PDA

View Full Version : Question On Baptism



BrckBrln
Jan 1st 2009, 02:48 AM
Should infants be baptized?

I assume (yikes!) most people here would say no. I would as well. So, if it's true that baptism is only for people who believe, then aren't there a whole bunch of people in the world who believe but aren't baptized?

What I mean is that Catholics and a lot of Reformed folk believe in infant baptism. So when the infant grows up to be a believer they don't feel the need to be baptized since they were baptized as a baby. If believer's baptism is true then wouldn't these people be considered unbaptized?

karenoka27
Jan 1st 2009, 03:03 AM
Should infants be baptized?

I assume (yikes!) most people here would say no. I would as well. So, if it's true that baptism is only for people who believe, then aren't there a whole bunch of people in the world who believe but aren't baptized?

What I mean is that Catholics and a lot of Reformed folk believe in infant baptism. So when the infant grows up to be a believer they don't feel the need to be baptized since they were baptized as a baby. If believer's baptism is true then wouldn't these people be considered unbaptized?
Mark 16:16-"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

The most important thing is believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins, was buried and rose again. When we are baptized as believers we are recognizing these things as true.
A baby cannot do this. A baby's baptism has no merit in God's eyes whatsoever.
I was baptized as a baby. When I came to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I was baptized as a believer. One had nothing to do with the other.
As a matter of fact, I was saved through a tract given to me.
On the outside it said, "Where in the Bible does it speak of infant baptism?"
When you open it, it reads "nowhere."

I have that tract in a frame to this day.

Thaddaeus
Jan 1st 2009, 03:40 AM
there is a debate as to which baptism Eph 4:5 (http://bibleforums.org/eph+4:5)One Lord, ONE FAITH, one baptism,


Lu 3:16 (http://bibleforums.org/lu+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:
I think the latter myself

Toymom
Jan 1st 2009, 04:22 AM
Should infants be baptized?

I assume (yikes!) most people here would say no. I would as well. So, if it's true that baptism is only for people who believe, then aren't there a whole bunch of people in the world who believe but aren't baptized?

What I mean is that Catholics and a lot of Reformed folk believe in infant baptism. So when the infant grows up to be a believer they don't feel the need to be baptized since they were baptized as a baby. If believer's baptism is true then wouldn't these people be considered unbaptized?
I think that if someone was baptised as an infant, and grows up to be a believer then it is up to them to pray and ask the Lord if they should be re-baptised. If the Lord convicts them to do so, then they should. If He does not convict them to do so, then it is not for other people to judge. I imagine there are many people who were baptised as infants who are dear believers. They may not have ever heard believer's baptism explained properly or they may not understand it. But the Lord knows their hearts and their situations. I think we should explain believer's baptism to other believers who do not know about it and pray that they will chose to be baptised, but it must be their decision lead by the Lord.

karenoka27
Jan 1st 2009, 04:43 AM
Baptism in the Catholic church believes that it washes your sin away. This is not true.
baptizo, "baptism" means to dip or immerse. The Catholic church sprinkles.

Baptism in no way washes away your sin. You are identifying yourself with the death,burial and Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
A baby is not capable of making that kind of decision to identify oneself.

jrick
Jan 1st 2009, 05:44 AM
I'll go against the tide and say yes. Unfortunately, it's getting late (happy new year!), so I'll just post a link to the infant baptism form from the Blue Psalter Hymnal which makes a good case for infant baptism. (This is the only link I could find with it.)

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/worship/infant.baptism.1.html

Also, here is Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 74 (with citations!), which
asks about infant baptism.


Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?

A. Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation.[1] Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults.[2] Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers.[3] This was done in the old covenant by circumcision,[4] in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.[5]

[1] Gen. 17:7; Matt. 19:14. [2] Ps. 22:11; Is. 44:1-3; Acts 2:38, 39; 16:31. [3] Acts 10:47; I Cor. 7:14. [4] Gen. 17:9-14. [5] Col. 2: 11-13.

This will give you something to look over for a while. ;) Hopefully, I will have more time tomarrow (today? :)) to discuss this.

