM OF JOHN

Was for Israel to repent and prepare the way for their Messiah-King.

Malachi 3:1 “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.”

John 1:31 “And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.”

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

Matthew 3:11 “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.”

Acts 2:3-5 “And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Act 19:3-6 “And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”

The baptism of Jesus was for signs and wonders to let Israel know their Messiah had come.

Acts 2:17-18 “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:”


THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT


This is the spiritual baptism of which the water baptism was a picture of.

1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

The Holy Spirit is the baptizer, he baptizes us into the living water, Jesus Christ.


The baptism of Matthew 28:19 was for the Jewish nation. The twelve apostles were the twelve apostles to the Jewish nation. When Jesus said go to all nations, the apostles understood and rightly so that He was telling them to go to all nations where the Jews are scattered and teach and baptize the Jews in Jesus’s name.

You cannot say that the twelve apostles understood that they were to go to Gentiles.

Matthew 10:5-6 “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

When did Jesus change this commandment? He had not told the twelve apostles, as evidenced by their surprise when they learned that salvation had come to the Gentiles. Would he have sent them out with a confused commandment?


WHEN DID THIS CHANGE

Matthew 15:24 “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

The twelve apostles to the Jews were sent to baptize. As commanded by Jesus.

The apostle to the Gentiles was not sent to baptize. As commanded by Jesus.

WHICH ONE OF THE THREE BAPTISMS ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

terrell http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1567631)

tgallison
Mar 12th 2008, 09:27 PM
In scripture God and Christ are two separate persons of a united Godhead.

Matt14

Really really disagree with you on this one.

1. God, the Father

2. God, the Son

3. God, the Holy Spirit

To say otherwise, is to say God was not manifested in the flesh.

terrell

Matt14
Mar 12th 2008, 09:35 PM
Matt14

Really really disagree with you on this one.

1. God, the Father

2. God, the Son

3. God, the Holy Spirit

To say otherwise, is to say God was not manifested in the flesh.

terrell
You are grasping at straws trying to disagree with me. :lol:

There is nothing different about what I stated, and what you post above.

There is God the Father, and there is God the Son, and there is God the Holy Spirit. They are separate, but One.

Let's please don't derail the thread with a discussion of the Godhead.

tgallison
Mar 12th 2008, 09:43 PM
You are grasping at straws trying to disagree with me. :lol:

There is nothing different about what I stated, and what you post above.

There is God the Father, and there is God the Son, and there is God the Holy Spirit. They are separate, but One.

Let's please don't derail the thread with a discussion of the Godhead.

Matt14

Didn't you read what you stated?



Originally Posted by Matt14 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1571085#post1571085)
In scripture God and Christ are two separate persons of a united Godhead.


Will not derail the thread. Please tell me if you agree that their is more than one baptism?

terrell

losthorizon
Mar 12th 2008, 10:30 PM
You say that there is no requirement that states that "common men" cannot baptize. Yet the Christian church has always held that a man must be ORDAINED in order to baptize. It certainly is true in my denomination (PCA).

"What God hath cleansed, make not thou common."Thinker, I appreciate your response but you remain in error. The Christian church recorded in the NT nowhere states that a Christian must be “ordained” by a "denomination" to administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. If you have any scripture to the contrary then I would ask that you submit it for review. Any Christian can administer the ordinances of the church just as any Christian can pray to God for forgiveness of sins.


No "common" man in my denomination is permitted to baptize an individual. A man must be "ordained", that is, he must receive the authority to baptize from a power HIGHER than himself.

Then your “denomination” teaches a non-biblical doctrine that originated with man and not God. The church of God baptizes by the authority of Jesus Christ who instituted and commanded the ordinance of baptism not by some man-made "denomination". Those who baptize do so by the Lord’s authority in the name of God “for the remission of sins”. This is not hard to understand. All Christians comprise a “holy priesthood”.
But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; (1 Peter 2:9 )


What about your denomination? Is the "common" man permitted to baptize in your church? I think not.
Then you think wrong once again. I was baptized into the church of God for the remission of my sins upon my confession that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of the living God and the man who baptized me was just a man of faith. If that fits your definition of “common” then he was a common man but one who was redeemed by the very blood of Christ.

Again I remind you that you hold to a doctrine that comes from man and not from God. You misunderstand the nature and purpose of the ordinance of baptism. You need to re-think your position in light of His word. :)

thethinker
Mar 12th 2008, 11:33 PM
"What God hath cleansed, make not thou common."Thinker, I appreciate your response but you remain in error. The Christian church recorded in the NT nowhere states that a Christian must be “ordained” by a "denomination" to administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. If you have any scripture to the contrary then I would ask that you submit it for review. Any Christian can administer the ordinances of the church just as any Christian can pray to God for forgiveness of sins.








Then your “denomination” teaches a non-biblical doctrine that originated with man and not God. The church of God baptizes by the authority of Jesus Christ who instituted and commanded the ordinance of baptism not by some man-made "denomination". Those who baptize do so by the Lord’s authority in the name of God “for the remission of sins”. This is not hard to understand. All Christians comprise a “holy priesthood”.
But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; (1 Peter 2:9 )Then you think wrong once again. I was baptized into the church of God for the remission of my sins upon my confession that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of the living God and the man who baptized me was just a man of faith. If that fits your definition of “common” then he was a common man but one who was redeemed by the very blood of Christ.

Again I remind you that you hold to a doctrine that comes from man and not from God. You misunderstand the nature and purpose of the ordinance of baptism. You need to re-think your position in light of His word. :)

Dear LH,
Cool post bro! But I disagree! You correctly urge me to re-think my theology. That's part of the reason why I post. I post to contribute and to test my conclusions. My discourse with you in and of itself causes me to re-think things.

You say that my denomination teaches error because it requires a man to be ordained in order to baptize. But this has been the practice of the Christian church for 2,000 years, not that it automatically makes it right.

You did not answer my question: Does your denomination allow an unordained man to baptize?

You said: "Those who baptize do so by the Lord’s authority in the name of God “for the remission of sins”. This is not hard to understand. All Christians comprise a “holy priesthood”.

Look more closely at what Peter said. He did not write to a church that had been planted. He wrote to a class of elect "pilgrims" who did not stay in one place. They had no church affiliation. I believe they went about the country taking care of of the ordinances. They are the "you" that are to be understood as the "holy priesthood". It is these "pilgrims" that did the baptizing. Not any old fool!

Please give me your definition of the term "priest". In my view it necessarily infers that you can act in behalf of another and remit his sins. That's exactly what the priests did in old covenant times did. That's exactly what Jesus and His appointed priests did. That was all old covenant. Our sins are remitted by faith alone now through SPIRITUAL BAPTISM. No priesthood of any kind is necessary now! FAITH ALONE BRO! FAITH ALONE!!

If what you're saying is true than any old fool who claims to be a believer can say, "I'm a priest. Your sins are forgiven". Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to His disciples and NO successors other than those who the disciples themselves appointed.

You're saying that after you yourself baptize an individual you can thus declare to him, "I have remitted your sins"?

So please be straight forward about it. Post publically on this forum that you have the power and authority to remit sins. Come right out and say it.

Please say,
"I losthorizon have the power and authority to remit a man's sins".

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2008, 02:18 AM
Dear LH,
Cool post bro! But I disagree! You correctly urge me to re-think my theology. That's part of the reason why I post. I post to contribute and to test my conclusions. My discourse with you in and of itself causes me to re-think things.

Hey Thinker - I think this is the reason why most of us are here - to re-think our theology. To some extent we all “see through a glass, darkly” – no one has a lock on all there is to know about God’s revelation.


You say that my denomination teaches error because it requires a man to be ordained in order to baptize. But this has been the practice of the Christian church for 2,000 years, not that it automatically makes it right.
Again, If you have scriptural support that God requires *ordained denominational men* to immerse believers in water then present it for review – but you will not be able to provide any because such scriptures do not exist.


You did not answer my question: Does your denomination allow an unordained man to baptize?
I did answer your question – I said the man who baptized me “into Christ” for the remission of my sins (per Rom 6: 3-4; Acts 2:38) was not “ordained” by any denomination. He baptized me by the authority given by the Lord in the “Great Commission to “…go…baptize… all nations…into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”


Look more closely at what Peter said. He did not write to a church that had been planted. He wrote to a class of elect "pilgrims" who did not stay in one place.
You are mistaken – there is not an elite “class of elect pilgrims” within the body of Christ. All Christians are an “elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation”.


They had no church affiliation.
Wrong again – the NT knows of no Christian who was not affiliated with the church of God just as it knows of no un-baptized Christian, i.e., one who is a Christian is “in Christ”, the Lord’s church and one who is not in the Lord’s church is not a Christian. One enters the Lord's church when he/she is baptized "into Christ".
Act 2:41 They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them [the Lord's church] in that day about three thousand souls.
Please give me your definition of the term "priest".
According to Fausett:
Hebrew kohen; Greek hiereus. There are four characteristics of the priest…

(1) chosen of God;
(2) the property of God;
(3) holy to God;
(4) he offered gifts to God, and took back gifts from God


If what you're saying is true than any old fool who claims to be a believer can say, "I'm a priest. Your sins are forgiven".
I never said any old fool can forgive sins. Only God - who knows the hearts of men - can forgive sins and that through the blood of Christ. The notion that a “priest” or any man (or Mary) can forgive sins in a non-biblical dogma.


You're saying that after you yourself baptize an individual you can thus declare to him, "I have remitted your sins"?
No, that's not what I said at all – I am saying I can baptize a penitent believer in water according to God’s word. It is the Holy Spirit who applies the blood of Christ to the believer thus washing away one’s sins as the believer “calls on the name of the Lord”. Again, only the blood of Christ remits sins and the blood is applied by the operation of the Holy Spirit. (Romans 6: 3-5).


Please say,
"I losthorizon have the power and authority to remit a man's sins".
To say that would be blasphemy on my part. Only God remits sins only He saves – through the blood of Christ. :)

FieryProphet25
Mar 13th 2008, 03:06 AM
i just wanted to re-ask a question to those who believe that a person who believes Jesus, Kills the flesh daily to become more like Jesus, and who tries to do all for the glory of god yet does not recieve a physical water baptism will not go to heaven. Most who believe this use the great commision in the book of mark to support the need to be saved AND physically baptized, yet it also says that they will be able to withstand deadly poison and deadly snakes, which we all know WE cannot do. So i guess i just want to know why you believe that only part of the GREAT COMMISION applies to us today. Surely, if one applies then the rest does as well, and if part does not apply, then the rest doesnt as well. Because the part about being baptized reffers to the spiritual baptism, which one recieves apon accepting christ(being saved). I have asked this before but no one has directly answered, and oh there is that part where jesus promised salvation to the thief on the cross, and he wasnt baptized. Some say that he MIGHT have been baptized before he was on the cross, but doesnt make sense if being physically baptized and being saved go hand in hand, if he was baptized before there would have been no need for him to ask jesus to remember him. Just want some clarity on where everyone stands on this.

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2008, 04:28 AM
i just wanted to re-ask a question to those who believe that a person who believes Jesus, Kills the flesh daily to become more like Jesus, and who tries to do all for the glory of god yet does not recieve a physical water baptism will not go to heaven. Most who believe this use the great commision in the book of mark to support the need to be saved AND physically baptized, yet it also says that they will be able to withstand deadly poison and deadly snakes, which we all know WE cannot do. So i guess i just want to know why you believe that only part of the GREAT COMMISION applies to us today. Surely, if one applies then the rest does as well, and if part does not apply, then the rest doesnt as well. Because the part about being baptized reffers to the spiritual baptism, which one recieves apon accepting christ(being saved). I have asked this before but no one has directly answered,
Let me follow your logic – you say the “baptism” of the Great Commission is not immersion in water but insist “the part about being baptized refers to the spiritual baptism”. But then you insist that since we cannot drink poison and pick up deadly snake then nothing in the later part of Mark 16 is applicable today including baptism. So according to your logic “spiritual baptism” does not apply to Christians today. The question that goes begging - what baptism does apply to Christians today under your theology? You have eliminated both water and Spirit.

The biblical truth is the baptism of the Great Commissions is the ordinance of Christian baptism in water - the same baptism that puts one in the body of Christ (His church). The ordinance is to exist as long as the church on earth exists, i.e., until Christ’s second coming.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

…oh there is that part where jesus promised salvation to the thief on the cross, and he wasnt baptized. Some say that he MIGHT have been baptized before he was on the cross, but doesnt make sense if being physically baptized and being saved go hand in hand, if he was baptized before there would have been no need for him to ask jesus to remember him. Just want some clarity on where everyone stands on this.
If the thief was baptized it would have been with the “baptism of John” which was different than the baptism commanded by Jesus in the Commission - baptism "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). But regardless it is a moot point – Jesus is God and He has the authority to forgive sins and He forgave the thief by that authority. This fact in no way negates the command today for believers to be immersed in water in obedience to the Lord’s command. The thief's sins were forgiven by the Lord before He died and before the ordinance was commanded at the institution of the New Testament ratified by His blood.

redeemedbyhim
Mar 13th 2008, 07:20 AM
Does this scripture not tell us we must be born again and that born again experience consists of water and Spirit?
Does this not then corelate with Acts 2:38?

John 3:5,
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

tgallison
Mar 13th 2008, 12:02 PM
Does this scripture not tell us we must be born again and that born again experience consists of water and Spirit?
Does this not then corelate with Acts 2:38?

John 3:5,
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

redeemedbyhim greetings

Yes the born again experience consists of water and Spirit.

The Word of God, who is Jesus, is referred to as the water in this correlation.

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

1 John 5:8 "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Jesus referred to himself as the living water that springs up into everlasting life.

John 4:14 "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

Isaiah 12:3 "Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the well of Salvation."

The water of Jordan is dirty, ask Naaman.

Hebrews 10:22 "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

We are to be washed with the living well of water unto salvation, Jesus Christ.

If you look with open eyes at the word of God, you will see that there is more than one baptism, they all correlate to the one baptism that saves, and that is the baptism into Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the baptizer.

There is the baptism of water, the baptism of fire, and the baptism of the Spirit.

The baptism of water is a picture of the flood. It was a cleansing action. The baptism of fire is a picture of the end time. It is a purifying fire. The baptism of the Spirit represents our eternal life in God.

Johns baptism of water did not save anyone.

Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

Luke 12:49 "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?"

John's baptism couldn't save John. And Jesus didn't need saved.

Jesus had been baptized by John when he talks of a second baptism. Luke 12:50 "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished."

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

Matthew 3:11 "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:"

In the above scripture is two distinct baptisms that are shown to be distinct in Acts.

In Acts 2:2-4 "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Acts 10:44 "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." (This is the baptism of Jesus)

Then they baptized them with water, John's baptism. Acts 10:47-48.

Then we have the reverse order of two baptisms. John's baptism, then Jesus's baptism where they receive the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:3-6 "And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 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. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them: and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

Can't finish this right now, but am posting this part.

terrell

thethinker
Mar 13th 2008, 01:49 PM
Again, If you have scriptural support that God requires *ordained denominational men* to immerse believers in water then present it for review – but you will not be able to provide any because such scriptures do not exist.


I did answer your question – I said the man who baptized me “into Christ” for the remission of my sins (per Rom 6: 3-4; Acts 2:38) was not “ordained” by any denomination. He baptized me by the authority given by the Lord in the “Great Commission to “…go…baptize… all nations…into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”


You are mistaken – there is not an elite “class of elect pilgrims” within the body of Christ. All Christians are an “elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation”.

LH,
You said that I have offered no scriptural support for the idea that God requires "ordained denominational men" to baptize. My point about men being ordained was intended to show that the Church recognizes that men must have the authority. I was not saying that this confers upon men a real authority. What I have said is that every man who baptized in the apostolic age had been given the authority by Christ, God, or an angel from heaven. Since God no longer confers such authority upon men, then the command to baptize ceased when the last man who had the authority to baptize died.

The disciples: Chosen by Christ (Matt. 28).
Philip: Called by an angel of the Lord Acts 8:26-40).
Ananias: Acts 9:10-19).

Once these men died, or any men upon which they conferred the authority to baptize died, the command to baptize ceased.

Seeing that every man who baptized in the apostolic age had Divine authority to baptize, how can you maintain that men today have that authority since God no longer gives that authority?

I don't want to disappoint you. But the man who baptized you did so without authority and he certainly did NOT remit your sins.
Water baptism was part of the "ceremonial, old covenant laws. Seeing that we are now on the side of the total fulfillment of the ceremonial laws, then it is ONLY spiritual baptism that remits sins now. The apostolic church was in the transitional period of the abolishment of the old covenant. We are on the side of total fulfillment.

Therefore, it is only spiritual baptism that is required now.

I do concede to you in part. We all are priests of God. I rushed to a conclusion about the word "pilgrims". However, you also have mistreated the term "priesthood" as it is used by Peter. As priests we offer spiritual sacrifices to God. That's what Peter said:

"[You are] a holy priesthood to offer up SPIRITUAL sacrifices to God".

"Spiritual" sacrifices have nothing to do with water baptism. Not only that, but we are priests acting in behalf of ourselves alone. The Reformation Study Bible note says this:

"Every believer is a priest in the sense of having equal and immediate access to God" (p. 1971).

In other words, you don't need a priest to approach God. You can approach Him on your own. This has nothing at all to do with water baptism.

Matt14
Mar 13th 2008, 03:19 PM
Matt14

Didn't you read what you stated?

Yes, I stated that Jesus and God are two separate persons of a united Godhead. They are distinct from one another, and they are the same (Godhead). This is a basic teaching of scripture, and it agrees with what you stated about the Godhead being "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit."

They are the same being, and yet distinct from one another in some ways. We see Jesus praying to the Father, and we see the Holy Spirit acting in other ways. The best example of their distinctness is the baptism of Jesus in Matthew chapter 3. Here we see Jesus coming up out of the water afte rbeing baptized, a voice from heaven (God) and the Spirit descending upon Jesus. All three persons of the Godhead are shown in this passage.

Tell me why you disagree with this?


Will not derail the thread.

Good, because I suspect we don't really disagree on this, we are just having a communication problem. Happens a lot on the net. :)


Please tell me if you agree that their is more than one baptism?

terrell

Yes, Terrell, I agree that there is more than one baptism mentioned in the NT. The different types are:

1. The baptism of John
This is the baptism that God ordained to prepare the people for the Messiah. This baptism was the will of God at that time:

Luk 7:29 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John.
Luk 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

2. The baptism of the Holy Spirit
This is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit prophesied in Joel 2, and fulfilled in Acts 2. Acts 10 was another outpouring. We can be absolutely positive that this baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit because Jesus said:

Act 1:4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which," He said, "you have heard from Me;
Act 1:5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

This baptism would be one performed by God, and not one man could perform.

3. A metaphorical baptism
Jesus used baptism as a metaphor for His coming suffering and death:

Mat 20:23 So He said to them, "You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father."