Mysteryman
Jan 1st 2009, 11:52 AM
Water baptism is not necessary at all !

Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit and "Fire" < Fire, not water !

ServantofTruth
Jan 1st 2009, 01:15 PM
Firstly a quick answer to Mysteryman's last comment - I believe you are wrong for many biblical reasons, not least Matthew 28:19 where Jesus says, 'Go therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit.' How are we to baptise anyone with 'fire' only God can, so it must refer to water baptism.

Next may I turn my thoughts to infant baptism, a subject i felt some pain over some months ago and shared on this site.

karenoka27 speaks a lot of sense/ truth - however i would like her and others to consider some of what i am about to say.

I was baptised into the church of Jesus Christ via the Anglican denomination at a few days old. I totally agree that this was not either a baptism of repentance or a total emersion baptism. My parents spoke the words and also my God- parents.
Later at 11 i was confirmed. Made the commitment myself (no), and i have admitted before that again i just did what mum & dad and the priest told me to do. 2 years later i stopped going to church and lost another 17 years of my life to non belief.

At 30 i read the bible alone and accepted gospel truth and i believe at that point recieved the Holy Spirit - that God/ Jesus baptised me with fire.

It is under 6 months since i became a church regular. Before that i went to more services than i ever realised or admitted, just not regularly.

The church I returned to is Anglican. I have at this present time, put myself under the authority of an Anglican church. I am open to our Lord at a future date calling me to another church of any denomination - his Will, not mine. I attend many churches of many denominations and am building friendships in many churches.

But and this is important, i have entered into a relationship with brothers & sisters at that Anglican church and have accepted the authority of those in charge there and the denomination.

I contacted the national authority of the Church of England/ Anglican denomination and told them how i felt about my baptism/ confirmation. They clearly replied that a second baptism is not possible in the Anglican church. I have to accept their decision.

Once a year in the Anglican church (only once i think, i'm not an authority on these matters) we have a chance as adults to renew our baptismal vows. Which i did in 2008. I prayed for our Lord to hear my personal turning to him again.

If we are to accept people of all denominations, which i do, then we have to listen to their personal faith and how they express it. Would i prefered to have had a full emersion baptism and repented of my sins, the answer is 'yes.'

Will i disobey the authority of my church the answer is 'no.' Will i make other people with infant baptism feel less equal 'no.' In the same way that i won't demand that others have a new full emersion baptism or recite the believers prayer, because i believe their life doesn't live up to what i expect of a brother or sister.

There are NOT a lot of people with infant baptism who are not baptised. There are many who have not known our Lord though. Also many who long to be accept by people who believe they have a 'superior' baptism.

All the sacrifices, all the baptisms, all the spiritual gifts are of little value without love. As long as the person comes to a point of understanding and personally accepting the Cross, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ they are my brother/ sister.

I am sorry if this seperates me from anyone on these forums. Truely sorry. SofTy.

graceforme
Jan 1st 2009, 01:34 PM
Water baptism is not necessary at all !

Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit and "Fire" < Fire, not water !



While most do not recognize this, there are several different baptisms in the Bible. And many simply do not understand the purpose of baptism. Or that not every baptism has to do with water. But, beware - you have probably opened a great big can of worms here. I have been severely attacked by those who believe that salvation doesn't "take" if you're not water baptized.

So, brace yourself. And prepare for the "battle."

God Bless.

graceforme
Jan 1st 2009, 01:45 PM
Firstly a quick answer to Mysteryman's last comment - I believe you are wrong for many biblical reasons, not least Matthew 28:19 where Jesus says, 'Go therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit.' How are we to baptise anyone with 'fire' only God can, so it must refer to water baptism.

Next may I turn my thoughts to infant baptism, a subject i felt some pain over some months ago and shared on this site.

karenoka27 speaks a lot of sense/ truth - however i would like her and others to consider some of what i am about to say.

I was baptised into the church of Jesus Christ via the Anglican denomination at a few days old. I totally agree that this was not either a baptism of repentance or a total emersion baptism. My parents spoke the words and also my God- parents.
Later at 11 i was confirmed. Made the commitment myself (no), and i have admitted before that again i just did what mum & dad and the priest told me to do. 2 years later i stopped going to church and lost another 17 years of my life to non belief.

At 30 i read the bible alone and accepted gospel truth and i believe at that point recieved the Holy Spirit - that God/ Jesus baptised me with fire.

It is under 6 months since i became a church regular. Before that i went to more services than i ever realised or admitted, just not regularly.

The church I returned to is Anglican. I have at this present time, put myself under the authority of an Anglican church. I am open to our Lord at a future date calling me to another church of any denomination - his Will, not mine. I attend many churches of many denominations and am building friendships in many churches.

But and this is important, i have entered into a relationship with brothers & sisters at that Anglican church and have accepted the authority of those in charge there and the denomination.

I contacted the national authority of the Church of England/ Anglican denomination and told them how i felt about my baptism/ confirmation. They clearly replied that a second baptism is not possible in the Anglican church. I have to accept their decision.

Once a year in the Anglican church (only once i think, i'm not an authority on these matters) we have a chance as adults to renew our baptismal vows. Which i did in 2008. I prayed for our Lord to hear my personal turning to him again.

If we are to accept people of all denominations, which i do, then we have to listen to their personal faith and how they express it. Would i prefered to have had a full emersion baptism and repented of my sins, the answer is 'yes.'

Will i disobey the authority of my church the answer is 'no.' Will i make other people with infant baptism feel less equal 'no.' In the same way that i won't demand that others have a new full emersion baptism or recite the believers prayer, because i believe their life doesn't live up to what i expect of a brother or sister.

There are NOT a lot of people with infant baptism who are not baptised. There are many who have not known our Lord though. Also many who long to be accept by people who believe they have a 'superior' baptism.

All the sacrifices, all the baptisms, all the spiritual gifts are of little value without love. As long as the person comes to a point of understanding and personally accepting the Cross, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ they are my brother/ sister.

I am sorry if this seperates me from anyone on these forums. Truely sorry. SofTy.


Your testimony touched my heart. I don't know anything about renewing "baptism vows." Never heard of those, but please know that God knows our heart, and no matter if and when we were baptised, if we believe that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again, and if we have trusted Him to be our Lord and Savior, we are saved! It doesn't matter the traditions or rituals of the church about infant baptism or baptism as an adult.

Keep looking up. God's will is that you trust Christ, not depend on the "rituals" of any denomination.

God Bless.

Mysteryman
Jan 1st 2009, 02:14 PM
While most do not recognize this, there are several different baptisms in the Bible. And many simply do not understand the purpose of baptism. Or that not every baptism has to do with water. But, beware - you have probably opened a great big can of worms here. I have been severely attacked by those who believe that salvation doesn't "take" if you're not water baptized.

So, brace yourself. And prepare for the "battle."

God Bless.

Thanks for the heads up, but my faith is not wavered by what other people think.

My reading of scripture seems very clear to me, that when Jesus spoke just before his ascention, that he made it perfectly clear. John baptized with water. Not Sam, or George, or anyone else. Just John !

And John the baptist made it also perfectly clear that he who comes after him , will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Jesus does the baptizing and no one else.

Even Paul said that the Lord did not send him to baptize. Now, meaning the Church, only baptizes by name, in the Name of Jesus Christ. All else is an assumption by others to even think that water is envolved.

Baptizing by the name of, not "with" anything. Jesus is doing the actual baptizing . And it is clear that he baptizes with the Holy Spirit and "fire", not water !

On this , I stand my ground of faith, and will not waver.

jrick
Jan 1st 2009, 08:11 PM
Acts 8:27-39 (WEB)

8:27 He arose and went; and behold, there was a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship. 8:28 He was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.

8:29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go near, and join yourself to this chariot.”

8:30 Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

8:31 He said, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” He begged Philip to come up and sit with him. 8:32 Now the passage of the Scripture which he was reading was this,

“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.
As a lamb before his shearer is silent,

so he doesn’t open his mouth.
8:33 In his humiliation, his judgment was taken away.
Who will declare His generation?

For his life is taken from the earth.”
8:34 The eunuch answered Philip, “Who is the prophet talking about? About himself, or about someone else?”