4. The New Covenant baptism of the Great Commission
This is the baptism that adds one to the church (Acts 2:38,41,47). This is the one baptism of Eph. 4:4-6. Only Jesus had the power to baptize in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11). The baptism of Acts 2:38 is necessary for the remission of sins and reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is the baptism by which disciples are made (Matt. 28:19). It is the baptism that places one in the seed promise (Gal. 3:26-29) and causes one to die to sin and be raised in the likeness of Christ (Rom. 6:3-8).

Both cases of Holy Spirit baptism we see in the NT are marked by miraculous signs, such as speaking in tongues. If you do not have miraculous powers, you have not received the outpouring (Holy Spirit baptism).

The baptism commanded by Christ in the Great Commission is different than John's baptism. See Paul's teaching of the Ephesians in Acts 19. Notice that these men were baptized with John's baptism, but Paul saw fit to baptize them into Christ after teaching them properly.

And the baptism Paul performed in Acts 19 was not "Holy Spirit baptism." Notice here:

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Some will say this passage says, "Paul laid his hands on them and baptized them with the Holy Spirit," but that is not what the passage says. It says two things happened:

1. They were baptized

2. Paul laid hands on them

3. The Holy Spirit came upon them

4. They spoke in tongues and prophesied

The Ephesian disciples did not receive the miracuous gifts of the Spirit through baptism, but through the laying on of Paul's hands. So this is not a case of Holy Spirit baptism, but of New Covenant baptism into Christ, just like in Acts 2:38.

For anyone who is interested, here is some good reading on the baptism of the Great Commission:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/new_testament_baptism_in_water_or_the_spirit

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_great_commission_according_to_matthew

God bless, everyone!

Matt14
Mar 13th 2008, 03:35 PM
What I have said is that every man who baptized in the apostolic age had been given the authority by Christ, God, or an angel from heaven. Since God no longer confers such authority upon men, then the command to baptize ceased when the last man who had the authority to baptize died.

Since there is no command for the cessation of baptism in water, you must find some evidence by implication or example.

Let me ask you this:

What was the purpose of the baptism Christ commanded the apostles to perform?

Also, I've asked a question a couple of times in previous posts, and so far it has been ignored. Could you please answer for me?

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1571078&postcount=110

Thanks!

tgallison
Mar 13th 2008, 09:50 PM
You are grasping at straws trying to disagree with me. :lol:

There is nothing different about what I stated, and what you post above.

There is God the Father, and there is God the Son, and there is God the Holy Spirit. They are separate, but One.

Let's please don't derail the thread with a discussion of the Godhead.



Originally Posted by Matt14 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1571085#post1571085)
In scripture God and Christ are two separate persons of a united Godhead.


Matt14 Greetings

God is not a separate person of the trinity, He is the trinity.

The separate persons are the Father, the Son(Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.

I am sure this is what you meant.

terrell

Matt14
Mar 13th 2008, 10:10 PM
Matt14 Greetings

God is not a separate person of the trinity, He is the trinity.

The separate persons are the Father, the Son(Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.

I am sure this is what you meant.

terrell
Yes, that is what I meant. When I speak of God, I am speaking of the Father. When I speak of Jesus Christ, I am talking about God the Son. When I say Holy Spirit, I am talking about God the Holy Spirit.

It is good that we agree on the nature of the Godhead. :)

Even when we differ, we have a place to start when we agree, right?

God bless!

tgallison
Mar 13th 2008, 10:15 PM
Originally Posted by tgallison http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1571127#post1571127)
Matt14

Yes, Terrell, I agree that there is more than one baptism mentioned in the NT. The different types are:

1. The baptism of John
This is the baptism that God ordained to prepare the people for the Messiah. This baptism was the will of God at that time:

Luk 7:29 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John.
Luk 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

Matt14

We agree on the baptism of John. One question for you. Who where the people to prepare for the Messiah? Where they Jews only, or Jews and Gentiles?

terrell

Matt14
Mar 13th 2008, 10:23 PM
Matt14

We agree on the baptism of John. One question for you. Who where the people to prepare for the Messiah? Where they Jews only, or Jews and Gentiles?

terrell
The Jews, mainly.

However, some Gentiles were receiving the baptism of John, such as Apollos (Acts 18) and the Ephesian disciples (Acts 19). There were Gentiles, quite a few, actually, who were taught about the Messiah and awaited Him too. Apollos was one who had been so taught.

It is likely that Lydia was such a one, as well (Acts 16). Cornelius was such a one, too. The term the scriptures uses for Gentiles who believed in the coming Messiah was "God-fearer," a term that is often translated into English as "worshipper of God." This is one of the reasons why the temple precinct included a "court of the Gentiles."

Anyway, mainly Jews. But Gentiles also.

John's baptism was pre-New Covenant, however, since the disciples who had received John's baptism in Acts 19 were re-baptized (or baptized into Christ for the first time) by Paul.

tgallison
Mar 13th 2008, 10:59 PM
The Jews, mainly.

However, some Gentiles were receiving the baptism of John, such as Apollos (Acts 18) and the Ephesian disciples (Acts 19). There were Gentiles, quite a few, actually, who were taught about the Messiah and awaited Him too. Apollos was one who had been so taught.

It is likely that Lydia was such a one, as well (Acts 16). Cornelius was such a one, too. The term the scriptures uses for Gentiles who believed in the coming Messiah was "God-fearer," a term that is often translated into English as "worshipper of God." This is one of the reasons why the temple precinct included a "court of the Gentiles."

Anyway, mainly Jews. But Gentiles also.

John's baptism was pre-New Covenant, however, since the disciples who had received John's baptism in Acts 19 were re-baptized (or baptized into Christ for the first time) by Paul.

Matt14

We are in total disagreement on Johns baptism. The first example you present, Apollos, is a Jew.

Acts 18:24 "And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus."

Strongly believe that Lydia was a Jewess. She was worshiping God on the sabbath, and this was before anyone witnessed to her.

It doesn't say anywhere that either of the two baptism's of Cornelius was John's baptism.

terrell

tgallison
Mar 13th 2008, 11:14 PM
Yes, that is what I meant. When I speak of God, I am speaking of the Father. When I speak of Jesus Christ, I am talking about God the Son. When I say Holy Spirit, I am talking about God the Holy Spirit.

It is good that we agree on the nature of the Godhead. :)

Even when we differ, we have a place to start when we agree, right?

God bless!

Matt14

Would like it much better if we agreed on most everything. I am afraid we don't agree on the nature of the Godhead, but must not go any farther than that on this thread.

In Jesus Christ, terrell

Matt14
Mar 13th 2008, 11:42 PM
Matt14

We are in total disagreement on Johns baptism. The first example you present, Apollos, is a Jew.

Acts 18:24 "And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus."

I gravely mispoke, my apologies. Was writing from memory, and did not check the passage before writing. Thanks for correcting me on that. I knew better.


Strongly believe that Lydia was a Jewess. She was worshiping God on the sabbath, and this was before anyone witnessed to her.

She almost certainly was not a Jewess. The phrase "who worshipped God" in Acts 16:14 was used in Acts to denote Gentiles who were adhering to the Law of Moses because they believed in the God of Israel.

Do a google on "God-fearers" and see what you get. Also note Acts 13:

Act 13:16 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen:

It is more than likely Paul was addressing Jews and proselytes in this passage.


It doesn't say anywhere that either of the two baptism's of Cornelius was John's baptism.

I did not say either received John's baptism. I said they were "God fearers," or Gentiles who worshipped God and tried to adhere to the Law.

Matt14
Mar 13th 2008, 11:43 PM
Matt14

Would like it much better if we agreed on most everything. I am afraid we don't agree on the nature of the Godhead, but must not go any farther than that on this thread.

In Jesus Christ, terrell

Can you please tell me where we are in disagreement? I'm not seeing it.

Matt14
Mar 13th 2008, 11:45 PM
Matt14

We are in total disagreement on Johns baptism. The first example you present, Apollos, is a Jew.

Acts 18:24 "And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus."

Strongly believe that Lydia was a Jewess. She was worshiping God on the sabbath, and this was before anyone witnessed to her.

It doesn't say anywhere that either of the two baptism's of Cornelius was John's baptism.

terrell
BTW, you did not address those in Ephesus who had received John's baptism, but were baptized into Christ by Paul.

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 12:37 AM
Originally Posted by Matt14 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1572182#post1572182)

2. The baptism of the Holy Spirit
This is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit prophesied in Joel 2, and fulfilled in Acts 2. Acts 10 was another outpouring. We can be absolutely positive that this baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit because Jesus said:

Act 1:4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which," He said, "you have heard from Me;
Act 1:5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

This baptism would be one performed by God, and not one man could perform.Matt14 Greetings

1. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is in 1 Corinthians 12:13. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and been all made to drink into one Spirit."

The baptizer is the Holy Spirit, and we are baptized into Jesus Christ. It is made very clear that it is for everyone, Jew, and Gentile, alike.

The baptism would be performed by God, the Holy Spirit. Not God the Father.

2. The baptism in Joel 2 and Acts 2 is the baptism of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the baptizer, and he baptizing with the Holy Ghost, not with water.

Matthew 3:11 "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:"

Mark 1:8 "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

Luke 3:16 "John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose:he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."

John 1:33 "And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."

Acts 1:5 "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

Acts 2:3-4 "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

The baptism of Jesus. Jesus is the baptizer, and he baptizes with the Holy Ghost. The fire baptism.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the baptizer, and he baptizes us into Jesus Christ. The pure living water.

terrell

Matt14
Mar 14th 2008, 12:44 AM
Matt14 Greetings

1. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is in 1 Corinthians 12:13. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Terrell, I'll have to respond tomorrow to your post. Got Hebrew to study, and kids to get to bed. ;)

But let me ask you this:

If you became convinced that 1 Cor. 12:13 was referring to the same baptism of Acts 2:38, would you then believe baptism in water was necessary for salvation?

Yes or no...

losthorizon
Mar 14th 2008, 02:03 AM
LH,
You said that I have offered no scriptural support for the idea that God requires "ordained denominational men" to baptize. My point about men being ordained was intended to show that the Church recognizes that men must have the authority. I was not saying that this confers upon men a real authority. What I have said is that every man who baptized in the apostolic age had been given the authority by Christ, God, or an angel from heaven. Since God no longer confers such authority upon men, then the command to baptize ceased when the last man who had the authority to baptize died.

And again you have failed to provide the scriptural support needed to uphold your position. Not only that but you appear to reject your own denominational stance on baptism. If my memory is correct you are associated with the PCA and that denomination baptizes with water today. Where does your denomination receive authority to baptize with water if your statement above is correct? I would refer you to chapter 28 of the Westminster Confession of Faith which is part of your denominational heritage…
“Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world…The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…” Westminster Confession of FaithWhat part of the Confession quoted above do you disagree with? Do you agree or disagree that the ordinate of Christian baptism (water) is “to be continued in his Church until the end of the world”? How about the part that says “the outward element to be used in the sacrament is water”? Is that correct or incorrect information? What about the part that says the ordinance is to be unto him baptized “a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life”?

What parts of your tradition do you accept and how much do you reject? Is there not a connection between the ordinance of baptism in water and the “remission of sins” (Acts 2:38)? Isn’t it this same ordinance that ingrafts one “into Christ” – that puts one into the body of Christ? Your position seems to be contrary to your own tradition. :hmm:

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 02:44 AM
Originally Posted by Matt14 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1572176#post1572176)
She almost certainly was not a Jewess. The phrase "who worshipped God" in Acts 16:14 was used in Acts to denote Gentiles who were adhering to the Law of Moses because they believed in the God of Israel.

Do a google on "God-fearers" and see what you get. Also note Acts 13:

Act 13:16 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen:

It is more than likely Paul was addressing Jews and proselytes in this passage.


Matt14

Perhaps I should have said of the circumcision. Is not a proselyte under the covenant.

Are you saying google is divinely inspired. The Bible has always proven sufficient for me, I trust it.

terrell

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 02:51 AM
Originally Posted by Matt14 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1572176#post1572176)

I did not say either received John's baptism. I said they were "God fearers," or Gentiles who worshipped God and tried to adhere to the Law.

Matt14

Sorry about that. It did look like it was all linked together.

terrell

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 02:59 AM
Can you please tell me where we are in disagreement? I'm not seeing it.

Matt14

When you see the word God in the Bible, it is referring to all three of the Trinity. Not just the Father.

For example-- You have a car. It has an engine, transmission, and drive train. When you refer to your opal caddy, you are not referring to the engine. You are referring to the car in its entirety.

terrell

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 03:07 AM
Terrell, I'll have to respond tomorrow to your post. Got Hebrew to study, and kids to get to bed. ;)

But let me ask you this:

If you became convinced that 1 Cor. 12:13 was referring to the same baptism of Acts 2:38, would you then believe baptism in water was necessary for salvation?

Yes or no...

Matt14

You are asking me a hypothetical. Wouldn't go near it. All hypotheticals do is muddy the water.

If you can prove it please do so?

In Jesus Christ, terrell

CFJ
Mar 14th 2008, 09:01 AM
Of course no one has suggested the work of Christ on the cross was “meaningless”, CFJ – there would be no salvation without His once for all time sacrifice on our behalf. The thief was saved by Christ because (as God) He could forgive sins. The thief was not “baptized” on the cross. You misunderstand the passage in question – it was addressed to “the twelve” and it is not the “one baptism” in which all Christians must participate. The one baptism that puts one “into Christ” is immersion in water (Rom 6).

losthorizon,

Thanks for the interesting discussion. If I'm right, the assurance for his salvation, was given on the cross. "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise". When did the thieve enter Jesus's body and would 1Co 12:13 be an empty passage for this man?

The passage in Matthew 20, is talking about a baptism refering to the sinner's death and resurrection. It is clear that every single person will be baptized this way and Mathhew 20 is a good cross-reference for other passages saying exactly the same (Rom 6; Col 2 & 3).

The one baptism, as I see it, can never be administered with water. The thieve on the cross is the perfect example.


Are you suggesting Paul never immersed converts in water? Are you suggesting Paul opposed the ordinance of baptism or tried to discourage believers from being baptized in water – “into Christ Jesus”?

Baptizing someone in water can as a rule, not make you enter the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the only Entity, to baptize you into Jesus's body. The cross is also in this instance, more significant as most would realize. It is on the cross, where the perfect example of being saved and baptized, was given. Paul emphasize the cross more than anything else... one must ask youself, why? It is for this very reason, Paul was not send by Christ to baptize with water. Fact is, if water baptism is so absolutely necessary for being saved, the Scriptures would never give the slightest hint, that it is inferior to something else, namely, the cross.


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.
(1Co 1:17)

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds,)
(2Co 10:3-4)
If you preach a baptism in the flesh, your weapons would be carnal or fleshy and not mighty enough to bring down strongholds. I've seen this very thing, with my own eyes. I know quite a number of people, that were baptized in/with water, without fruits of being saved. Not one of them have meet Christ personally, but water baptism gave them a false assurance of being saved. Most were "forced" by others to do this and one very ungodly man always said, when being confronted about his wicked ways, "don't talk to me, I've been baptized when I was 16, I know the Lord".

He used (missused) his baptism as a shield to his own sin, because he never kneeled at the cross. :(

He bragged about being baptized, though Paul says...

Gal 6:14 But it's unthinkable that I could ever brag about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. By his cross my relationship to the world and its relationship to me have been crucified.


But Christ did send Paul to baptize in water – He sent Paul to “preach the gospel of Christ” and that good news in its entirety includes the commission from Jesus to go and preach to all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…he that believes and is baptized shall be saved…” To misunderstand the importance of the ordinance of baptism established and commanded by Christ is to miss much.

The part in red, is contrary to what the Bible learns us... 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.
(1Co 1:17)

Paul preached the message of the cross, more than anything else. I'm not against baptism with water, but I cannot see that baptism in water is meant to save one. Baptism in water as I see it and as I believe the Bible learns, is a testimony of the one true baptism of Scripture, when we are baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.


Do you deny the baptism in Romans 6 is a reference to a burial (immersion) in water as taught by the church of God for the past 2000 years?
"I shall not enter into controversy over this text, although over it some have raised the question of infant baptism or believers' baptism, immersion or sprinkling. If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done. I am content to take the view that baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord, and I shall so interpret the text. ~ Charles Spurgeon, Baptism, A BurialBTW - you also never answered my question - according to the Bible were Paul’s sins “washed away” before, during or after he was baptized? Does the command say be baptized to wash away your sins or be baptized because your sins have been washed away?
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

I don't deny that it was taught losthorizon, the same argument can be made the other way round and in more than one way. For the argument, Barnes said that the mode of baptism is not the critical part of Rom 6...


The scope or design of the apostle is not to discuss the mode of baptism, Or to state any doctrine on the subject. It is an incidental allusion in the course of an argument, without stating or implying that this was the universal mode even then, still less that it was the only possible mode. His main design was to state the obligation of Christians to be holy, from the nature of their profession at baptism - an obligation just as impressive, and as forcible, from the application of water in any other mode as by immersion. It arises from the fact of baptism, not from the mode. It is just as true that they who are baptized by affusion, or by sprinkling, are baptised into his death; become professedly dead to sin and the world, and under obligations to live to God, as those who are immersed. It results from the nature of the ordinance, not from the mode.

Matt14
Mar 14th 2008, 02:48 PM
Matt14

Perhaps I should have said of the circumcision. Is not a proselyte under the covenant.

Still not a Jew, though. That's why Paul separated them out in his speech as "Men of Israel" (one group) and "you who fear God" as another group in Acts 13:16. They would never be a Jew, but rather referred to as "God fearer."


Are you saying google is divinely inspired. The Bible has always proven sufficient for me, I trust it.

I hope you are joking about google. I think you know why I suggested doing a search, and it has nothing to do with the divine inspiration of google.

If we are going to carry on a polite discussion, I would appreciate you either refraining from such remarks, or putting a smilie behind it if you are joking. That way there are no distractions.

God bless!

Matt14
Mar 14th 2008, 02:52 PM
Matt14

When you see the word God in the Bible, it is referring to all three of the Trinity. Not just the Father.

Not always, Terrell. What do you make of this passage, for instance?

Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.

There are a 100 or more such passages where God and Jesus are mentioned together in this manner.

Matt14
Mar 14th 2008, 02:55 PM
Matt14

You are asking me a hypothetical. Wouldn't go near it. All hypotheticals do is muddy the water.

If you can prove it please do so?

In Jesus Christ, terrell
Answer this so I can answer you fully:

Is it your belief that baptism is not required for salvation today because it was only required for the Jews before "Jesus' second coming in AD 70?"

And if baptism was only for the Jews, what does it mean when the apostles baptized Gentiles?

thethinker
Mar 14th 2008, 03:42 PM
Since there is no command for the cessation of baptism in water, you must find some evidence by implication or example.

Let me ask you this:

What was the purpose of the baptism Christ commanded the apostles to perform?