8:35 Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached to him Jesus. 8:36 As they went on the way, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Behold, here is water. What is keeping me from being baptized?”

[8:37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." He answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] 8:38 He commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

8:39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, and the eunuch didn’t see him any more, for he went on his way rejoicing.Not only did Philip baptize this eunuch with water, but in verse 29 it says that the Spirit led Philip to this place and situation.

Also, the water used baptism is a sign and seal (as it is a sacrament), just like the bread and wine (some would say grape juice) in the Lord's Supper.


1st Peter 3:13-22 (WEB)

3:13 Now who is he who will harm you, if you become imitators of that which is good? 3:14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “Don’t fear what they fear, neither be troubled.”* (http://ebible.org/web/1Peter.htm#N11) 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; and always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with humility and fear: 3:16 having a good conscience; that, while you are spoken against as evildoers, they may be disappointed who curse your good way of life in Christ. 3:17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, that you suffer for doing well than for doing evil. 3:18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 3:19 in which he also went and preached to the spirits in prison, 3:20 who before were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ship was being built. In it, few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 3:21 This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you—not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him.

Butch5
Jan 1st 2009, 08:23 PM
Thanks for the heads up, but my faith is not wavered by what other people think.

My reading of scripture seems very clear to me, that when Jesus spoke just before his ascention, that he made it perfectly clear. John baptized with water. Not Sam, or George, or anyone else. Just John !

And John the baptist made it also perfectly clear that he who comes after him , will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Jesus does the baptizing and no one else.

Even Paul said that the Lord did not send him to baptize. Now, meaning the Church, only baptizes by name, in the Name of Jesus Christ. All else is an assumption by others to even think that water is envolved.

Baptizing by the name of, not "with" anything. Jesus is doing the actual baptizing . And it is clear that he baptizes with the Holy Spirit and "fire", not water !

On this , I stand my ground of faith, and will not waver.


When does this baptism that Jesus performs, happen?

Butch5
Jan 1st 2009, 08:31 PM
Baptism in the Catholic church believes that it washes your sin away. This is not true.
baptizo, "baptism" means to dip or immerse. The Catholic church sprinkles.

Baptism in no way washes away your sin. You are identifying yourself with the death,burial and Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
A baby is not capable of making that kind of decision to identify oneself.


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


Acts 2:38 ( KJV ) 38Then 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.

ServantofTruth
Jan 1st 2009, 10:01 PM
Should infants be baptised? - a baptism question. May i respectfully suggest we return to the original question and if you wish to discuss another issue you open your own new topic. SofTy.

quiet dove
Jan 1st 2009, 10:54 PM
Should infants be baptized?

I assume (yikes!) most people here would say no. I would as well. So, if it's true that baptism is only for people who believe, then aren't there a whole bunch of people in the world who believe but aren't baptized?

What I mean is that Catholics and a lot of Reformed folk believe in infant baptism. So when the infant grows up to be a believer they don't feel the need to be baptized since they were baptized as a baby. If believer's baptism is true then wouldn't these people be considered unbaptized?

My personal experience was having been baptized as an infant. But after I was older and began to learn more about baptism, I desired to be baptize ...again? I am thankful I had parents who wanted the best thing for me as an infant, can't get upset about that, it is just that when I was older and made decisions for myself, I wanted to be baptized of my own choice. But whether or not I was "unbaptized" prior to that, I guess so really because one I could decide to follow Christ thus only I could decide to get baptized. But also, I never considered myself unsaved because I was unbaptized. I think if one is saved and unbaptized and God desires us to make that decision, He will put in on our hearts to do so.
:2cents:

graceforme
Jan 1st 2009, 11:03 PM
Should infants be baptised? - a baptism question. May i respectfully suggest we return to the original question and if you wish to discuss another issue you open your own new topic. SofTy.



I checked out the link that was posted by someone regarding infant baptism. While I found much opinion on the subject, no Scriptural proof was given to support infant baptism. Even if one believes in baptism in the sense that most churches teach, baptism is ordered this way - "repent and be baptized." This makes the baptism of infants to go directly against Scripture, since babies cannot "repent." I honestly don't know where certain denominations get infant baptism from, and I think it's something that just makes the parents feel better.

God Bless.

karenoka27
Jan 1st 2009, 11:27 PM
As long as the person comes to a point of understanding and personally accepting the Cross, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ they are my brother/ sister.
Amen.:hug:..............................

I do not believe that anyone is saved through infant baptism, and I do not believe anyone is saved through any kind of baptism. Being baptized is an act of obedience according to Scripture. If a person is a believer and has never been baptized, I believe they will be in the presence of God when they die.

Mysteryman
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:33 AM
When does this baptism that Jesus performs, happen?


When you believe = faith.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:39 AM
When you believe = faith.

Could you please provide some Scripture for support?

jrick
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:49 AM
When you believe = faith.

I think that we are understanding two different baptisms (if that's a good way to describe it). At least the way that I was taught is that Baptism is God coming to that person and declaring that "I will be your God". Then, once that person understand more about the wonderful work that Jesus did and believe it to be for themselves (and not just some general thing), you respond to God's promise by making a public profession of your faith.

This is what I did about 10 months ago. I was taking a "pre-confession" class with three other baptized members from my pastor. Once we were ready, we went before the Elders at our church. They asked us questions about our faith, and a couple of Sundays afterward, we said our "I do's", and became confessing members who could now take part of the Lord's Supper.

For me, it was the public confession that was the "fulfillment" of my baptism.

(I was baptized as an infant, btw.)

Mysteryman
Jan 2nd 2009, 02:06 AM
Could you please provide some Scripture for support?


Sure:

The day of pentecost is one example - Acts 1:1 - Acts 2:41 and Acts 10:1 - 10:46

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 03:38 AM
Sure:

The day of pentecost is one example - Acts 1:1 - Acts 2:41 and Acts 10:1 - 10:46

Could you please elaborate, I read the passages that you pposted, but fail to see where it says that Jesus baptizes when one believes.

Mysteryman
Jan 2nd 2009, 11:51 AM
Could you please elaborate, I read the passages that you pposted, but fail to see where it says that Jesus baptizes when one believes.

Hi Butch:

Now your asking me a different question. First, you asked about "how", and now you are asking about "where" it states that Jesus baptizes.

I can only answer your question as asked, which I did. So to answer your second question, the answer is in Matthew 3:11- 15

Also read Acts 19:1 - 5

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:44 PM
Hi Butch:

Now your asking me a different question. First, you asked about "how", and now you are asking about "where" it states that Jesus baptizes.

I can only answer your question as asked, which I did. So to answer your second question, the answer is in Matthew 3:11- 15

Also read Acts 19:1 - 5

I didn't change the question, I read the passages that you posted, I don't see anything that states that Jesus baptizes us when we believe. That is why I asked you to elaborate. what are you understanding in the passages that leads you to that conclusion?

Mysteryman
Jan 2nd 2009, 11:41 PM
I didn't change the question, I read the passages that you posted, I don't see anything that states that Jesus baptizes us when we believe. That is why I asked you to elaborate. what are you understanding in the passages that leads you to that conclusion?


There is no reason to elaborate. The scriptures I gave you are "clear" !

Would you like to borrow my reading glasses ? :lol:

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:35 AM
There is no reason to elaborate. The scriptures I gave you are "clear" !

Would you like to borrow my reading glasses ? :lol:

It is not clear, and doesn't say what you claim it says. Nowhere in those passages does it say tha Jesus or anyone baptizes us with the Spirit when we believe.

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:41 AM
It is not clear, and doesn't say what you claim it says. Nowhere in those passages does it say tha Jesus or anyone baptizes us with the Spirit when we believe.


Well, you can't say I didn't offer you my reading glassses ! :cool:

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:46 AM
Well, you can't say I didn't offer you my reading glassses ! :cool:

Well my friend, I'm sorry that you see something that Just isn't there.

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 01:12 AM
Well my friend, I'm sorry that you see something that Just isn't there.


Its there ! For those who have eyes to see. :eek:

quiet dove
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:24 AM
It is not clear, and doesn't say what you claim it says. Nowhere in those passages does it say tha Jesus or anyone baptizes us with the Spirit when we believe.