Also, I've asked a question a couple of times in previous posts, and so far it has been ignored. Could you please answer for me?

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1571078&postcount=110

Thanks!

Matt14,
I just discovered this post of yours last night shortly before bedtime. I can'y reply to posts near bedtime because it causes my mind to race and it takes me long to fall asleep. Do you have that problem?

So I was not ignoring your post. I did not see it til last night.

Baptism was a sign of the covenant of redemption just as circumcision. Many believe that baptism is the new covenant equivalent of old covenant sign. But this won't work because Jesus was both circumcised and baptized according to the OLD COVENANT LAW. Therefore, both circumcision and baptism fall under the category of "old covenant things".

People forget that signs point to something greater to come. Therefore, when that entity comes then the sign must cease.

Physical circumcision was a sign of heart circumcision. Physical baptism was a sign of our baptism into Christ. Since believers now are both circumcised in heart and baptized in to Christ in the new covenant dispensation, then both signs ceased.

Then why were believers baptized after Christ's death? Isn't this when the new covenant fully came? This is a common misconception. If the new covenant fully came upon Christ's death then why do people need to be baptized into His RESURRECTION?

This in and of itself shows that more had to happen in order to bring in the new covenant. Also, Christ was required to finish His mediatoral work as Priest for the people of God. He was required by the law to make intercession for the people AFTER offering up His sacrifice, i.e., His own body on the tree. That intercessory work in our behalf has been completed. Upon this baptism as well as all other old covenant things came to their full end.

But when did the new covenant actually begin? I believe it began God ordained Jesus as our Priest. When did that occur? I believe it occurred when the Spirit descended upon Him and anointed Him.

Jesus was clearly a Priest BEFORE His offering His body as our sacrifice. Hebrews says that we do not have a "High Priest that cannot empthasize with our weaknesses, but was tempted in all counts like us, yet without sin". Our High Priest was "tempted". Did you catch this? Our Priest was tempted just like us but remained sinless unlike "priests" today who molest children.

From this I infer that Christ acted as Priest when He was tempted and drove away the devil. So that's when the NC began.

The new covenant began at Jesus' ordination as Priest and continued to come until He finished His Priestly work of intercession. This was the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant.

Br. Barnabas
Mar 14th 2008, 03:57 PM
I would have to say that God is not bound to the sacraments. However, people are bound to the sacraments. Meaning that if God so chooses he can save/work through/resurrect people who are not baptized, have never taken part in the Eucharist. Now if a person is a Christian and there are no extenuating circumstances why would they not be baptized? Calling on the example already put forth the theif on the cross had extenuating circumstances, ie being nailed to a cross, thus he could not have been baptized even if he had wanted to. But Jesus saw fit to accept him as a believer. Now as to what Jesus says to him that brings in a lot of other stuff that the mods may not want talked about on this board. But the Apostles Creed and Paul hints at Jesus going down to She'ol/hell, so work out where they were going for yourselves that is all I am saying on that subject. So I think the question is if someone really truly believes the Gospel of our Lord why would they not want to be baptized?

I believe that baptism brings you into the Christian community and it is part of what really makes you a Christian. The church/denomination that I belong to allows only baptized Christians to take part in the Eucharist. So I would say that it is not required to 'get to heaven' (don't really like that phrase but it will do for now). But that it is required to be a Christian, ie part of the Christian church and in fully commuion with most branchs of the catholic (universal) Church.

Replying to some of the post that I saw: Just because the Gospels do not have any stories about Jesus baptizing does not mean that he did not. I know you will say what about John 4:2. I would say that John is talking about at this point, Jesus was not baptizing. I would also go back to my first statement God (Jesue) is not bound to the sacraments. As to Paul stating that he did not come to baptize. Come on he is talking to the Corinthians the most screwed up church in the Bible! They had the wrong idea of baptism, and Paul is trying to show them that. And he stated ealier in the letter to the Galatians that those who are "baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." So he is not saying to the Cornithians that baptism is not a good thing or that it should not be done, he is calling them out for not having a correct understanding of it.

Matt14
Mar 14th 2008, 05:21 PM
Matt14,
I just discovered this post of yours last night shortly before bedtime. I can'y reply to posts near bedtime because it causes my mind to race and it takes me long to fall asleep. Do you have that problem?

No. If I remain still too long, I will fall asleep anywhere. Different sort of problem. :lol: My wife has that problem, though. Too many thoughts running through her head.


So I was not ignoring your post. I did not see it til last night.

I should have said "overlooked." Poor choice in words. Sorry about that.


Baptism was a sign of the covenant of redemption just as circumcision. Many believe that baptism is the new covenant equivalent of old covenant sign. But this won't work because Jesus was both circumcised and baptized according to the OLD COVENANT LAW. Therefore, both circumcision and baptism fall under the category of "old covenant things".

It seems to me that the scriptures say baptism was "for the remission of sins," as per Acts 2:38 and 22:16. It is not just a symbol, but there is purpose behind it.


People forget that signs point to something greater to come. Therefore, when that entity comes then the sign must cease.

Physical circumcision was a sign of heart circumcision. Physical baptism was a sign of our baptism into Christ. Since believers now are both circumcised in heart and baptized in to Christ in the new covenant dispensation, then both signs ceased.

But since the purpose of baptism according to scriptures appears to be remission of sins (Acts 2:38), as well as incorporation into the body of Christ (Acts 2:47) and making one a disciple (Matt. 28:19), does that mean that these things are no longer needed? There have been no further command that supercedes this.


Then why were believers baptized after Christ's death? Isn't this when the new covenant fully came? This is a common misconception. If the new covenant fully came upon Christ's death then why do people need to be baptized into His RESURRECTION?

That's the point I was referring to in this post:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1571078&postcount=110

I've mentioned this passage again below.


This in and of itself shows that more had to happen in order to bring in the new covenant. Also, Christ was required to finish His mediatoral work as Priest for the people of God. He was required by the law to make intercession for the people AFTER offering up His sacrifice, i.e., His own body on the treThat intercessory work in our behalf has been completed.e. Upon this baptism as well as all other old covenant things came to their full end.

Intercession continues, according to scripture.

Heb 7:25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.


But when did the new covenant actually begin? I believe it began God ordained Jesus as our Priest. When did that occur? I believe it occurred when the Spirit descended upon Him and anointed Him.

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

The New Covenant was not in effect until Christ's blood had been shed, according to scriptures.


Jesus was clearly a Priest BEFORE His offering His body as our sacrifice. Hebrews says that we do not have a "High Priest that cannot empthasize with our weaknesses, but was tempted in all counts like us, yet without sin". Our High Priest was "tempted". Did you catch this? Our Priest was tempted just like us but remained sinless unlike "priests" today who molest children.

That passage really says nothing about when He was made a High Priest. If I become president of the United States tomorrow, I can sympathize with everyone who goes through the burdens of every day life, like I used to. ;)

But, when He became a High Priest does not matter. When a priest took up duties, he was a priest even before he offered the first sacrifice.


From this I infer that Christ acted as Priest when He was tempted and drove away the devil. So that's when the NC began.

The new covenant began at Jesus' ordination as Priest and continued to come until He finished His Priestly work of intercession. This was the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant.

Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

God bless!

FieryProphet25
Mar 14th 2008, 06:51 PM
Let me follow your logic – you say the “baptism” of the Great Commission is not immersion in water but insist “the part about being baptized refers to the spiritual baptism”. But then you insist that since we cannot drink poison and pick up deadly snake then nothing in the later part of Mark 16 is applicable today including baptism. So according to your logic “spiritual baptism” does not apply to Christians today. The question that goes begging - what baptism does apply to Christians today under your theology? You have eliminated both water and Spirit.


The biblical truth is the baptism of the Great Commissions is the ordinance of Christian baptism in water - the same baptism that puts one in the body of Christ (His church). The ordinance is to exist as long as the church on earth exists, i.e., until Christ’s second coming.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
If the thief was baptized it would have been with the “baptism of John” which was different than the baptism commanded by Jesus in the Commission - baptism "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). But regardless it is a moot point – Jesus is God and He has the authority to forgive sins and He forgave the thief by that authority. This fact in no way negates the command today for believers to be immersed in water in obedience to the Lord’s command. The thief's sins were forgiven by the Lord before He died and before the ordinance was commanded at the institution of the New Testament ratified by His blood.

what you just said was totally unbiblical, jesus doesnt make special circumstances for certain people, if so then there is no need to believe. Either we ALL must be baptized with water to enter heaven or we ALL must not. There is no grey area. It is either hot or cold, not lukewarm. If jesus promised the thief paradise, and he was not baptized with water, and he went to heaven, then everyone else has the promise of heaven without being baptized with water.

FieryProphet25
Mar 14th 2008, 06:55 PM
Does this scripture not tell us we must be born again and that born again experience consists of water and Spirit?
Does this not then corelate with Acts 2:38?

John 3:5,
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

People always want things to mean something that supports their beliefs instead of it meaning exactly what it means...i did a greek word study, and when he speaks of water and spirit, he means birth or Water as in Physical birth that we all had to experience to be able to exist. Spirit means our second birth, our spiritual birth. This does not mean that we must be baptized by MAN with WATER. John said that he baptizes with water, and that jesus baptizes with the holy spirit. And once jesus came, there was no more need for water baptizing because we are now baptized in the spirit through jesus christ.

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 07:27 PM
Still not a Jew, though. That's why Paul separated them out in his speech as "Men of Israel" (one group) and "you who fear God" as another group in Acts 13:16. They would never be a Jew, but rather referred to as "God fearer."



I hope you are joking about google. I think you know why I suggested doing a search, and it has nothing to do with the divine inspiration of google.

If we are going to carry on a polite discussion, I would appreciate you either refraining from such remarks, or putting a smilie behind it if you are joking. That way there are no distractions.

God bless!

Matt14 Greetings

Perhaps I should have put a smiley behind it. I was implying that I have faith in what God says, but not in what man says.



till not a Jew, though. That's why Paul separated them out in his speech as "Men of Israel" (one group) and "you who fear God" as another group in Acts 13:16. They would never be a Jew, but rather referred to as "God fearer."Esther 8:17 "And in every province, and in every city, whithersover the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews: for the fear of the Jews fell upon them."

terrell

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 07:45 PM
Not always, Terrell. What do you make of this passage, for instance?

Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.

There are a 100 or more such passages where God and Jesus are mentioned together in this manner.

Matt14

Do you have a verse where it says God and Jesus?

The Trinity raised up Jesus. It doesn't say the Father raised up Jesus (Acts 5:30)

terrell

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 07:48 PM
Answer this so I can answer you fully:

Is it your belief that baptism is not required for salvation today because it was only required for the Jews before "Jesus' second coming in AD 70?"

And if baptism was only for the Jews, what does it mean when the apostles baptized Gentiles?

Yes, baptism is required for salvation for all men.

terrell

Matt14
Mar 14th 2008, 07:59 PM
Yes, baptism is required for salvation for all men.

terrell
This is getting to be exercise. :D

Water baptism?

Matt14
Mar 14th 2008, 08:00 PM
Matt14

Do you have a verse where it says God and Jesus?

The Trinity raised up Jesus. It doesn't say the Father raised up Jesus (Acts 5:30)

terrell
Mat 3:16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
Mat 3:17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 08:07 PM
This is getting to be exercise. :D

Water baptism?

The baptism of the Holy Spirit into the living and pure water, Jesus Christ.

terrell

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 08:17 PM
Mat 3:16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
Mat 3:17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

I was asking the specific words, (God and Jesus)

I am sorry about the confusion, but you do not understand where I am coming from.

You see the word God as meaning the Father period. Whenever the word God is used it means the Trinity, unless it specifically designates either the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost.

terrell

losthorizon
Mar 14th 2008, 10:25 PM
what you just said was totally unbiblical, jesus doesnt make special circumstances for certain people, if so then there is no need to believe. Either we ALL must be baptized with water to enter heaven or we ALL must not. There is no grey area. It is either hot or cold, not lukewarm. If jesus promised the thief paradise, and he was not baptized with water, and he went to heaven, then everyone else has the promise of heaven without being baptized with water.
Of course you are quite mistaken. Jesus can and did “make special circumstances for certain people” and the thief is the perfect example. Jesus saved the thief in a special way while they both hung on their respective crosses. Jesus certainly does not walk the earth today saving thieves on crosses – it was a one-time event. He does, however save those who “obey from the heart” the gospel of Christ which includes the command to be immersed in water “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

Again, the thief was saved prior to the inauguration of the New Testament ratified by His blood – the thief died before Jesus commanded baptism for all those who believe on His name when He gave the Great Commission after His resurrection..."go...baptize...all nations...". Do you believe Jesus commanded all those who would follow Him to “believe and be baptized”? Do you think baptism is an option or did Jesus mean what He said that both belief and baptism come before “shall be saved”? Does your Bible read “he that believes and is not baptized shall be saved”?
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16: 15-16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary on Mark 16:16

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 11:17 PM
Of course you are quite mistaken. Jesus can and did “make special circumstances for certain people” and the thief is the perfect example. Jesus saved the thief in a special way while they both hung on their respective crosses. Jesus certainly does not walk the earth today saving thieves on crosses – it was a one-time event. He does, however save those who “obey from the heart” the gospel of Christ which includes the command to be immersed in water “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).


losthorizon greetings

This just proves that the baptism of the thief on the cross was a spiritual baptism, with the living, pure water, that is Jesus Christ.

See no mention of physical water in Acts 2:38.

terrell

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 11:45 PM
Again, the thief was saved prior to the inauguration of the New Testament ratified by His blood – the thief died before Jesus commanded baptism for all those who believe on His name when He gave the Great Commission after His resurrection..."go...baptize...all nations...". Do you believe Jesus commanded all those who would follow Him to “believe and be baptized”? Do you think baptism is an option or did Jesus mean what He said that both belief and baptism come before “shall be saved”? Does your Bible read “he that believes and is not baptized shall be saved”?
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16: 15-16)losthorizon

Do you realize that spiritual baptism eliminates all the doctrinal problems that are confronting you.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit baptizing us into Christ, the living well of water.

Isaiah 12:3 "Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation."

John 4:14 "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

Hebrews 10:22 "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

Would remind everyone again, that their were only Jews and proselytes at Pentecost. Also, 10 plus years had gone by from the great commission, and the apostles still did not know they were to go to the Gentiles.

terrell

Matt14
Mar 14th 2008, 11:52 PM
[/COLOR][/B]Also, 10 plus years had gone by from the great commission, and the apostles still did not know they were to go to the Gentiles.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

And that's why God dropped them a reminder in Acts 10 in the form of Cornelius. :D

tgallison
Mar 14th 2008, 11:56 PM
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16: 15-16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary on Mark 16:16


Faith believing, believing faith both the same. Believing merely categorizes the type of faith. The baptizing done by the Holy Spirit is not seen.

1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

terrell

tgallison
Mar 15th 2008, 12:01 AM
And that's why God dropped them a reminder in Acts 10 in the form of Cornelius. :D

Matt14 Greetings

The time of the Jews was ending. They had rejected their Messiah.

Acts 18:6 "And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles."

terrell

losthorizon
Mar 15th 2008, 03:47 AM
...This just proves that the baptism of the thief on the cross was a spiritual baptism, with the living, pure water, that is Jesus Christ.

The NT does not say the thief was “baptized” on the cross – it does imply Christ forgave the sins of the thief when He told the thief,"Today you shall be with Me in Paradise".

You remain confused. The “one baptism” that puts one into Christ and the one baptism where the believer receives "remission of sins" and "the gift of the Holy Spirit” is immersion in water.
Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ( Act 2:38)


Do you realize that spiritual baptism eliminates all the doctrinal problems that are confronting you.
I don’t have any “doctrinal problems” my friend. It is you that must “spiritualize” the ordinance of water baptism to mean something other that what the writers of the NT meant it to say. It is you who goes against 2000 years of church history. It is you that has doctrinal problems that stem from your misunderstanding of the plain teaching of the NT.

The church of God has always understood water baptism as the ordinance commanded by Christ that brings one into union with Christ and places the believer into the church – the body of Christ.
"And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone." (Justin Martyr, "First Apology")

“Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world…The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…” Westminster Confession of Faith

CFJ
Mar 15th 2008, 08:21 AM
Of course you are quite mistaken. Jesus can and did “make special circumstances for certain people” and the thief is the perfect example. Jesus saved the thief in a special way while they both hung on their respective crosses. Jesus certainly does not walk the earth today saving thieves on crosses – it was a one-time event. He does, however save those who “obey from the heart” the gospel of Christ which includes the command to be immersed in water “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

Hi losthorizon,

I'm not sure that the thieve's saving on the cross, is just a coincidence. Way too many believers makes this an inferior event and there are many that could miss the deeper message in this. One was on His right hand and the other on His left hand. One was saved the other one not. The cross is the complete and perfect point of reconciliation. Without the cross the New Testament is not possible, without the cross and what happened there, the Old Testament is not complete. The precise point of every singe human being that is saved, is at the cross. The cross is the only place in one's walk with God, that will never produce false converts. Baptism (immersion or sprinkling) can produce false converts, the sinner's prayer can produce false converts, but the cross can never and will never, produce one single false convert!

The message of the cross force the sinner to die for this world and the thieve on the cross, symbolize this very thing. Jesus says that His death on the cross is His baptism and that we will be baptized in exactly the same way. The thieve on the cross is the perfect example to illustrate this, when entering our Lord's body or being immersed into Jesus's body. To be able to enter His body, you must die for your sins... the thieve illustrate this better than anyone else will ever be able to simulate. Paul preached the message of the cross as being the central point for salvation, better than anyone else will ever do.


Again, the thief was saved prior to the inauguration of the New Testament ratified by His blood – the thief died before Jesus commanded baptism for all those who believe on His name when He gave the Great Commission after His resurrection..."go...baptize...all nations...". Do you believe Jesus commanded all those who would follow Him to “believe and be baptized”? Do you think baptism is an option or did Jesus mean what He said that both belief and baptism come before “shall be saved”? Does your Bible read “he that believes and is not baptized shall be saved”?
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16: 15-16)

"These words are very important. The first clause opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary on Mark 16:16


The thieve on the cross is again, the complete example of what salvation really is. He called on the name of the Lord... thats all!!! :)


And it shall come to pass, [B]that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
(Joe 2:32)

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Act 2:21)

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
(Act 4:12)

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Rom 10:13)

losthorizon
Mar 15th 2008, 12:15 PM
Hi losthorizon,

I'm not sure that the thieve's saving on the cross, is just a coincidence. Way too many believers makes this an inferior event and there are many that could miss the deeper message in this.

CFJ – I don’t think any demonstration of God’s saving grace recorded in Holy Writ is a coincidence and that certainly would include the thief to whom Jesus promised Paradise. But for you or anyone else to suggest that this example is the pattern of salvation for all Christians today is an incorrect assumption. There is no hint in the Bible that the thief was somehow “baptized” on the crioss. We do have the command in the NT to be immersed in water.

We have specific instruction by both command and example where the ordinance of Christian baptism acts as the means of delivering the penitent believer out of “darkness, and [translating] us into the kingdom of the Son of his love…” (Col 1:13). Jesus commands both belief and baptism in water before one is saved (Mark 16:16). You have not addressed this contradiction between the Bible and your doctrine.

To teach the insignificance or elimination of the ordinance of baptism instituted and commanded by the Christ because the thief was saved without being baptized is to teach error and it is a contradiction of the plain teaching of the NT. Baptism in water is a “sign and seal of the covenant of grace”; it is “the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church”; and it signifies our “ingrafting into Christ”, our “regeneration” and our “remission of sins” through His saving blood. To fail to understand these basic truths of the gospel of Christ is to misunderstand much. “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

CFJ
Mar 15th 2008, 12:30 PM
losthorizon,

Consider a baptism greater than water in Acts 22... Calling on the name of the Lord, is to be baptized into His body, is to be washed by the living waters (Joh 15:3). Jesus also said, "Life is spiritual. Your physical existence doesn't contribute to that life. The words that I have spoken to you are spiritual. They are life."
(Joh 6:63)

However, you are welcome to differ from me and I respect your views (though I believe it is an error to exclusively and directly link immersion in water with the one baptism of Scripture), may you respect mine, the plain, true and simple message of the cross of which I'm convinced. The cross is the only true meassure for reconciliation and the only baptism that will bring unity in the body of Christ. Baptism must be reconciled with the cross, to bring unity. The one baptism of Scripture, must be a baptism that unite and water cannot do this, but brings division amongst fellow Christians. I will only change this view, if God change me to do this, not because another man tell me to do this. May it be the same for you...

God bless!

thethinker
Mar 15th 2008, 08:04 PM
You said: "It seems to me that the scriptures say baptism was "for the remission of sins," as per Acts 2:38 and 22:16. It is not just a symbol, but there is purpose behind it....But since the purpose of baptism according to scriptures appears to be remission of sins (Acts 2:38), as well as incorporation into the body of Christ (Acts 2:47) and making one a disciple (Matt. 28:19), does that mean that these things are no longer needed? There have been no further command that supercedes this.

Intercession continues, according to scripture.

Heb 7:25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

The New Covenant was not in effect until Christ's blood had been shed, according to scriptures.

That passage really says nothing about when He was made a High Priest. If I become president of the United States tomorrow, I can sympathize with everyone who goes through the burdens of every day life, like I used to. ;)

But, when He became a High Priest does not matter. When a priest took up duties, he was a priest even before he offered the first sacrifice.

Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

God bless!

Circumcision was also for salvation under the old covenant. Yet it has been abolished. Baptism was old covenant. Therefore it too has been abolished.
And water baptism did not incorporate people into the body. There is no such declaration in Scripture. Only spiritual baptism can incorporate into the body.

The Hebrews lived DURING Christ's intercessory work. We live AFTER the completion of that work. You are suggesting that His mediatoral work is not finished.

I did not say that the new covenant took effect before Christ's death. I said that it "began" when Christ's priestly work began which involved His keeping the whole law in our behalf. Paul said that we are saved by Christ's obedience (Rom. 5).

It is a misconception to think that the new covenant was in force by Christ's being a testator alone. He was "testator-priest". If God had not appointed Him as priest then as testator He could have accomplished nothing.

Check out Hebrews in is entirety. Christ had multi-faceted roles in our salvation. He had to finish His work as testator and then finish His work as priest.

P.S. How do you do the individual box quote thing? I have tried to figure it out. :B

tgallison
Mar 15th 2008, 11:28 PM
The NT does not say the thief was “baptized” on the cross – it does imply Christ forgave the sins of the thief when He told the thief,"Today you shall be with Me in Paradise".

You remain confused. The “one baptism” that puts one into Christ and the one baptism where the believer receives "remission of sins" and "the gift of the Holy Spirit” is immersion in water.
Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ( Act 2:38)



RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

THE JEWS REQUIRE A SIGN

1 Corinthians 1:22 “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:”

John the Baptist’s mission

Luke 1:76 “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways.” (77) To give knowledge of salvation unto hispeople [laos-Judah, Israel] by the remission of sins.”

Johns mission is not to bring salvation, but knowledge of salvation. How is he going to bring knowledge of salvation, by baptizing with water for the remission of sins. It is a picture of Jesus Christ’s work. It is not the work itself. Who is this knowledge to? God’s covenant people[laos],

The baptism of water does not bring salvation, it brings knowledge of it, or like a picture of washing to cleanse oneself of sin. The knowledge that Israel’s Messiah is coming.

Jesus baptizes with the Holy Ghost (The gifts)

This is John’s baptism with water unto repentance for sins. (NOT SALVATION) Then John says that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Ghost. This is the second part of Acts 2:38. (AGAIN NOT FOR SALVATION) This is for the good gifts.

In Acts 10:45 the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out to the Gentiles before Peter finished preaching to them. The Jews were astonished because God has now turned to the Gentiles. The pouring out of the Holy Ghost to the Gentiles was a sign to the Jews.

There are good gifts from God, and then there is the perfect gift from God.

James 1:17 “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

The good gift is the gifts of the Holy Ghost from the baptism of Jesus. They are prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, and teaching. Sometimes it occurred miraculously, sometimes by laying on of hands. It does not produce salvation.

The perfect gift is Jesus Christ, the pure, living water that we are baptized into that produces salvation. The Holy Spirit is the baptizer.

terrell

redeemedbyhim
Mar 16th 2008, 12:17 AM
P.S. How do you do the individual box quote thing? I have tried to figure it out. :B

I'm just going to address the individual "box quote thing"...cute.

Anyhoo,

do this:
Decide which sentences you want to individually quote and before the start of the sentence type this: [ quote] then at the end of the desired thought, sentence, whatever you want quoted, type this:[ /quote]
I've had to put a space between [ and the first letter of quote so as not to turn it into a quote, so don't use any spaces. I can never get the icons at the top of the box to work either, so I do it manualy.
Hope that made sense.

losthorizon
Mar 16th 2008, 12:48 AM
losthorizon,

Consider a baptism greater than water in Acts 22... Calling on the name of the Lord, is to be baptized into His body, is to be washed by the living waters (Joh 15:3).

CFJ - you are mistaken – the “one baptism” that Paul submitted to was water baptism in obedience to the command of the Lord (Mark 16:16). A command given to all who would obey the gospel of Christ. Baptism in this passage is a picture of the same thing water baptism illustrates in Romans 6:3-5 – it is the picture of the “washing away of sins” by the blood of Christ when we are buried “into His death” as we are immersed in water. Let me ask you - have you been immersed in water calling on the name of the Lord?

As I have repeatedly posted – it is not the water that washes away sins it is only the blood of Christ that remits sins and this takes place when the penitent believer is baptized in water calling on the name of the Lord just as Paul’s sins were washed away at his baptism. This is not a hard biblical concept to understand and to misunderstand the purpose and nature of the “one baptism” as it relates to God’s redemptive plan is to misunderstand the gospel message… “One Lord, one faith, one baptism…”
Paul has drawn a picture of what baptism is like. In Romans 6:4 he tells us that baptism is like death, burial and resurrection. (See also Col. 2:12). The very symbolism of baptism demands going down into and rising from the water. It is impossible to picture burial and resurrection by pouring or sprinkling. Immersion does do it, and nothing else does. ~ Baptism by A.T. Robertson

And wash away thy sins - Receive baptism as emblematic of the washing away of sins. It cannot be intended that the external rite of baptism was sufficient to make the soul pure, but that it was an ordinance divinely appointed as expressive of the washing away of sins, or of purifying the heart. ~ Albert Barnes

The one baptism of verse 5 is best taken to refer to water baptism, the common New Testament means of a believer’s publicly confessing Jesus as Savior and Lord. This is preferred because of the way Paul has spoken specifically of each member of the Trinity in succession. ~ John MacArthur, commentary on the book of Ephesians

losthorizon
Mar 16th 2008, 01:19 AM
...The perfect gift is Jesus Christ, the pure, living water that we are baptized into that produces salvation. The Holy Spirit is the baptizer.

The “one baptism” that all believers are to submit to is the baptism administered by the hands of men as instituted and commanded by Jesus Christ and that baptism is immersion in water..."Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

In these words you must note, in the first place, that here stand God's commandment and institution, lest we doubt that Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men…for to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work. ~ Martin Luther

losthorizon
Mar 16th 2008, 03:28 AM
...However, you are welcome to differ from me and I respect your views (though I believe it is an error to exclusively and directly link immersion in water with the one baptism of Scripture), may you respect mine, the plain, true and simple message of the cross of which I'm convinced. The cross is the only true meassure for reconciliation and the only baptism that will bring unity in the body of Christ. Baptism must be reconciled with the cross, to bring unity. The one baptism of Scripture, must be a baptism that unite and water cannot do this, but brings division amongst fellow Christians. I will only change this view, if God change me to do this, not because another man tell me to do this. May it be the same for you...

CFJ – while I respect your right to interpret the scriptures the way you feel you must I must fulfill my commitment to God to "earnestly contend for the faith." And “the faith” delivered to man from God includes the command from Jesus Christ to believe and be immersed in water. This is the one baptism that puts the believer into union with Christ and biblically no other baptism can do this. It is my prayer that God will show you the truth He has revealed to man as you study His word. God bless.

thethinker
Mar 16th 2008, 10:41 AM
CFJ – I don’t think any demonstration of God’s saving grace recorded in Holy Writ is a coincidence and that certainly would include the thief to whom Jesus promised Paradise. But for you or anyone else to suggest that this example is the pattern of salvation for all Christians today is an incorrect assumption. There is no hint in the Bible that the thief was somehow “baptized” on the crioss. We do have the command in the NT to be immersed in water.

The command to baptize and be baptized could not take effect until Pentecost because it was then that the apostles were endued with the authority to baptize. Therefore, baptism did not apply to the thief.


We have specific instruction by both command and example where the ordinance of Christian baptism acts as the means of delivering the penitent believer out of “darkness, and [translating] us into the kingdom of the Son of his love…” (Col 1:13). Jesus commands both belief and baptism in water before one is saved (Mark 16:16). You have not addressed this contradiction between the Bible and your doctrine.

Colossians 1:13 does not say that water baptism delivered anyone out of the power of darkness into His kingdom.

If you infer correctly that baptism saves, then you must also maintain that circumcision saves because Colossians chapter 2 says that we are saved both by circumcision and baptism. If you discard circumcision then you must also discard baptism. If you keep baptism you must also keep circumcision.

Therefore, the baptism that saves is SPIRITUAL.


Baptism in water is a “sign and seal of the covenant of grace”; it is “the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church”; and it signifies our “ingrafting into Christ”, our “regeneration” and our “remission of sins” through His saving blood. To fail to understand these basic truths of the gospel of Christ is to misunderstand much. “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

Baptism is no longer significant. You yourself called it a "sign". As such it pointed to something greater to come, that is, the new covenant. The sign ceases when the thing it points to arrives.

The true way to God was not fully revealed while the temple was still standing.

"The Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the holiset of all was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was STILL STANDING" (Hebrews 9:8).

While the temple was standing the "way" to God was still faith plus works, baptism or whatever else. But when the temple was destroyed in ad70 the TRUE way to God was revealed ("manifested"). The way to God after the destruction of the temple is FAITH ALONE! FAITH ALONE!

Losthorizon has one foot in the old covenant rather than having both feet firmly planted in the new covenant. EDIT - CFJ

I am always dismissed when I say these things. This is probably because people don't easily give up the things they were taught when they were growing up.

It is FAITH ALONE now and true Protestants don't dispute it.

CFJ
Mar 16th 2008, 01:46 PM
You misunderstand the passage in question – it was addressed to “the twelve” and it is not the “one baptism” in which all Christians must participate. The one baptism that puts one “into Christ” is immersion in water (Rom 6).




losthorizon,

Just something I need to make clear about Matthew 20:22-23. What you are actually saying here, is that Jesus was addressing the "twelve" only, which is in fact not the truth...


Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
(Mat 20:20-23)

Jesus told the mother of Zebedee's children and her sons, that they would be baptized in exactly the same way, He was baptized. He was refering to the cross as His baptism and that we would also be baptized when we are crucified. This in fact exactly what the following passages learn, a baptism where we are saved, when we die as Christ died for us...


Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 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. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
(Rom 6:3-7)

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
(Col 2:10-14)
To enter the body of Christ, is not something you can do out of your own free will, only the Holy Spirit can baptize a crucified human being, into the body of Christ. If Rom 6 and Col 2 cannot bring this message, nothing else will, but ponder on this, if you will...


Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
(Col 2:20)
I will leave you with this and thanks for your prayers, my prayers be with you also, as we are all human beings in need for understanding a message greater than minds...

losthorizon
Mar 16th 2008, 02:36 PM
...To enter the body of Christ, is not something you can do out of your own free will, only the Holy Spirit can baptize a crucified human being, into the body of Christ. If Rom 6 and Col 2 cannot bring this message, nothing else will, but ponder on this, if you will...


Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
(Col 2:20)
I will leave you with this and thanks for your prayers, my prayers be with you also, as we are all human beings in need for understanding a message greater than minds...
Man is endowed by his Creator with the intelligence and free will to hear the gospel of Christ – to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and to be immersed in water (baptized) "for the remission of sins" just as those on the day of Pentencost heard the gospel, believed and were instructed to obey of their own free-will the command to repent and be immersed in water…
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost…Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2)

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? 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. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8)Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Col 2:20)

This passage is a reminder from Paul to the "Judaizers" that salvation is through the blood of Christ not from the observance of Jewish rites and ceremonies. The verse does not negate the ordinance of Christian baptism which was commanded by Christ under the NT and the same baptism that Paul submitted to in obedience to his Lord. To use this verse to dismiss baptism is to misuse Holy Scripture.

tgallison
Mar 16th 2008, 05:18 PM
=losthorizon;1574599]Man is endowed by his Creator with the intelligence and free will to hear the gospel of Christ – to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and to be immersed in water (baptized) "for the remission of sins" just as those on the day of Pentencost heard the gospel, believed and were instructed to obey of their own free-will the command to repent and be immersed in water…

They were all Jews and proselytes at Pentecost. The Jews required a sign.


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? And Philip said, If thou believest withall thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8)


The eunuch was a Jew or proselyte. The Jews require a sign.



Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Col 2:20)


Losthorizon why do you want to be subject to an ordinance of man?


This passage is a reminder from Paul to the "Judaizers" that salvation is through the blood of Christ not from the observance of Jewish rites and ceremonies. The verse does not negate the ordinance of Christian baptism which was commanded by Christ under the NT and the same baptism that Paul submitted to in obedience to his Lord. To use this verse to dismiss baptism is to misuse Holy Scripture.

There was a transition from the Jew to the Gentile. Remember when Paul said your blood be upon your own heads, henceforth I will go to the Gentiles. (Acts 18:6)

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and he said, I was not sent to baptize.

The promises to the Jews were physical, at the least they believed them to be physical. The Jews required a physical sign. Their baptism was physical.

The message of Paul to the Gentiles was spiritual, and their baptism is spirtual.

In Jesus Christ, terrell

losthorizon
Mar 16th 2008, 06:30 PM
They were all Jews and proselytes at Pentecost. The Jews required a sign.

Anyone who argues that the ordinance of Christian baptism is not applicable to “Jews and Gentiles whether slave or free” is one who misunderstands the simple truth of the gospel of Christ…

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:14

Christ and his church form one body, as Head and members. Christians become members of this body by baptism. The outward rite is of Divine institution; it is a sign of the new birth, and is called therefore the washing of regeneration, Tit 3:5. ~ Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
Losthorizon why do you want to be subject to an ordinance of man?
This can be answered if you truthfully answer this question – “is the ordinance of Christian baptism from God or from man” (hint: Mark 16:16)? If I obey the command of God to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and obey my Lord in baptism am I obeying God or man? Does your version of the Bible say – ”he who believes and is not baptized will be saved?” Is the ordinance of Christian baptism an option in your theology or do you completely eliminate it as a worthless “ordinance of man”?

thethinker
Mar 16th 2008, 06:32 PM
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Col 2:20)

This passage is a reminder from Paul to the "Judaizers" that salvation is through the blood of Christ not from the observance of Jewish rites and ceremonies. The verse does not negate the ordinance of Christian baptism which was commanded by Christ under the NT and the same baptism that Paul submitted to in obedience to his Lord. To use this verse to dismiss baptism is to misuse Holy Scripture.

The passage you cite above negates the ordinance of baptism because baptism was a part of the Jewish rites and ceremonies. Salvation is by FAITH ALONE now! Why do you resist "faith alone"?

losthorizon
Mar 16th 2008, 06:54 PM
The passage you cite above negates the ordinance of baptism because baptism was a part of the Jewish rites and ceremonies. Salvation is by FAITH ALONE now! Why do you resist "faith alone"?
Thinker – you remain in confusion and error. Can you show me where the ordinance of Christian baptism that was instituted and commanded by Christ AFTER His resurrection was part of the Old Testament "rites and ceremonies"? Can you show me the passage in the NT that says we are saved by “faith alone” divorced from obedience to the gospel of Christ?

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. (Rom 6:16-17)BTW – you have never explained the contradiction between your views on baptism and those presented in the Westminster Confession that is part of your denominational heritage.You appear to lack consistency in your doctrine - what's with that?

tgallison
Mar 16th 2008, 07:23 PM
Anyone who argues that the ordinance of Christian baptism is not applicable to “Jews and Gentiles whether slave or free” is one who misunderstands the simple truth of the gospel of Christ…For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:14

But that is a spiritual baptism, and the baptizer is the Spirit, and it is into the living, pure water, which is Jesus Christ. It is your own words.

It is not the physical baptism, given to the Jews, that their Messiah was coming.



Christ and his church form one body, as Head and members. Christians become members of this body by baptism. The outward rite is of Divine institution; it is a sign of the new birth, and is called therefore the washing of regeneration, Tit 3:5. ~ Matthew Henry's Concise CommentaryYou say it yourself it is a sign, and the Jews require a sign. Just as the offering up of the lamb was a sign. Jesus was offered up once, for all time.



This can be answered if you truthfully answer this question – “is the ordinance of Christian baptism from God or from man” (hint: Mark 16:16)? If I obey the command of God to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and obey my Lord in baptism am I obeying God or man? Does your version of the Bible say – ”he who believes and is not baptized will be saved?” Is the ordinance of Christian baptism an option in your theology or do you completely eliminate it as a worthless “ordinance of man”?[/quote]Yes you have to be baptized, but it is a spiritual baptism, performed by the Holy Spirit, that seals us into the body of Christ. This is why Paul could say he was not sent to baptize, it is the Holy Spirit who is the baptizer.

terrell

thethinker
Mar 16th 2008, 07:50 PM
Thinker – you remain in confusion and error. Can you show me where the ordinance of Christian baptism that was instituted and commanded by Christ AFTER His resurrection was part of the Old Testament "rites and ceremonies"?