I do believe scripture clearly teaches that upon believing we are indwelt with the Spirit.

We know that Jesus would/now does, baptize with the Spirit

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

We receive the Holy Spirit when we believe
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.

However, don't take the above verse alone to add baptism as a requirement because we read else where in Acts

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Act 10:47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

The above verse clearly shows, men who have believed, and received the Holy Spirit, in this case Gentiles, who after being saved and after receiving the Holy Spirit are then baptized with water.

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:38 AM
I do believe scripture clearly teaches that upon believing we are indwelt with the Spirit.

We know that Jesus would/now does, baptize with the Spirit

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

We receive the Holy Spirit when we believe
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.

However, don't take the above verse alone to add baptism as a requirement because we read else where in Acts

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Act 10:47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

The above verse clearly shows, men who have believed, and received the Holy Spirit, in this case Gentiles, who after being saved and after receiving the Holy Spirit are then baptized with water.

No !

In the unity of the Spirit, there is only "one" baptism - Ephesians 4:3 - 6

There is John's baptism which was by water.

And then there is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and "fire".

Acts 10:47 is "not" talking about water baptism !

quiet dove
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:46 AM
No !

In the unity of the Spirit, there is only "one" baptism - Ephesians 4:3 - 6

There is John's baptism which was by water.

And then there is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and "fire".

Acts 10:47 is "not" talking about water baptism !

Umm, yes it is. It very clearly says water, and those WHO HAVE, as in past tense, been saved and received the Holy Spirit.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:47 AM
I do believe scripture clearly teaches that upon believing we are indwelt with the Spirit.

We know that Jesus would/now does, baptize with the Spirit

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

We receive the Holy Spirit when we believe
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.

However, don't take the above verse alone to add baptism as a requirement because we read else where in Acts

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Act 10:47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

The above verse clearly shows, men who have believed, and received the Holy Spirit, in this case Gentiles, who after being saved and after receiving the Holy Spirit are then baptized with water.

There is no question that Jesus baptizes with the holy Spirit. the question was when. MM claimed that it was when you believe, however the Scripture verses that he posted did not state that. Regarding the verse you posted,


Dove---Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.


This verse does not state when Jesus baptizes with the Spirit.


Dove---We receive the Holy Spirit when we believe
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.


If we receive the Spirit when we believe, why did Peter say repent and be baptized and you "shall receive" the gift of the holy Spirit? Those in Acts 2 believed when they said men and brethren what shall we do? Why didn't they immediately receive the Spirit at this point when they believed? Why did Peter tell them to repent and be baptized first?


Dove---However, don't take the above verse alone to add baptism as a requirement because we read else where in Acts


Why not


Dove---Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

This verse also says having believed, the belief came before the the Spirit. Also, it says, you were "sealed", how were you sealed?



Dove---Act 10:47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"


Cornelius most likely already believed when Peter arrived.

quiet dove
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:23 AM
This verse also says having believed, the belief came before the the Spirit. Also, it says, you were "sealed", how were you sealed?


Yes, believing comes before being indwelt with the Spirit, but being indwelt with the Spirit is something that happens when we believe. Only God would know that exact moment but safe to say believing and indwelling happen pretty close together. When you listen to someone who has recently believed, they speak of peace and joy, thats because they have been indwelt with the Spirit upon believing. Upon is probably the best way to put it.



Dove---However, don't take the above verse alone to add baptism as a requirement because we read else where in Acts Why notBecause there are several other passages that let us know believing comes before being baptized. Being baptized is an open confession, or should I say an outward confession of what has happened inward, to the man/person.

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Something we need to add to this understanding is the understanding of what God was doing. There needed and should be unity in the Church, so we have Jews and Samaritans, so in the apostles going and laying hands on them and them receiving the Holy Spirit, there was a declaration that there is only one Spirit into which all believers are indwelt/baptized.

We can also learn something else from this bit of scripture to support that being baptized with water does not make one saved.

Act 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. 24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

Simon was baptized with water, but he was not truly understanding thus was not truly believing the Gospel, his head was wanting to work miracles. Thus he was rebuked by Peter.


Cornelius most likely already believed when Peter arrived.
Yes he did believe, the later was baptized with water, which as I said is an outward, visible confession of our faith

If we back up some to 10:44 we can see that the Holy Spirit had already come upon these Gentile believers.

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:47 AM
I find that the requiring of water baptism to salvation is not unlike the Jews requiring circumcision unto salvation.

One is as legalistic as the other. The water baptism was for the repentance of sins. I don't believe water is needed to repent of sins.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:04 AM
Dove---Yes, believing comes before being indwelt with the Spirit, but being indwelt with the Spirit is something that happens when we believe. Only God would know that exact moment but safe to say believing and indwelling happen pretty close together. When you listen to someone who has recently believed, they speak of peace and joy, thats because they have been indwelt with the Spirit upon believing. Upon is probably the best way to put it.

Well, I have no Scripture that states the Spirit come upon one when they believe. However I have found Scripture that says otherwise.

When did Jesus receive the Spirit?

Notice in Acts 2, the Jews already believed Peter when they said "what shall we do"? Peter didn't say nothing you are already saved and have the holy Spirit. What did Peter say repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. Peter clearly says that the holy Spirit comes upon being baptized.

Paul said that God saved us through the bath of regeneration.


Dove---Because there are several other passages that let us know believing comes before being baptized. Being baptized is an open confession, or should I say an outward confession of what has happened inward, to the man/person.

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.


No doubt that believing come before baptism.


Dove---Something we need to add to this understanding is the understanding of what God was doing. There needed and should be unity in the Church, so we have Jews and Samaritans, so in the apostles going and laying hands on them and them receiving the Holy Spirit, there was a declaration that there is only one Spirit into which all believers are indwelt/baptized.

Are you using the terms indwelt and baptized, with the spirit interchangeably?

I think those in Acts 8 did have the indwelling Spirit, notice the Luke's use of the words "fell on" I think this different than Peter's statement in Acts 2:38.


Dove---We can also learn something else from this bit of scripture to support that being baptized with water does not make one saved.

Act 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. 24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

Simon was baptized with water, but he was not truly understanding thus was not truly believing the Gospel, his head was wanting to work miracles. Thus he was rebuked by Peter.


I disagree here, I won't interject my opinion, the Scripture says he believed and was baptized. Now, I don't think it was the miracles that Simon wanted. Notice that he traveled with Phillip and saw many signs and wonders performed by Phillip, yet we are not told that Simon tried to by the power from Phillip. I believe what Simon wanted to buy was a power that only the apostles had, that is, they were able to give holy Spirit by laying on of hands. The holy Spirit distributed Spiritual gifts through the apostles. Only the apostles could give the holy Spirit by laying hands on someone. This is the power Simon wanted to buy,

Acts 8:18-19 ( KJV ) 18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

However, I don't think this is proof that baptism is not required for salvation.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:06 AM
I find that the requiring of water baptism to salvation is not unlike the Jews requiring circumcision unto salvation.

One is as legalistic as the other. The water baptism was for the repentance of sins. I don't believe water is needed to repent of sins.

According to what Luke recorded it is.

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:22 AM
And according to what Paul wrote, it is not.

How often have you been baptized? For one to repent again and again, baptism would be needed again and again.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:34 AM
And according to what Paul wrote, it is not.

How often have you been baptized? For one to repent again and again, baptism would be needed again and again.

No, my friend, when you are baptized, it washes away your past sins. A person gets saved, they are baptized, at this point all of their past sins are forgiven. Baptism does not deal with any sins they would commit in the future. John deals with that in 1 John, if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. Paul also tells us there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:00 AM
No, my friend, when you are baptized, it washes away your past sins.

I always thought Christ's blood did that.

The born again were washed by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:11)

The water symbolizes the baptism that saves us, but to say this symbolic move is necessary is to say that taking the Lord's Supper is necessary. Neither lead to salvation, but symbolize that which is imperative for eternal life whcih is the baptism by the Holy Spirit and the eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of His blood.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:27 AM
I always thought Christ's blood did that.