David said, Wash me with hyssop and I shall be clean". This is old covenant baptism.


Can you show me the passage in the NT that says we are saved by “faith alone” divorced from obedience to the gospel of Christ?

Abraham was justified by faith alone BEFORE he was circumcised or met any law requirements (Romans 4:9-12). Since he is the father of all who believe, ergo....


BTW – you have never explained the contradiction between your views on baptism and those presented in the Westminster Confession that is part of your denominational heritage.You appear to lack consistency in your doctrine - what's with that?

I guess I missed that question too. I have a business to run so sometimes I scroll quickly theough the threads and miss stuff. I disagree with the Westminster Confession's stance on baptism. I challenged a point on the Shorter Catechism in Sunday School just this morning. But I am still a PCA man. Can't help it. I am an incurable Calvinist! But I don't agree with everything in the WCF.

losthorizon
Mar 16th 2008, 07:50 PM
...Yes you have to be baptized, but it is a spiritual baptism, performed by the Holy Spirit, that seals us into the body of Christ. This is why Paul could say he was not sent to baptize, it is the Holy Spirit who is the baptizer.

terrell
The one baptism of the NT is immersion in water where the Holy Spirit applies the blood of Christ to the one being baptized "into His death". You completely misunderstand Paul’s words when examined IN CONTEXT…he did baptize some converts and he most certainly did not oppose immersion in water because it was part of the gospel message he preached. Please read the excellent explanation by John Piper as to why Paul was hesitant to baptize his converts…
Did Paul oppose baptism or try to discourage converts from being baptized? From Paul 's other letters, as well as from what we can see in the book of Acts the Answer is, No. On the contrary Paul assumed that all the believers he wrote to were baptized and he based important parts of his teaching upon this common experience of all the believers…Corinth was not different from all the other places Paul went: his converts were always baptized….Why, did Paul not make it a practice to baptize all his new converts? Why did he evidently let Timothy, or Silas or Luke do the actual immersing in water? The answer Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 1:15 is this: I avoid doing the baptizing myself so that none of my converts will be tempted to say they were baptized into my name. What lies behind this concern…

Paul had a tremendous authority in the early church. He had seen the risen Christ and had been commissioned by Him to teach the churches. There was a risk, therefore, that he be idolized and that people become proud of being Paul's converts. And apparently this misplaced pride had begun to spread in the Corinthian church, and faction formed saying, "'I belong to Paul' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas.'" The body of Christ at Corinth was being torn asunder by the boasting of different factions in their favorite teacher. ~ John Piper

thethinker
Mar 16th 2008, 07:53 PM
David said, Wash me with hyssop and I shall be clean". This is old covenant baptism.



Abraham was justified by faith alone BEFORE he was circumcised or met any law requirements (Romans 4:9-12). Since he is the father of all who believe, ergo....



I guess I missed that question too. I have a business to run so sometimes I scroll quickly theough the threads and miss stuff. I disagree with the Westminster Confession's stance on baptism. I challenged a point on the Shorter Catechism in Sunday School just this morning. But I am still a PCA man. Can't help it. I am an incurable Calvinist! But I don't agree with everything in the WCF.

LH, Iam duplicated this post because you and I posted at the same time. See post #182

Thanks

losthorizon
Mar 16th 2008, 08:50 PM
David said, Wash me with hyssop and I shall be clean". This is old covenant baptism.

Where does Moses say – “he that believes on the name of Jesus Christ and is baptized in water shall be saved"? Again, the command to be baptized calling on the name of the Lord for the remission of sins is specific to the NT and is a command given to all who would be in union with Christ. It is not an option – the NT does not know of an unbaptized believer.


Abraham was justified by faith alone BEFORE he was circumcised or met any law requirements (Romans 4:9-12). Since he is the father of all who believe, ergo....
You’re missing the mark again, my friend – Abraham was justified by his OBEDIENT faith – “faith wrought with his works”…
God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac upon the altar and Abraham obeyed,
"Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified and not only by faith" (James 2:22-24).We are commanded to believe and be baptized – to fail to obey God is at one's own risk...


I disagree with the Westminster Confession's stance on baptism. I challenged a point on the Shorter Catechism in Sunday School just this morning. But I am still a PCA man. Can't help it. I am an incurable Calvinist! But I don't agree with everything in the WCF.
Then you do agree that the Confession supports the concept that the ordinance of Christian baptism is related to the remission of sins, the new birth, union with Christ and it is to be observed until Christ returns?

tgallison
Mar 16th 2008, 10:56 PM
The one baptism of the NT is immersion in water where the Holy Spirit applies the blood of Christ to the one being baptized "into His death".

According to you, there are two baptisms going on at the same time. One is by man, with water, and the other by the Holy Spirit, with the blood of Christ.

When Christ was pierced what came out?

John 19:34 "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water."

Is this the baptism of water and blood that we are baptized into?

John 4:10 "--, and he would have given thee living water."

This living water that produces salvation, was not the dirty water that John used for his baptism. It was the pure water.

Hebrews 10:22 "--, and our bodies washed with pure water."

Surely this pure water is not the dirty water of the Jordan.

1 John 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ: not bywater only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth."

In comparing this verse with John 3:5, it will become evident that the water does not equate to just a physical birth.

The three common ingredients, water, blood, and the Spirit. Are contained in both verses. Compare with 1 John 5:8.

"And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

thethinker
Mar 16th 2008, 11:24 PM
Where does Moses say – “he that believes on the name of Jesus Christ and is baptized in water shall be saved"? Again, the command to be baptized calling on the name of the Lord for the remission of sins is specific to the NT and is a command given to all who would be in union with Christ. It is not an option – the NT does not know of an unbaptized believer.

But David said "wash me and I shall BE CLEAN". The word "clean" means that David was SAVED BY BAPTISM with water . The "hyssop" was just the instrument used to apply the water. Ergo, David was saved by baptism with water. Ergo, baptism was OLD COVENANT.



You’re missing the mark again, my friend – Abraham was justified by his OBEDIENT faith – “faith wrought with his works”…



God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac upon the altar and Abraham obeyed,
"Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified and not only by faith" (James 2:22-24).We are commanded to believe and be baptized – to fail to obey God is at one's own risk...

I am glad you brought up James 2 because it is misunderstood by many. Justification in the old covenant was for PAST sins only. Thus Abraham was justified by faith + the works of the law. But he was still justified INITIALLY by faith alone. Paul is very clear about that. And new covenant justification is for ALL MY SINS, past, present and future by faith alone.



Then you do agree that the Confession supports the concept that the ordinance of Christian baptism is related to the remission of sins, the new birth, union with Christ and it is to be observed until Christ returns?

No! The Confession says that baptism is a "sign" of our ingrafting into Christ. Then it says,
"Grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated" (chap 28, art 5).

The WCF denies that baptism saves, though I would say it did until the old covenant fully ended.The war cry of the Protestant Reformation and the WCF is FAITH ALONE!

Again, David had to be washed with water for the remission of his sins. This old covenant practice continued until the Jewish temple was destroyed in ad70.

Remember, the way to God could not be fully revealed while the temple was still standing (Heb. 9:8). After it was destroyed the old covenant in its entirety was destroyed with it.

tgallison
Mar 17th 2008, 12:27 AM
You completely misunderstand Paul’s words when examined IN CONTEXT…he did baptize some converts and he most certainly did not oppose immersion in water because it was part of the gospel message he preached. Please read the excellent explanation by John Piper as to why Paul was hesitant to baptize his converts…
Did Paul oppose baptism or try to discourage converts from being baptized? From Paul 's other letters, as well as from what we can see in the book of Acts the Answer is, No. On the contrary Paul assumed that all the believers he wrote to were baptized and he based important parts of his teaching upon this common experience of all the believers…Corinth was not different from all the other places Paul went: his converts were always baptized….Why, did Paul not make it a practice to baptize all his new converts? Why did he evidently let Timothy, or Silas or Luke do the actual immersing in water? The answer Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 1:15 is this: I avoid doing the baptizing myself so that none of my converts will be tempted to say they were baptized into my name. What lies behind this concern…

Paul had a tremendous authority in the early church. He had seen the risen Christ and had been commissioned by Him to teach the churches. There was a risk, therefore, that he be idolized and that people become proud of being Paul's converts. And apparently this misplaced pride had begun to spread in the Corinthian church, and faction formed saying, "'I belong to Paul' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas.'" The body of Christ at Corinth was being torn asunder by the boasting of different factions in their favorite teacher. ~ John Piper

Paul baptized early on in his ministry, because water baptism was a sign to the Jews. And his ministry changed, from the Jews, to the Gentiles. It was a sign, first that their Messiah was coming, and then because they rejected their Messiah, it became a sign that salvation had now come to the Gentiles.

Paul never said I avoid doing the baptism myself.

What he said was, "I thank God I only baptized a few of you."

To apply your argument to Paul, that he shouldn't baptize for fear he would be idolized, would have to be applied to the twelve apostles to the Jews, if you are going to be intellectually honest.

God's commandment to the twelve was to baptize, but Paul was told by God that he was not sent to baptize. It was necessary that a few were baptized, to show to the Jews, that salvation had come to the Gentiles.

Don't like to quote men when it comes to the Bible. All men are liars, and only God is true.

terrell

losthorizon
Mar 17th 2008, 01:53 AM
...Paul baptized early on in his ministry, because water baptism was a sign to the Jews. And his ministry changed, from the Jews, to the Gentiles

Paul took the gospel of Christ to both Jew and Gentile and he taught water baptism in the name of God just as Jesus had commanded. He did this throughout his ministry.
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 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.


God's commandment to the twelve was to baptize, but Paul was told by God that he was not sent to baptize. It was necessary that a few were baptized, to show to the Jews, that salvation had come to the Gentiles.
Your argument appears to be running out of steam – Paul baptized both Jew and Gentile and ALL of the converts he made were immersed in water. Why? Because baptism was commanded by Jesus to be taken to ALL nations until He returns...he that believes and is baptized shall be saved..."
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

losthorizon
Mar 17th 2008, 02:17 AM
...No! The Confession says that baptism is a "sign" of our ingrafting into Christ.

The Confession states that baptism (1) is ordained by Jesus Christ (2) baptism is for the admission of the party baptized into the church of God (3) baptism ingrafts the one baptized into Christ (4) baptism is of remission of sins (5) baptism is of regeneration (6) baptism is to be continued in his Church until the end of the world...

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world. ~ The Westminster Confession

tgallison
Mar 17th 2008, 04:12 AM
=losthorizon;1575082]Paul took the gospel of Christ to both Jew and Gentile and he taught water baptism in the name of God just as Jesus had commanded. He did this throughout his ministry.

You make statements that cannot be back up with scripture. Do you know how many times the word water is used in conjunction with baptism, beyond acts. None!

John said I baptize with water, but Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost. Can you see the contrast, water versus the Holy Ghost.

This statement was repeated in all four gospels. Jesus also made this same contrast.

Acts 1:5 "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

Acts 11:16 "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

No water involved in this baptism. How was it administered. One example is Acts 19:6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."



Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 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.
Your argument appears to be running out of steam – Paul baptized both Jew and Gentile and ALL of the converts he made were immersed in water. Why? Because baptism was commanded by Jesus to be taken to ALL nations until He returns...he that believes and is baptized shall be saved..."
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

You quote scripture that is all spiritual baptism. Surely you must realize that when we are baptized into Jesus Christ, that the Holy Spirit is the baptizer. That is spiritual baptism.

terrell

thethinker
Mar 17th 2008, 07:39 AM
The Confession states that baptism (1) is ordained by Jesus Christ (2) baptism is for the admission of the party baptized into the church of God (3) baptism ingrafts the one baptized into Christ (4) baptism is of remission of sins (5) baptism is of regeneration (6) baptism is to be continued in his Church until the end of the world...
Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world. ~ The Westminster Confession

I commented on this already and even showed from article 5 the Confession denies that baptism saves.

Point: Hebrews says that the old covenant baptisms were temporary:

It [the temple] was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to conscience-concerned only with foods and drinks, various BAPTISMS, and fleshly ordinances imposed UNTIL the time of reformation (or gospel).

Note that it is saying that baptisms at the "present" [the present of the Hebrews Christians] were temporary (Hebrews 9:9-10).

Also, you did not deal with my point that the way to God had not been fully revealed while the temple was still standing.

losthorizon
Mar 17th 2008, 10:01 PM
You make statements that cannot be back up with scripture. Do you know how many times the word water is used in conjunction with baptism, beyond acts. None!

Once again you do err my friend…


1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The antecedent to the relative, whichever word is used, is clearly not the ark, but water; and the idea is, that as Noah was saved by water, so there is a sense in which water is made instrumental in our salvation. The mention of water in the case of Noah, in connection with his being saved, by an obvious association suggested to the mind of the apostle the use of water in our salvation, and hence led him to make the remark about the connection of baptism with our salvation. ~ Albert Barnes, 1Pe 3:21

losthorizon
Mar 17th 2008, 10:27 PM
I commented on this already and even showed from article 5 the Confession denies that baptism saves.

Of course no one on this thread has ever stated that the water of baptism saves any one – it is the blood of Christ and His blood only that washes away sins. What is being argued here is whether the ordinance of Christian baptism commanded by Jesus Christ is essential to the gospel of Christ today and the answer to that question is a resounding ‘yes’. The Confession is in complete agreement with that point and you reject what is taught by your own Confession. Why?

The ordinance of baptism is a symbol of our cleansing through the blood of Christ and our new birth where we are united with Christ as we are "baptized into His death" (Rom 6: 3-5), i.e., baptism symbolizes Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection that the penitent believer participates in when he/she is immersed (buried) in water. Baptism is simply “the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1Pe 3:21) and it is not an option but an essential command to be obeyed by all those who are to be His.

thethinker
Mar 17th 2008, 11:17 PM
Of course no one on this thread has ever stated that the waters of baptism save any one – it is the blood of Christ and His blood only that washes away sins. What is being argued here is whether the ordinance of Christian baptism commanded by Jesus Christ is essential to the gospel of Christ today and the answer to that question is a resounding ‘yes’. The Confession is in complete agreement with that point and you reject what is taught by your own Confession. Why?

I am glad you asked this question. The Confession says this:

"The INFALLIBLE rule of interpretation is the Scripture ITSELF; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and FULL sense of any Scripture...it must be searched and known by other places [scriptures] that speak more clearly"....

"The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees and councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, ARE TO BE EXAMINED, AND IN WHOSE SENTENCE WE ARE TO REST, can be NO OTHER but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture". [chap 1 arts 4-5]

Therefore, my own Confession allows me to challenge its contents though I would do so with great thought and care. And if I were to be examined before the presbytery for holding to "private interpretation" I would show my examiners from the articles above that even my private interpretation CANNOT BE DISMISSED but must be considered in the light of Scripture.

So to answer your question "why" I reply saying "sola scriptura"



The ordinance of baptism is a symbol of our cleansing through the blood of Christ and our new birth where we are united with Christ as we are "baptized into His death" (Rom 6: 3-5), i.e., baptism symbolizes Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection that the penitent believer participates in when he/she is immersed (buried) in water. Batism is simply “the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1Pe 3:21) and it is not an option but an essential command to be obeyed by all those who are to be His.

The ordinance of baptism WAS and not "is" a symbol of our cleansing through the blood of Christ.... Symbols were meant to be temporary. I have showed you already that "baptisms" and "fleshly ordinances" were to come to their end (Heb. 9:10).

After Christ FINISHED sprinkling His blood on the heavenly altar ALL the law was fulfilled (Heb. 9:11-22).

losthorizon
Mar 17th 2008, 11:31 PM
So to answer your question "why" I reply saying "sola scriptura"

But "sola scriptura" plainly says – “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" does it not or do you insist it says "he who believes and is not baptized shall be saved"? Which is it? Both cannot be true.


The ordinance of baptism WAS and not "is" a symbol of our cleansing through the blood of Christ.... Symbols were meant to be temporary. I have showed you already that "baptisms" and "fleshly ordinances" were to come to their end (Heb. 9:10).

After Christ FINISHED sprinkling His blood on the heavenly altar ALL the law was fulfilled (Heb. 9:11-22).
Why then does the Great Commission command baptism to all nations until He returns again? As long as the church of God on earth exists baptism into the body of Christ is commanded.

tgallison
Mar 18th 2008, 12:44 AM
Once again you do err my friend…
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The antecedent to the relative, whichever word is used, is clearly not the ark, but water; and the idea is, that as Noah was saved by water, so there is a sense in which water is made instrumental in our salvation. The mention of water in the case of Noah, in connection with his being saved, by an obvious association suggested to the mind of the apostle the use of water in our salvation, and hence led him to make the remark about the connection of baptism with our salvation. ~ Albert Barnes, 1Pe 3:21

losthorizon

Your kidding right! You are saying the flood is a picture of water baptism that you say we need to do now.

1 Peter 3:21 "The like figure (The Greek word for figure, antitypos is found only twice in scripture, once here, and once in Hebrews 9:24. Let us take a look at Hebrews 9:23-24 to get a better understanding of what is being said.)--."

Hebrews 9:23-24 "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:"

As I remember the story, Noah never got wet, it never said anything about the ark leaking.

Yet this is a figure, or pattern, or picture, of our baptism that saves.

Please explain how Noah was water baptized?

Please explain how baptism doth also now save us?

terrell

jmj
Mar 18th 2008, 01:06 AM
In short, no.

I don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation- for salvation, Jesus makes it clear again and again all we need is faith and to 'repent and believe'- as depicted by the beautiful scene of the criminal being crucified next to Jesus.

However, I do believe baptisms are an amazing thing (7 people got baptized in my church on Sunday woooooooooo!!!- Ahem, back to thread) as they are an outward sign of the inward miraculous change we have had by the grace of God and the Power of the Holy Spirit. They are an amazing witness to others to display publicly the commitment we have made to follow Christ as our Lord and our Saviour- however, whilst I don't think it is necessary, I do believe it is an amazing thing to do once becoming a Christian and I'd encourage everyone to do it to make that expression of faith.

losthorizon
Mar 18th 2008, 02:27 AM
losthorizon

Your kidding right! You are saying the flood is a picture of water baptism that you say we need to do now.

Well, Terrell you can lead a horse to water (no pun intended)…if you must "spiritualize" the ordinance of Christian baptism to fit your dogma then so be it but your rejection of what God has commanded is done at your own risk and does not negate His plan of redemption that requires immersion in water.

Of course, 1Pe 3:21 does render your silly assertion that water baptism is not mentioned after the book of Acts impotent does it not? I would suggest your study of the Greek, antitupon is deficient and has left you more confused than when we started. You appear to have a phobia regarding the word "water". But those men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the Book had no such phobia.
After a true likeness (antitupon). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah’s deliverance by water. ~ Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, 1Pe 3:21

1Pe 3:21-22
Noah's salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of all good Christians in the church by baptism; that temporal salvation by the ark was a type, the antitype whereunto is the eternal salvation of believers by baptism, to prevent mistakes about which the apostle,

I. Declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but it is that baptism wherein there is a faithful answer or restipulation of a resolved good conscience, engaging to believe in, and be entirely devoted to, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing at the same time the flesh, the world, and the devil. The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us. Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.

II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. the sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Act_2:38; Act_22:16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God. ~ Matthew Henry

tgallison
Mar 18th 2008, 03:57 AM
[/quote]


[quote=losthorizon;1576177]Well, Terrell you can lead a horse to water (no pun intended)…if you must "spiritualize" the ordinance of Christian baptism to fit your dogma then so be it but your rejection of what God has commanded is done at your own risk and does not negate His plan of redemption that requires immersion in water.

Six times the Bible says John baptized with water, but Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, (not water) whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

I was baptized twice with water, the first to young to know anything about it. Both times were because the preacher was confused over baptism.


Of course, 1Pe 3:21 does render your silly assertion that water baptism is not mentioned after the book of Acts impotent does it not? I would suggest your study of the Greek, antitupon is deficient and has left you more confused than when we started. You appear to have a phobia regarding the word "water". But those men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the Book had no such phobia.

Well was aware of 1 peter 3:21 before I wrote that. Should have stated it better.

There was no baptism of anyone after Acts, where water was the mode of baptism. Noah was before Acts, and he was neither sprinkled, nor dipped. He never got wet. Nor was the baptism that saves in 1 Peter 3:21 of earthly water.


After a true likeness (antitupon). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah’s deliverance by water. ~ Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, 1Pe 3:21

How about in your own words, what you are trying to say.


1Pe 3:21-22
Noah's salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of all good Christians in the church by baptism; that temporal salvation by the ark was a type, the antitype whereunto is the eternal salvation of believers by baptism, to prevent mistakes about which the apostle,

Are you saying Noah was baptized into the ark, which represents Christ, or that he was baptized into the physical water?

The temporal salvation, is in the ark but permanent salvation is in water baptism? Please clarify what you are saying.


I. Declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but it is that baptism wherein there is a faithful answer or restipulation of a resolved good conscience, engaging to believe in, and be entirely devoted to, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,

Agree completely with the above.



The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us. Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.

It sounds here like you retain yourself in God by keeping the covenant.

If so, you are relying on your self.



II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. the sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Act_2:38; Act_22:16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God. ~ Matthew Henry

In the multitude of words there is confusion. This is starting to look like some contracts I have seen.

terrell

tgallison
Mar 18th 2008, 11:59 AM
In short, no.

I don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation- for salvation, Jesus makes it clear again and again all we need is faith and to 'repent and believe'- as depicted by the beautiful scene of the criminal being crucified next to Jesus.

However, I do believe baptisms are an amazing thing (7 people got baptized in my church on Sunday woooooooooo!!!- Ahem, back to thread) as they are an outward sign of the inward miraculous change we have had by the grace of God and the Power of the Holy Spirit. They are an amazing witness to others to display publicly the commitment we have made to follow Christ as our Lord and our Saviour- however, whilst I don't think it is necessary, I do believe it is an amazing thing to do once becoming a Christian and I'd encourage everyone to do it to make that expression of faith.

jmj greetings

Agree that it is good to identify yourself with Christ. For Christ said those that deny me, I will deny before my Father.

We must be baptized into Christ to have salvation. Therefore it is a must.
But it is done by the Holy Spirit, not by man.

Man's baptism is not a commandment. The Spirit's baptism is.

Many new converts in our assembly get baptized by man, to identify with Christ. Agree it is a beautiful thing.

terrell

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 04:59 PM
Man's baptism is not a commandment. The Spirit's baptism is.

Who commanded it? This is an interesting assertion that you make.

If the Spirit is the One doing the baptism, who commanded Him to do it?

Or are you saying it is a commandment given to man?

If it is a commandment given to man, how can he comply with this command?

tgallison
Mar 18th 2008, 06:09 PM
Who commanded it? This is an interesting assertion that you make.

If the Spirit is the One doing the baptism, who commanded Him to do it?

Or are you saying it is a commandment given to man?

If it is a commandment given to man, how can he comply with this command?

Matt14 Greetings

No it is not a commandment to men.

In order for salvation you must be baptized into Jesus Christ. This is your salvation and it is done by the Holy Spirit, when you accept by faith, that God is your deliverer. That Christ is sufficient. And that is called grace.

For God to say, you must be baptized, is a commandment to salvation, it is just that He does the baptizing.

terrell

CoffeeBeaned
Mar 18th 2008, 06:25 PM
For God to say, you must be baptized, is a commandment to salvation, it is just that He does the baptizing.


How can we be commanded to do something that is not within our power to do? This doesn't make sense to me.

tgallison
Mar 18th 2008, 08:37 PM
How can we be commanded to do something that is not within our power to do? This doesn't make sense to me.

CoffeeBeaned Greetings

Have you heard of the saying, your wish is my command.

It is God's desire that no one be lost. It is a command from God, come unto me. If you disobey, the penalty is spiritual death.

If You come unto God, He will baptize you into himself.

So your part is coming unto Him, so that you may be baptized.

terrell

thethinker
Mar 18th 2008, 09:21 PM
But "sola scriptura" plainly says – “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" does it not or do you insist it says "he who believes and is not baptized shall be saved"? Which is it? Both cannot be true.

LH,
Above you are saying that baptism saves. But in reply #194 you said the opposite,


Of course no one on this thread has ever stated that the water of baptism saves any one – it is the blood of Christ and His blood only that washes away sins.

Which is it? Both cannot be true?



Why then does the Great Commission command baptism to all nations until He returns again? As long as the church of God on earth exists baptism into the body of Christ is commanded.

Jesus did NOT say that they were to preach and baptize until He returns again. He said that He would be with them to the "end of the AGE", that is, the end of the old covenant age.

The apostles had fulfilled the great commssion. Paul said: "The gospel was preached to every creature UNDER HEAVEN" (Colossians 1:23).

Though we continue to preach today we do not fulfill their mandate. They fulfilled it already.

For some reason you keep failing to answer my point from Hebrews 8 where we are told that "baptisms and fleshly ordinances" would cease. The baptism that the apostles performed was included in those "various baptisms" that would cease.

I'm getting bored. If you fail again to deal with Hebrews 8 I am likely not to reply.

Your friend,
think

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 09:41 PM
Matt14 Greetings

No it is not a commandment to men.

In order for salvation you must be baptized into Jesus Christ. This is your salvation and it is done by the Holy Spirit, when you accept by faith, that God is your deliverer. That Christ is sufficient. And that is called grace.

For God to say, you must be baptized, is a commandment to salvation, it is just that He does the baptizing.

terrell
Allow me a few more questions, please.

Where do the scriptures command "spiritual baptism?"

How do you know if you have received "spiritual baptism?"

Thanks!

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 10:00 PM
Circumcision was also for salvation under the old covenant. Yet it has been abolished. Baptism was old covenant.

Thinker, again I have to ask for the evidence that "baptism was old covenant." Baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and for being added to the church (Acts 2:47) and being made a disciple of Christ (Matt. 28:19) was commanded only in the New Testament, under the New Covenant.


Therefore it too has been abolished.

If it was to be abolished, it would have disappeared directly after Christ's death. His work on the canceled the Law and its requirements:

Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The Law was no longer binding when Christ died on the cross.


And water baptism did not incorporate people into the body. There is no such declaration in Scripture.

Act 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Baptism of believers added the believes to the called out, the church.

Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Believers were baptized into Christ, and put on Christ:

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


Only spiritual baptism can incorporate into the body.

Spiritual baptism and physical baptism (in water) happen at the same time, if the subject is a believer.


The Hebrews lived DURING Christ's intercessory work. We live AFTER the completion of that work. You are suggesting that His mediatoral work is not finished.

You spoke of interecession, and said Christ's intercession ended in AD 70. I showed you were Hebrews says:

Heb 7:25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

I did not say His work on the cross was not finished. The Bible says, though, that He always lives to make intercession. You've not proven the case the the Old Covenant ended in AD 70.


I did not say that the new covenant took effect before Christ's death. I said that it "began" when Christ's priestly work began which involved His keeping the whole law in our behalf. Paul said that we are saved by Christ's obedience (Rom. 5).

There's not a lot of difference between "took effect" and "began." The covenant was brought in by the blood of Christ, as Hebrews attests.


It is a misconception to think that the new covenant was in force by Christ's being a testator alone. He was "testator-priest". If God had not appointed Him as priest then as testator He could have accomplished nothing.

All I know is that the Bible says the New Covenant was in full force at the death of Christ.

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

There was no "waiting period" until AD 70. It was in full effect at Christ's death.


Check out Hebrews in is entirety. Christ had multi-faceted roles in our salvation. He had to finish His work as testator and then finish His work as priest.

I've studied it a few times. Written a few papers on it for master of divinity work, as well. If there is one thing I am positive of, it is the fact that the New Covenant started exactly when Hebrews 9:15-17 says it did: When Christ's blood was shed. That blood sealed the deal, and the covenant began. It's as simple as that. No "phase-in" period.




P.S. How do you do the individual box quote thing? I have tried to figure it out. :B

You just have to go in and put [ quote ] [ /quote ] tags around the text you want to quote. Only you leave out the space between the "quote" and "[".

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 10:16 PM
While the temple was standing the "way" to God was still faith plus works, baptism or whatever else. But when the temple was destroyed in ad70 the TRUE way to God was revealed ("manifested"). The way to God after the destruction of the temple is FAITH ALONE! FAITH ALONE!

Man, this is dangerous stuff you are talking about here. What you are saying, in essence (correct me if I am wrong), is that people did not know the true way to God until AD 70? Are you really saying this?

Paul, speaking before AD 70, disagrees with you:

Col 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,
Col 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,
Col 1:26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.

Eph 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles—
Eph 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
Eph 3:3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,
Eph 3:4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),
Eph 3:5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:

Peter, speaking before AD 70, disagrees with you:

2Pe 1:3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,


I am always dismissed when I say these things. This is probably because people don't easily give up the things they were taught when they were growing up.

Actually, if you are "dismissed" when you say these things it is probably because the Bible is clear on when the New Covenant started, and that the way of salvation for all men was known on the day of Pentecost:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


It is FAITH ALONE now and true Protestants don't dispute it.

Then "true protestants" need to re-examine the scriptures. Faith alone is found nowhere in scriptures.

Except here, of course:

Jas 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

God bless!

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 10:18 PM
The passage you cite above negates the ordinance of baptism because baptism was a part of the Jewish rites and ceremonies. Salvation is by FAITH ALONE now! Why do you resist "faith alone"?
Here's this statement again! Where is the scripture showing baptism is "old covenant?"

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 10:30 PM
David said, Wash me with hyssop and I shall be clean". This is old covenant baptism.

If this is the evidence you see for baptism being "old covenant," there is not much to stand on. David is alluding primarily to Jewish rituals of sprinkling blood with hyssop.

I doubt you could find any support from anyone on this idea. If you can, I'd like to see who has suggested this, because I find it hard to believe any mainstream scholars would agree with this.

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 10:36 PM
Don't like to quote men when it comes to the Bible. All men are liars, and only God is true.

This is an interesting thought you are resting on. If you do not look at what other people think about the Bible, what do you recommend we do with the things you are saying?

Besides, it is likely that you learned from teachers. Bible scholars are teachers. You don't have to take what they say as gospel truth. But perhaps you would consider what others have learned, and weigh it, instead of dismissing it outright.


Paul baptized early on in his ministry, because water baptism was a sign to the Jews. And his ministry changed, from the Jews, to the Gentiles. It was a sign, first that their Messiah was coming, and then because they rejected their Messiah, it became a sign that salvation had now come to the Gentiles.

Paul never said I avoid doing the baptism myself.

What he said was, "I thank God I only baptized a few of you."

To apply your argument to Paul, that he shouldn't baptize for fear he would be idolized, would have to be applied to the twelve apostles to the Jews, if you are going to be intellectually honest.

God's commandment to the twelve was to baptize, but Paul was told by God that he was not sent to baptize. It was necessary that a few were baptized, to show to the Jews, that salvation had come to the Gentiles.

Nearly every scholar and commentator I have access to disagrees with what you are saying. And these guys all pretty much reject the teaching that baptism is required for salvation. And yet, they understand that Paul was not rejecting the teaching and practice of baptism, but that he was trying to calm down the factions that were happening in Corinth. Paul may not have been "sent to baptize," but he taught baptism, else people would not have been baptized in response to his teaching like we see throughout Acts.

redeemedbyhim
Mar 18th 2008, 10:36 PM
Matt. 14,

I've got to hand it to you, you define perserverance. I appreciate your clear examples of Scripture that clearly back up your beliefs.

I don't think I've seen such twisting of Scripture so much in my life, yet you are handling this with much grace. And since I'm paying close attention to this thread I just wanted to say thanks.

I don't know if I'm amiss here so forgive me all if I am, but the Scripture that keeps coming to mind is:


II Timoty 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 10:46 PM
I commented on this already and even showed from article 5 the Confession denies that baptism saves.

Point: Hebrews says that the old covenant baptisms were temporary:

It [the temple] was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to conscience-concerned only with foods and drinks, various BAPTISMS, and fleshly ordinances imposed UNTIL the time of reformation (or gospel).

Note that it is saying that baptisms at the "present" [the present of the Hebrews Christians] were temporary (Hebrews 9:9-10).

Also, you did not deal with my point that the way to God had not been fully revealed while the temple was still standing.

Hebrews 9:9-10 is not talking about Christian baptism. This passage is talking about ritual washings of the temple. See any good Bible commentary for more on this. But there is no warrant at all to think this is regarding Christian baptism.

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 10:50 PM
losthorizon

Your kidding right! You are saying the flood is a picture of water baptism that you say we need to do now.

Anyone interested in the type/antitype relationship in 1 Peter 3:21 may want to read this old post of mine:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=331141&postcount=6

God bless!

redeemedbyhim
Mar 18th 2008, 11:00 PM
I'm so sorry, I think I didn't word my first post to you correctly.

Edited to add: When will I ever learn to keep my big mouth shut! God's still working on me...whew.

I didn't mean to imply you were twisting the Scriptures, and perhaps I shouldn't imply anyone is, but it was not directed at you.

I'm in agreement with your posts, I have been baptized as according to Acts 2:38 and understand it to mean exactly what it says.

So, please forgive me for making a mess of my post.
Carry on, in Jesus Name!

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 11:03 PM
I'm so sorry, I think I didn't word my first post to you correctly.

Edited to add: When will I ever learn to keep my big mouth shut! God's still working on me...whew.

I didn't mean to imply you were twisting the Scriptures, and perhaps I shouldn't imply anyone is, but it was not directed at you.

I'm in agreement with your posts, I have been baptized as according to Acts 2:38 and understand it to mean exactly what it says.

So, please forgive me for making a mess of my post.
Carry on, in Jesus Name!
No, no, brother! I misread your post horribly! Please accept my apologies! I am so used to folks on this board disagreeing with me that I assumed you did too. I went back and re-read your post and saw what you meant. I've deleted my post responding to yours. Again, I am really sorry. When I read it a second time, it was very clear what you meant.

And I am going to be very upset if you "keep your mouth shut" very much!

God bless you!

redeemedbyhim
Mar 18th 2008, 11:06 PM
No, no, brother! I misread your post horribly! Please accept my apologies! I am so used to folks on this board disagreeing with me that I assumed you did too. I went back and re-read your post and saw what you meant. I've deleted my post responding to yours. Again, I am really sorry. When I read it a second time, it was very clear what you meant.

God bless you!

No apologies necessary...I understand why you felt that way...truly, you've done a great job and I'm just so pleased to know there are people here who can express themselves far better than I can.

God bless you too!

valleybldr
Mar 18th 2008, 11:12 PM
Why would someone who is having God's ways "written on their heart" concern themselves about what is "necessary?" When you are in love with someone you don't think in terms of what is "necessary." At least I hope not. todd

Matt14
Mar 18th 2008, 11:14 PM
Why would someone who is having God's ways "written on their heart" concern themselves about what is "necessary?" When you are in love with someone you don't think in terms of what is "necessary." At least I hope not. todd
Hi Todd,

Probably because of this from Jesus:

Joh 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Love is equated with obedience by our Savior.

losthorizon
Mar 18th 2008, 11:22 PM
LH,
Above you are saying that baptism saves. But in reply #194 you said the opposite

Your misunderstanding, Thinker – in the post above I have quoted the words of Jesus who plainly stated – “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Jesus is stating without a doubt that both belief and baptism in water come before one receives the salvation found only “in Christ Jesus”. You on the other hand insist the Bible says "he who believes and is not baptized shall be saved.” The only problem you encounter with your doctrine is that it is not the doctrine taught by Jesus and it goes counter to the teaching of the NT. Again I ask, which is it – baptism before remission of sins or remission of sins and then baptism? Both cannot be true.
Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
I would also suggest you go back and read what I posted in reply #194 – I will recap for you as there is no contradiction as you suggest. I said it is the blood of Christ that “washes away sins”. I said the ordinance of baptism in water is essential to the gospel of Christ just as Jesus states in Mark 16. I pointed out that your tradition is in complete agreement with this teaching and that you are at odds with your own tradition to which you have already agreed.

I reminded you that the ordinance of baptism is a symbol of our cleansing through the blood of Christ when we are "baptized into His death" (Rom 6: 3-5). I reminded you that baptism is simply “the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1Pe 3:21) and it is not an option but an essential command to be obeyed by all those who are to be His.


For some reason you keep failing to answer my point from Hebrews 8 where we are told that "baptisms and fleshly ordinances" would cease. The baptism that the apostles performed was included in those "various baptisms" that would cease.

I'm getting bored. If you fail again to deal with Hebrews 8 I am likely not to reply.
What baptism do you refer to in Hebrews 8 (verse please)? I see no reference to Christian baptism in this chapter. The chapter deals with the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old Covenant… “if that first covenant had been without fault, then no place would have been sought for the second.” The ordinance of Christian baptism belongs to the superior New Covenant and it is an ordinance to be observed until Christ comes again and herein lies your confusion – you mistakenly think the baptism commanded by Jesus was given under the OC but that is incorrect thinking on your part.

valleybldr
Mar 18th 2008, 11:42 PM
Hi Todd,

Probably because of this from Jesus:

Joh 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Love is equated with obedience by our Savior. I agree but when someone asks what is "necessary" it's like they are only interested in the very least they can do to save their hide. Not a good appraoch when entering or maintaining a relationship IMO. todd

losthorizon
Mar 18th 2008, 11:43 PM
Anyone interested in the type/antitype relationship in 1 Peter 3:21 may want to read this old post of mine:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=331141&postcount=6

God bless!
Matt 14 – excellent post on the meaning of the type-antitype relationship found in 1Peter 3:21 – thanks for the link.

Matt14
Mar 19th 2008, 02:07 AM
I agree but when someone asks what is "necessary" it's like they are only interested in the very least they can do to save their hide. Not a good appraoch when entering or maintaining a relationship IMO. todd
Love, by definition, is a verb, not a noun. ;)

But I understand what you are saying. The key is always the heart. Remember when Paul said:

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

Obedience must be "from the heart." Just "going through the motions" will not avail us anything. Our lives must be about God, not self.

Solomon reminds us:

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man's all.

May God bless us in our mutual studies.

thethinker
Mar 19th 2008, 09:03 AM
Thinker, again I have to ask for the evidence that "baptism was old covenant." Baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and for being added to the church (Acts 2:47) and being made a disciple of Christ (Matt. 28:19) was commanded only in the New Testament, under the New Covenant.....If it was to be abolished, it would have disappeared directly after Christ's death. His work on the canceled the Law and its requirements:

Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross

The Law was no longer binding when Christ died on the cross.

Hebrews 9 says that baptisms and fleshly ordinances were temporary and that they would end with the destruction of the temple.



"The Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way in to the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the tabernacle was STILL STANDING. It was symbolic for the PRESENT TIME inwhich both gifts and sacrifices are offered...concerned only with foods, drinks, VARIOUS BAPTISMS AND FLESHLY ORDINANCES imposed UNTIL the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:8-10).

Note that it says that the way to God was not yet made manifest while the temple was "still standing". We know that it was the temple in their day because it refers to the sacrifices that were being offered at the "present time".

And it says that "the various baptisms and fleshly ordinances" were imposed "UNTIL" the time of reformation.

So when the temple was destroyed in ad70 "the various baptisms and fleshly ordinances" were abolished and the way to God had been FULLY revealed.

It is a mistake to think that the new covenant fully came at Christ's death. Reading on in chapter 9 we see that Christ was in the heavenly tabernacle (or temple) SPRINKLING HIS BLOOD ON THE ALTAR. Under the old covenant their salvation was not complete until the priest killed the sacrifice and then went in to the temple to sprinkle its blood on the altar.

So the salvation of God's new covenant people was not complete until He went into the heavenly temple and sprinkled His blood on the altar. After He completed this THEY were FULLY CLEANSED OF THEIR SINS. But in the meantime they had to be baptized for the remission of their sins.

The sign God gave them was the destruction of the temple in ad70. Its destruction indicated that Christ had finished sprinkling His blood and that their salvation was COMPLETE.

Seeing that we live on the completed side of Christ's priestly work we don't need to be baptized. But they lived DURING Christ's priestly work and had to be baptized for the remission of their sins until that work was finished. The destruction of the temple in ad70 was the sign as I have said.


There was no waiting period until ad70

Then you cannot explain why it says that Christ had to sprinkle His blood on the altar. This was the "intercession" He completed. You are in effect saying that the sprinkling of His blood was not necessary.


Correction: The verses I cited in this post are from Hebrews chapter 9 not chapter 8. I have edited accordingly.

Matt14
Mar 19th 2008, 07:20 PM
Hebrews 9 says that baptisms and fleshly ordinances were temporary and that they would end with the destruction of the temple.

The "washings" the Hebrews writer is talking about has nothing to do with Christian baptism. It has to do with the ceremonial cleansings of the Law of Moses in regard to the rites of the temple service.

Look this passage up in any good commentary and you will see.


"The Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way in to the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the tabernacle was STILL STANDING. It was symbolic for the PRESENT TIME inwhich both gifts and sacrifices are offered...concerned only with foods, drinks, VARIOUS BAPTISMS AND FLESHLY ORDINANCES imposed UNTIL the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:8-10).

Let's go ahead to the next verse, though, thinker:

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
Heb 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

The writer says, "when Christ appeared as high priest," meaning He has already done so. He also writes that "He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle," and also that Jesus "entered the holy place once for all." From the writer's perspective, this has already happened. The writer of Hebrews was not awaiting a time of finishing. It was already finished! Christ had already entered the holiest of holies.


Note that it says that the way to God was not yet made manifest while the temple was "still standing". We know that it was the temple in their day because it refers to the sacrifices that were being offered at the "present time".

And it says that "the various baptisms and fleshly ordinances" were imposed "UNTIL" the time of reformation.

But then he goes on and says in verse 11 that this time of reformation, when Christ entered the holiest of holies, has already happened.

This effectively refutes what you are claiming about this passage.


It is a mistake to think that the new covenant fully came at Christ's death.

Then you will have to take it up with God's word:

Heb 9:16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.
Heb 9:17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

The covenant was in full force at Christ's death. Aside from this plain statement in God's word, I really cannot offer you much more to think on.

God bless!

thethinker
Mar 20th 2008, 06:36 PM
The "washings" the Hebrews writer is talking about has nothing to do with Christian baptism. It has to do with the ceremonial cleansings of the Law of Moses in regard to the rites of the temple service.

The word used is "baptizo" in its plural form. It refers to "baptisms", the "varoius" baptisms that were in place. The term "Christian" baptism is your term, not the Bible's term.


The writer says, "when Christ appeared as high priest," meaning He has already done so. He also writes that "He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle," and also that Jesus "entered the holy place once for all." From the writer's perspective, this has already happened. The writer of Hebrews was not awaiting a time of finishing. It was already finished! Christ had already entered the holiest of holies.

Pay attention to what you said above. You are agreeing with me that Christ had to appear in the heavenly tabernacle AFTER HIS DEATH. I agree with you that Jesus entered the tabernacle "once for all". But this "once for all" refers back to the old covenant priests that had to enter the tabernacle DAILY. Christ entered the tabernacle "once for all" as opposed to daily.

But what did He do AFTER He entered the tabernacle? Answer: He sprinkled His blood on the altar ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES!!

"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people ACCORDING TO THE LAW, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop and sprinkled...saying...THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT...." Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle...ACCORDING TO THE LAW" [9:19-22].

You seem to agree that Jesus had to enter the heavenly tabernacle to complete the salvation of His people. So when you say that salvation was completed in His death alone you contradict yourself. So the question really is this: What did He do AFTER He appeared in the heavenly tabernacle? I have already given you the answer.

1 Peter 1:2 "...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and the SPRINKLING of the blood of Christ".

There it is!! The blood had to be sprinlked AFTER His death. Therefore, salvation was NOT fully accomplished at His death but AFTER the sprinkling was finished! The first epistle of Peter was written approximately 30 years AFTER Christ's death. So He was still in the heavenly tabernacle performing His intercessory act of sprinkling.

In your post you made no mention at all about the sprinkling aspect of Christ's intercessory work though MOSES REQUIRED IT.

Are you prepared to deny that Christ was required to fulfill the WHOLE law of Moses for us? I know you won't deny this. So you will have to deal with the plain fact that the sprinkling was still going on when Peter wrote his first epistle approximately 30 years later. Ergo: Salvation was NOT completed in Christ's death alone.


...he goes on and says in verse 11 that this time of reformation, when Christ entered the holiest of holies, has already happened.

Hebrews does NOT say that the time of reformation had fully arrived. Go back to chapter 8:13,

"In that He says, 'a New covenant', He is making the first obsolete. Now that which IS BECOMING obsolete and GROWING old is VANISHING away".

Note that present participles are used. The old "is becoming" obsolete. Not "has become" obsolete. The obsolete "is growing old". Not "has been abolished". It "is vanishing away". Not "it has vanished away".

What will you do with the repeated use of the participles, present tense verbs that express CONTINUOUS ACTION?

When the reformation fully arrived as signified by the destruction of the temple, ALL BAPTIAMS AND FLESHLY ORDINANCES CEASED.

IT IS FAITH ALONE NOW! FAITH ALONE!

Matt14
Mar 20th 2008, 09:40 PM
thinker, I understand that you believe what you believe, and there is no changing what you believe. However, this will likely be my last post on the subject of Hebrews and whether or not the New Covenant was in full force at Christ's death, or, as you assert, that it was in full force only at the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

It is clear to me (and apparently every scholar that I have checked with) that scriptures say the New Covenant was in force at Christ's death (Heb. 9:15-17), so I see no need to further debate this with you. If you wish to hold to the belief, that is your choice. But the following will be my last response on this particular point, because it is simply belaboring the obvious.


The word used is "baptizo" in its plural form. It refers to "baptisms", the "varoius" baptisms that were in place.

The reason the plural (βαπτισμοῖς) is used is because the writer is referring to a type of cleansing with water that are "various" and used in relationship to the temple worship. Here are some of the various "βαπτισμοῖς" that may be found under the Old Law:

Exo 29:4 "Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the doorway of the tent of meeting and wash them with water.

For brevity, see also Mark 7:4; Lev. 11:25, Lev. 11:28.; Num. 87.

The Jews had added many types of washings, such as those seen in Mark 7.

It is a fact, not conjecture, that the "various washings" mentioned in Heb. 9:10 are referring to temple ceremony, and not New Covenant baptism.


The term "Christian" baptism is your term, not the Bible's term.

I was differentiating baptism into Christ from the "washings" that you are attempting to lump New Covenant baptism in with.


Pay attention to what you said above. You are agreeing with me that Christ had to appear in the heavenly tabernacle AFTER HIS DEATH. I agree with you that Jesus entered the tabernacle "once for all". But this "once for all" refers back to the old covenant priests that had to enter the tabernacle DAILY. Christ entered the tabernacle "once for all" as opposed to daily.

But what did He do AFTER He entered the tabernacle? Answer: He sprinkled His blood on the altar ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES!!

Of course, I am paying attention to what I said. Where you are erring is that you are of the opinion that it took Christ 35+ years to enter and sprinkle His blood on the altar. In your view, fleshly priests are much more efficient, in that the sprinkling is done when the entering is done.


"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people ACCORDING TO THE LAW, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop and sprinkled...saying...THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT...." Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle...ACCORDING TO THE LAW" [9:19-22].

You seem to agree that Jesus had to enter the heavenly tabernacle to complete the salvation of His people. So when you say that salvation was completed in His death alone you contradict yourself.

You are placing a physical aspect to Christ's spiritual atonement as High Priest. You seem to be saying that there was a physical approaching of a physical temple. The things Hebrews is discussing about Christ's intercession as High Priest are spiritual They did not take 30+ years to complete.

In your view, it would impossible for a man to be saved under the New Covenant until AD 70. However, Gentiles were being saved right and left before the temple was destroyed. Speaking to the Gentiles at Ephesus, Paul said:

Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

Did Paul tell them "by grace you have been saved...well, almost, as soon as the temple is destroyed?" No, of course not. That would be the height of absurdity. These people were saved by the gospel of Christ right then, not at some future time when Christ's blood was finally sprinkled on a spiritual altar. No! It was sprinkled directly after His death, and the New Covenant was sealed.

Paul himself saw that old covenant as having already been taken away, and rightly so. He said:

2Co 3:14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
2Co 3:15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
2Co 3:16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

You see, the covenant was already "old" when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. There was no "waiting period" for it to be old. It was old when Christ nailed it to the cross! This is a foundation of the New Testament:

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
Eph 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

You see, when Paul wrote to the Ephesians, Christ had already broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile. It no longer existed at Paul's time! Peace had been established, and therefore this must mean that God's new covenant in the blood of Christ had already been ratified and in full effect at the time of Paul.


So the question really is this: What did He do AFTER He appeared in the heavenly tabernacle? I have already given you the answer.

1 Peter 1:2 "...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and the SPRINKLING of the blood of Christ".

There it is!! The blood had to be sprinlked AFTER His death. Therefore, salvation was NOT fully accomplished at His death but AFTER the sprinkling was finished! The first epistle of Peter was written approximately 30 years AFTER Christ's death. So He was still in the heavenly tabernacle performing His intercessory act of sprinkling.

Again, if you have to believe that it took Christ 30+ years to sprinkle His blood on the altar following His death, that is your choice. But scripture does not support it, and this passage from 1 Peter does not say it. Peter is referring to the purification Christians have received by the blood of Christ. Peter's words have no time reference. Notice that Peter says they were chosen "to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood." Had they obeyed Christ? Surely. Had they been sprinkled with His blood? Spiritually, of course. Anyone who says these are pointing to a future time of sprinkling will also have to say it is pointing forward to a future time of obedience. This would be faulty exegesis, though.


In your post you made no mention at all about the sprinkling aspect of Christ's intercessory work though MOSES REQUIRED IT.

Are you prepared to deny that Christ was required to fulfill the WHOLE law of Moses for us? I know you won't deny this. So you will have to deal with the plain fact that the sprinkling was still going on when Peter wrote his first epistle approximately 30 years later. Ergo: Salvation was NOT completed in Christ's death alone.

This post has effectively shown that the "sprinkling" was not still in process. Hebrews does not place a time frame on the sprinkling, and there is no cause whatsoever to assume that after Christ's death, He "stood" in the holiest of holies for 30+ years awaiting the sprinkling of His blood.

The text does not demand it, but the preterist view does demand it. I think it better to remain with what the text tells us. The second coming of Christ has not happened yet. For the scripture say:

Rev 1:7 BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.




Hebrews does NOT say that the time of reformation had fully arrived. Go back to chapter 8:13,

"In that He says, 'a New covenant', He is making the first obsolete. Now that which IS BECOMING obsolete and GROWING old is VANISHING away".

Note that present participles are used. The old "is becoming" obsolete. Not "has become" obsolete. The obsolete "is growing old". Not "has been abolished". It "is vanishing away". Not "it has vanished away".

What will you do with the repeated use of the participles, present tense verbs that express CONTINUOUS ACTION?

Because the writer is quoting from a passage in the old testament. Here is the breakdown:


Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

First the writer says that a new covenant was planned a long time ago.

Then he quotes the Old Testamenet (the caps are OT verses):

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
Heb 8:9 NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
Heb 8:10 "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
Heb 8:11 "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
Heb 8:12 "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."

Now the Hebrews writer comments:

Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

You see, his words are referring to something written long ago. He is saying, "When God said a new covenant, He was already planning that the old one would be vanishing."

The Hebrews writer said God made the old covenant obsolete "when He said it." That is, when He said "I will make a new covenant." At that point, Hebrews says, the Old Covenant was becoming obsolete and growing old and ready to disappear. This would have been true at Jeremiah's time of writing. It was not the present state of things at the time of the writing of Hebrews.

Now, if you want to continue in your belief, that is your right. But it would seem that scripture does not support:

1. The idea that the "washings" discussed in Hebrews 9:10 include the baptism of Acts 2:38.

2. The idea that the New Covenant was not in full force until AD 70.

I know you earnestly believe these things, but I pray you will consider what I've written here. If you would like to discuss these things privately, please PM me. But I think the time has come to stop belaboring this particular point, as it seems scripture is clear on when the covenant came into effect.

God bless you in your continued studies.

thethinker
Mar 21st 2008, 01:45 AM
It is clear to me (and apparently every scholar that I have checked with) that scriptures say the New Covenant was in force at Christ's death (Heb. 9:15-17), so I see no need to further debate this with you. If you wish to hold to the belief, that is your choice. But the following will be my last response on this particular point, because it is simply belaboring the obvious.

Every scholar you have checked with is not every scholar. There are other scholars that exist outside your world.


The reason the plural (βαπτισμοῖς) is used is because the writer is referring to a type of cleansing with water that are "various" and used in relationship to the temple worship.

The Jews had added many types of washings, such as those seen in Mark 7.

Though you're correct that the Jews illegitimately imposed baptisms on the people that's NOT what Hebrews 9 is talking about. Go back to verse 1:

"Truly the FIRST covenant had ordinances of godly service in the earthly sanctuary...." (9:1).

Therefore, the "various baptisms" and "fleshly ordinances" that ceased came out of the FIRST covenant of God. They were "godly service" which COULD NOT BE SAID ABOUT THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.

Christ did NOT die and then sprinkle His blood in the heavenly altar to save me from the ordinances of men. He died and sprinkled His blood to save me from those laws and ordinances of "godly service" that actually condemned me.


Of course, I am paying attention to what I said. Where you are erring is that you are of the opinion that it took Christ 35+ years to enter and sprinkle His blood on the altar. In your view, fleshly priests are much more efficient, in that the sprinkling is done when the entering is done.

I was ready for this objection. You have said that Christ is still making intercession even TODAY? But the old covenant priests did not take two thousand years to complete their intercession? So the same objection comes back to you.


You are placing a physical aspect to Christ's spiritual atonement as High Priest. You seem to be saying that there was a physical approaching of a physical temple. The things Hebrews is discussing about Christ's intercession as High Priest are spiritual They did not take 30+ years to complete.

I said nothing about a physical sprinkling of Christ's blood. Take the sprinkling however you want. Fact is, He had to fulfill the WHOLE law of Moses before their salvation could be complete. The whole law of Moses was NOT fulfilled until the sprinkling of Christ's blood was complete.

I marvel that some Christians can say that Christ should shed His blood alone without having to apply it to His people. Do you mean to say that the shedding of His blood without the application of His blood is enough?

The law of Moses required the application of the blood of the sacrifice:

"He [Moses] took the blood of calves and goats...and sprinkled both the book itself and ALL THE PEOPLE".

Are you saying that the shedding of Christ's blood was enough and that it did not need to be sprinkled upon His people as the law of Moses required.

Seems to me that you have your own concocted salvation program.


Gentiles were being saved right and left before the temple was destroyed.

Paul taught that they were "kept" for salvation. They were as good as saved though their salvation was not completed yet.

"Who are KEPT by the power of God for salvation ABOUT to be revealed" (1 Peter 1:5)

Note it says that they were "kept" for salvation ABOUT TO BE MANIFESTED, just as Hebrews 9 says,

"The Holy Spirit SIGNified that the way in to the Holiest of All was not yet made MANIFEST while the temple was still standing.

So they were saved in the sense that they were "kept" for the salvation that was ABOUT to come.


Eph 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,
The term "flesh" refers to Christ's precious blood which Moses required to be sprinkled AFTER the death of the sacrifice.


Notice that Peter says they were chosen "to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood."

Yes! They had to be sprinkled with His blood. But the blood was sprinkled when He appeared in the heavenly altar AFTER His death.

You seem to want to agree that the post death sprinkling of the sacrifice was required but won't concede because the completion of the sprinkling effected FULL cleansing from sin thus negating the need for water baptism.

Matt14
Mar 21st 2008, 01:49 AM
Every scholar you have checked with is not every scholar. There are other scholars that exist outside your world.



Though you're correct that the Jews illegitimately imposed baptisms on the people that's NOT what Hebrews 9 is talking about. Go back to verse 1:

"Truly the FIRST covenant had ordinances of godly service in the earthly sanctuary...." (9:1).

<snipped for length>...

I stand on my previous post.

May God's richest blessings be upon you and yours.

losthorizon
Mar 21st 2008, 03:28 AM
...It is clear to me (and apparently every scholar that I have checked with) that scriptures say the New Covenant was in force at Christ's death (Heb. 9:15-17), so I see no need to further debate this with you. If you wish to hold to the belief, that is your choice. But the following will be my last response on this particular point, because it is simply belaboring the obvious.

Good post, Matt14 – you are correct, the OT was in force until the death of the “testator” of the New Testament – Jesus Christ. The NT came into force at the time Jesus died on the cross..."For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

losthorizon
Mar 21st 2008, 03:39 AM
...I marvel that some Christians can say that Christ should shed His blood alone without having to apply it to His people. Do you mean to say that the shedding of His blood without the application of His blood is enough?

Thinker – you are back to square one. It has already been pointed out on this thread that the penitent believer comes into contact with the blood of Christ when he is immersed in water thus being baptized “into His death” (Rom 6: 3-5). Jesus shed His blood in His death on the cross. It is during our obedience to the Lord’s command to be baptized that our sins are “washed away” by His precious blood through the operation of Holy Spirit ("born of water and of the Spirit"). It was for this reason that the “chief sinner”, Saul of Tarsus was commanded to be baptized and “wash away” his sins. His sins were washed by the blood of Christ at his baptism as he called on the name of the Lord. This is not a hard concept…
Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

thethinker
Mar 21st 2008, 07:45 AM
I stand on my previous post.

May God's richest blessings be upon you and yours.

Dear Brother,

It is the Holy Spirit that said that the temple's standing was a "sign" that new covenant salvation had not yet been [fully] revealed (9:8-9). Hebrews says that the Holy Spirit "signified" it. If the temple's standing was a "sign" that salvation was not yet revealed then its desruction was the "sign" that Christ's intercession was now complete.

Verse 10 says that the "baptisms" and "fleshly ordinances" would continue "UNTIL" the time of the full arrival of the "new order" (NIV).

I have enjoyed this discourse with you and I hope that we will have other discourse on other subjects.

But allow me to say this: Don't "stand" on your post. Stand on what the Holy Spirit said. Those who require baptism for salvation today are preaching old covenant salvation. It's really that simple. The "new order" is FAITH ALONE!

Your friend,
Think

losthorizon
Mar 21st 2008, 11:33 AM
...Those who require baptism for salvation today are preaching old covenant salvation. It's really that simple. The "new order" is FAITH ALONE!
Jesus required baptism BEFORE "shall be saved" and He required this act of obedience AFTER the Old Covenant was "nailed to the cross".
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

"These words are very important. The first clause [believe and be baptized] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ The Pulpit Commentary

tgallison
Mar 21st 2008, 04:14 PM
Allow me a few more questions, please.

Where do the scriptures command "spiritual baptism?"

How do you know if you have received "spiritual baptism?"

Thanks!

Matt14 Greetings

John 3:3,5 "Jesus answered, Verily verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jesus answered, Verily,verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God."

God filled me with his presence. I can't speak for others.

terrell

thethinker
Mar 21st 2008, 04:35 PM
Jesus required baptism BEFORE "shall be saved" and He required this act of obedience AFTER the Old Covenant was "nailed to the cross".
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. "These words are very important. The first clause [believe and be baptized] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ The Pulpit Commentary

LH,
Earlier you said that nobody on this thread is saying that baptism saves. But again you contradict yourself.

The "believe and be baptized" statement was true during the period between Christ's ascension and His completed work of intercession. After His intercessory work was finished the external ordinances finished. And the destruction of the temple in ad70 was the physical sign that all was finished. It was then that all baptisms and external ordinances ceased to be required.

I am not interested in the Pulpit Commentary. I could give you my Reformed commentaries for the faith alone principle. But I don't because I want to engage with you from the Scriptures.

Abraham was justified by faith BEFORE he was circumcised (Romans 4). So God's new covenant people today are justified by faith alone APART from baptism. Believers today rest in the FINISHED SPRINKLING of Christ's blood.

If salvation today is by faith + plus works as it was under the old covenant, then how does the new covenant differ from the old covenant?

Old covenant: Faith + works
New covenant: Faith + works

Why is the second covenant called "new" if the same "faith + works" formula is true of both covenants? :confused

tgallison
Mar 21st 2008, 05:04 PM
This is an interesting thought you are resting on. If you do not look at what other people think about the Bible, what do you recommend we do with the things you are saying?

Besides, it is likely that you learned from teachers. Bible scholars are teachers. You don't have to take what they say as gospel truth. But perhaps you would consider what others have learned, and weigh it, instead of dismissing it outright.



Nearly every scholar and commentator I have access to disagrees with what you are saying. And these guys all pretty much reject the teaching that baptism is required for salvation. And yet, they understand that Paul was not rejecting the teaching and practice of baptism, but that he was trying to calm down the factions that were happening in Corinth. Paul may not have been "sent to baptize," but he taught baptism, else people would not have been baptized in response to his teaching like we see throughout Acts.

Matt14

This is an interesting thought you are resting on. If you do not look at what other people think about the Bible, what do you recommend we do with the things you are saying?


If they don't agree with the Bible discard them.

Psalm 116:11 "I said in my haste, All men are liars."



Besides, it is likely that you learned from teachers. Bible scholars are teachers. You don't have to take what they say as gospel truth. But perhaps you would consider what others have learned, and weigh it, instead of dismissing it outright.

The Word has been my Bible teacher. I do consider what other people say. But if it doesn't agree with the Word I dismiss it.



Nearly every scholar and commentator I have access to disagrees with what you are saying. And these guys all pretty much reject the teaching that baptism is required for salvation. And yet, they understand that Paul was not rejecting the teaching and practice of baptism, but that he was trying to calm down the factions that were happening in Corinth. Paul may not have been "sent to baptize," but he taught baptism, else people would not have been baptized in response to his teaching like we see throughout Acts.


Then how do we get into the body of Christ, if we are not baptized, by the Holy Spirit, into the body of Christ?

When Paul turned from the Jews to the Gentiles, was the beginning of the change of his ministry. He was no longer performing miracles, and his baptizing ceased.

terrell

tgallison
Mar 21st 2008, 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgallison http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1576091#post1576091)
losthorizon

Your kidding right! You are saying the flood is a picture of water baptism that you say we need to do now.

Anyone interested in the type/antitype relationship in 1 Peter 3:21 may want to read this old post of mine:

http://bibleforums.org/showpos...41&postcount=6 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=331141&postcount=6)

God bless!


Matt14 Greetings

When I said to losthorizon, You are saying the flood is a picture of water baptism that you say we need to do now, is confusing without understanding the context of our dispute.

The flood is a picture of our baptism into Christ, but not in the manner losthorizon was referring to. His was type to type, and not type to antitype.

I believe type and antitype is poor terminology.

Earthly and heavenly would be better terminology.

Hebrews 9:23-24 "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hand, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us."

Water baptism by man is the earthly, or pattern, or type if you will, commanded by God for the Jews, the sign people, into whose hand the Word was given. (Did not produce salvation.)

The antitype if you will, or the heavenly, or the true, is the baptism commanded by God, for entrance into the kingdom of God, is baptism by the Holy Spirit, baptizing you into the body of Christ, the living water, the pure water, the true water. (This is salvation)

In Jesus Christ, terrell

losthorizon
Mar 21st 2008, 11:04 PM
LH,
Earlier you said that nobody on this thread is saying that baptism saves. But again you contradict yourself.

Show me where I said the water of baptism saves anyone?? I have repeatedly stated it is the blood of Jesus Christ that finally and completely remits sins. I have presented the truth – belief and baptism ARE commanded by the Christ and they come BEFORE salvation - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Baptism is "the answer of a good conscience toward God" and as such it is necessary.

The OP asks the question, “Is Baptism Necessary?” To that question I have answered in the affirmative – the ordinance of baptism as instituted and commanded by the Lord (Mark 16:16) is necessary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not an option - it is essential. I base this affirmative on the words of Jesus and the words written by men moved by the Holy Spirit and recorded in the NT…
Mat_28:19; Mar_16:16; Joh_3:5; Joh_3:22; Joh_4:1-2; Act_1:5; Act_1:22; Act_2:38; Act_2:41; Act_8:12-13; Act_8:16; Act_8:36-38; Act_9:18; Act_10:46-48; Act_16:14-15; Act_16:33; Act_18:8; Act_18:25; Act_19:4-5; Act_22:16; Rom_6:3-4; 1Co_1:13-17; 1Co_10:1-2; 1Co_12:13; 1Co_15:29; Gal_3:27; Eph_4:5; Eph_5:26; Col_2:12; Heb_6:2; 1Pe_3:18; 1Pe_3:21

The "believe and be baptized" statement was true during the period between Christ's ascension and His completed work of intercession. After His intercessory work was finished the external ordinances finished. And the destruction of the temple in ad70 was the physical sign that all was finished. It was then that all baptisms and external ordinances ceased to be required.

I am not interested in the Pulpit Commentary. I could give you my Reformed commentaries for the faith alone principle. But I don't because I want to engage with you from the Scriptures.
Here’s a challenge for you, Thinker – present the work of any “Reformed” commentary that is in agreement with your statement that the ordinance of baptism was only applicable during the first century. I have never see this affirmed by any commentary. As we have already discussed your own “Confession” teaches otherwise as you have admitted – it correctly states the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are to be part of the Church until Christ comes the second time. Do you believe the Supper is to be practiced by Christians today or did it also become useless in the first century?

losthorizon
Mar 21st 2008, 11:27 PM
...When I said to losthorizon, You are saying the flood is a picture of water baptism that you say we need to do now, is confusing without understanding the context of our dispute.

The flood is a picture of our baptism into Christ, but not in the manner losthorizon was referring to. His was type to type, and not type to antitype.

As I have presented - the water in baptism is an anti-type of Noah’s deliverance by water and baptism in water points to the burial and resurrection of the Lord - without the resurrection of Christ baptism would be impotent. But because He was raised those who place their faith in Him – repent of their sins – and are immersed in water have their sins “washed away” by His blood -
“and now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

thethinker
Mar 21st 2008, 11:38 PM
Show me where I said the water of baptism saves anyone?? I have repeatedly stated it is the blood of Jesus Christ that finally and completely remits sins

LH,
Are you playing a word game? I am asking not accusing. You have said that baptism saves. But now you say that the "water OF baptism" does not save. Note that you said that baptism saves:


"These words are very important. The first clause [believe and be baptized] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ The Pulpit Commentary"

You are saying that the statement "'believe and be baptized' OPPOSES the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation".

I find it difficult to engage in discourse with a man that speaks so incoherently.



Here’s a challenge for you, Thinker – present the work of any “Reformed” commentary that is in agreement with your statement that the ordinance of baptism was only applicable during the first century. I have never see this affirmed by any commentary.

I did NOT say that I could produce a Reformed commentary that supports the view that baptism was only applicable during the first century. I clearly said that I can produce Reformed commentary to show my FAITH ALONE principle. Go back and read that post. I was quite clear. A philosopher once said "To speak and to write is to be misunderstood".

I enjoy our discourse but find it difficult when you use double speak.

losthorizon
Mar 22nd 2008, 12:08 AM
LH,
Are you playing a word game? I am asking not accusing. You have said that baptism saves. But now you say that the "water OF baptism" does not save. Note that you said that baptism saves:

You are saying that the statement "'believe and be baptized' OPPOSES the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation".

I find it difficult to engage in discourse with a man that speaks so incoherently.

No word game and no incoherency, Think – I am simply presenting what the Book states – the words of Jesus as recorded in Mark 16 plainly show that the “fruits of faith” [belief and baptism] take place before one receives the gift of salvation through His blood. Nowhere does the Bible teach that faith without obedience saves anyone.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

I did NOT say that I could produce a Reformed commentary that supports the view that baptism was only applicable during the first century. I clearly said that I can produce Reformed commentary to show my FAITH ALONE principle. Go back and read that post. I was quite clear. A philosopher once said "To speak and to write is to be misunderstood".
I know what you posted and I am asking if you can present the work of any “Reformed” commentary that is in agreement with your statement that the ordinance of baptism was only applicable during the first century? Can you or can you not? Your own denominational "Confession" is not on your side.

tgallison
Mar 22nd 2008, 02:13 AM
As I have presented - the water in baptism is an anti-type of Noah’s deliverance by water and baptism in water points to the burial and resurrection of the Lord - without the resurrection of Christ baptism would be impotent. But because He was raised those who place their faith in Him – repent of their sins – and are immersed in water have their sins “washed away” by His blood -
“and now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

losthorizon greetings

You are confusing me, is water and baptism two different things.

The verse you use Acts 22:16 calls for Paul, a Jew, to be baptized, like Christ, into John's baptism, as all Jews were required to do.

terrell

losthorizon
Mar 22nd 2008, 02:49 AM
losthorizon greetings

You are confusing me, is water and baptism two different things.

The verse you use Acts 22:16 calls for Paul, a Jew, to be baptized, like Christ, into John's baptism, as all Jews were required to do.

terrell
Hello Terrell – the confusion rests with you my friend. Once again you confuse the ordinance of Christian baptism that was commissioned by Christ AFTER His resurrection (Mark 16: 16) and that is to be administered to ALL who obey the gospel of Christ (both Jew and Greek) with the baptism of John the Baptist which was administered to Jews BEFORE the death of Christ on the cross. They are not the same baptism.

Before one is a candidate for the ordinance of Christian baptism he/she must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was raised from the dead (Rom. 10:9). Those who submitted to John’s baptism were not required to believe Jesus was raised because His resurrection was yet future.
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36 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?
Act 8:37 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.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

thethinker
Mar 22nd 2008, 08:52 AM
No word game and no incoherency, Think – I am simply presenting what the Book states – the words of Jesus as recorded in Mark 16 plainly show that the “fruits of faith” [belief and baptism] take place before one receives the gift of salvation through His blood. Nowhere does the Bible teach that faith without obedience saves anyone.

LH,
There it is again. You said, "No where does the Bible teach that faith without obedience saves anyone".

You are clearly denying the Reformed "faith alone" principle. You call baptism a "fruit of faith". Ergo, faith plus obedience to the command to be baptized saves today.

Please own up to your statements here. You believe in faith + works. You believe that apart from baptism there can be no salvation.

I have said before that I also believe that baptism saved AT THAT TIME. During that transitional period of the changing over of the old covenant to the new covenant baptism was necessary for salvation. This was true because Jesus had not completed His intercessory act of the sprinkling of His blood which ALONE can cleanse from sin.

In the meantime Christians had to be ceremonially cleansed through water baptism. But when Christ finished the sprinklingof His blood the TRUE cleansing from sin was accomplished. The ceremonial cleansing is NOT NEEDED NOW.

It CLEARLY says in Hebrews 9 that "baptisms and "external ordinances" were imposed UNTIL the time of the new order [NIV]. One poster said that the "baptisms" imposed were those false requirements of the scribes and pharisees. But 9:1 says that those ordinances were "divine services". Men's false requirements could not be called "divine (or godly) services" by the author of Hebrews.

Terefore, it is the baptisms and external ordinances that were IMPOSED BY GOD that came to their full end. The text clearly says that the Holy Spirit "signified" that the temple's presence meant that the way to God had not yet been manifested. Ergo, the destruction of the temple was the physical sign that Christ had finished His intercessory act of the sprinkling and the way to God was manifested.

Your belief that the Bible no where says that salvation is by faith alone does not take into consideration that salvation was not yet complete. But it is complete now. We post ad70 saints live on the side of Christ's COMPLETED INTERCESSION, that is, the sprinkling is DONE!

Abraham was justified BEFORE any act of obedience (Rom. 4). He was justified by FAITH ALONE! This is what Paul identifies as the "gospel".

Think

Matt14
Mar 22nd 2008, 02:51 PM
losthorizon greetings

You are confusing me, is water and baptism two different things.

The verse you use Acts 22:16 calls for Paul, a Jew, to be baptized, like Christ, into John's baptism, as all Jews were required to do.

terrell
Terrell, I'll be responding to your posts to me as soon as I find time, probably early next week. But, your post I'm quoting here is interesting. You seem to be agreeing that, for the Jew, at least, baptism was for the purpose of the remission of sins.

Do you believe that baptism in water for the Jews was for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16)?

Would Paul's sins have been remitted without baptism in water?

losthorizon
Mar 22nd 2008, 03:34 PM
LH,
There it is again. You said, "No where does the Bible teach that faith without obedience saves anyone".

You are clearly denying the Reformed "faith alone" principle. You call baptism a "fruit of faith". Ergo, faith plus obedience to the command to be baptized saves today.

I have posted this all along, my friend – belief, repentance and baptism [works of faith] are all essential in God’s plan of redemption for mankind. The Bible is plain on this teaching. The words of Jesus are unmistakable – “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved…I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish…” To deny His words is to deny the gospel of Christ. It can't be any clearer. :)

Regarding your notion of Hebrews 9 – I will refer you back to Matt14 who has already presented an excellent explanation of the passage in question. The writer of Hebrews is expressing the superiority of the New Covenant over the OC, showing the death and blood-shedding of Christ was necessary to inaugurate the superior New Testament which includes the ordinance of baptism.

The challenge to you still stands – provide a “Reformed” commentary (or any commentary) that supports your peculiar notion that the ordinance of baptism became kaput in AD 70 and is no longer applicable to God’s people today. Can you do it? Remember - your own “Confession” is against you.

I will leave you with the words of Martin Luther who is credited by many with coining the term “faith alone” after his first-hand witness of the abuses by the RCC regarding the “works of men”. Please note that Luther saw no conflict between obeying the Lord in baptism and salvation by "faith alone" - he understood obedient faith and he correctly understood the essential role of baptism in God’s plan to save man through the sacrifice of Christ. He states baptism is a “commandment and institution” of God and “to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work.”

Please note – you are in error when you say baptism is a work of man – it is not. It is God’s work to place the penitent believer “into Christ Jesus” and He has chosen to do this through the instrument of baptism – immersion in water (a burial) into Christ (Rom 6: 3-5).
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

In these words you must note, in the first place, that here stand God's commandment and institution, lest we doubt that Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men. For as truly as I can say, No man has spun the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer out of his head, but they are revealed and given by God Himself, so also I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter…For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do? ~ Martin Luther

thethinker
Mar 22nd 2008, 05:34 PM
Losthorizon,
We will resume our discourse after the observance of the Lord's passover death and resurrection.

losthorizon
Mar 22nd 2008, 06:06 PM
Losthorizon,
We will resume our discourse after the observance of the Lord's passover death and resurrection.
May God richly bless you as you continue to follow Him… He Has Risen!

Hburgpreacher
Mar 23rd 2008, 03:55 AM
I believe you already have the best evidence against "water baptism" being part of salvation with the thief on the cross.


Technically, the thief on the cross was still under the old covenant because Christ had not died yet.