The born again were washed by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:11)

The water symbolizes the baptism that saves us, but to say this symbolic move is necessary is to say that taking the Lord's Supper is necessary. Neither lead to salvation, but symbolize that which is imperative for eternal life whcih is the baptism by the Holy Spirit and the eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of His blood.



What is eating His flesh and drinking His blood?

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:39 AM
What is eating His flesh and drinking His blood?

Having eternal life.

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

graceforme
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:33 PM
I don't know why there is so much controversy about Mt. 3:11. It clearly states "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." Seems pretty clear to me. But I think there is a more important issue involved. And that is: Why was Jesus baptized? The main argument I have heard to support baptism is: "If it was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me." But few understand why Jesus was baptized.

Baptism is related to the remission of sins, yet we know that Jesus did not sin. So why was He baptized? Jesus was now preparing to enter into His position as High Priest, and just as the priests in the Old Testament had to be ceremonially cleansed to take this position, so did Jesus have to undergo the cleansing ceremony. His baptism was the means for His introduction as Messiah to His people. (Look at John 1:31-34). By being baptized, Jesus was looking forward prophetically to His own death and resurrection. This would "fulfill all righteousness." In Mt. 20:22 Christ refers to His own death as His baptism.

I'm going to address the issue of baptism in a separate post shortly, but I need to get my notes and information together first.

Just an afterthought - In John 7:37-39, we clearly see that the Holy Spirit was not given until after the glorificaton of Christ.

Veretax
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:42 PM
Should infants be baptized?

I assume (yikes!) most people here would say no. I would as well. So, if it's true that baptism is only for people who believe, then aren't there a whole bunch of people in the world who believe but aren't baptized?

What I mean is that Catholics and a lot of Reformed folk believe in infant baptism. So when the infant grows up to be a believer they don't feel the need to be baptized since they were baptized as a baby. If believer's baptism is true then wouldn't these people be considered unbaptized?


I can't speak for Catholics but Reformed Thinkers see infant baptism as much as a dedication as it is 'baptism'.

I am one who was thus baptized in a Reformed Faith Presbyterian church, and no, when I was saved and later became the member of a church, my conscience was unaware of believer's baptism at the time because they did not practice it for anyone except those who were outside the noncommunicant body as they call it who then professed faith.

For those people, the best cure is to encourage them to read the bible for what it says and not to try to prove whatever they've been taught. That's what happened to me. One day while debating with some baptist friends, and feeling that God wanted me to confirm whether what I had believed was true, I then dug into scripture. What then transpired was me reading through acts in its entirety and several other places.

Reformed thinkers often point to the "One baptism" passage as why they don't baptize new converts, but I agree with another poster that this is talking about the spiritual baptism not the one of water. So in conclusion as I was studying this it ended up being Jesus Week at our College. We were having Revival services in Lumberport, and the Lord began to grip my heart about the issue.

The messages were not even necessarily about baptism, yet the Lord pointed to a number of things and worked on my heart as I was studying. Then, after viewing Bruce Kuhn's one man act on the Gospel of Luke, I began to know that God wanted me to step out and be baptized scripturally, but there was a bit of fear in my heart concerning it. I being a Presbyterian at that point had been this fear that my friends would look down on me for doing what God was telling me was right. The devil sought to keep me from doing it, to use it as a stumbling block in my life.

Well that night we had a praise and prayermeeting at the arboretum and I asked one of my Friends from another Christian fellowship to pray for me. I didn't say what it was for, but as he was praying I felt compelled to ask God to give me the opportunity quickly so that what I knew I had to do would not delay. The next day was Sunday, and I heard him mention that they planned to baptize a few new beleivers that night. I don't even remember what the sermon was about, but my eyes were fixed on the altar at that point. On the invitation I stepped out, and that night, finally submitted to beleiver's baptism.

I'm glad I did, because in so doing it, I made a statement about who I was and that I followed God not some earthly teacher, and I felt an extra helping of Grace in my life immediately thereafter such that I became bolder as a witness for him when I as given the opportunity.


So in Summary, yes I believe Infant baptism is incorrect, but you won't convince someone of that who is not willing to put aside the teaching and read word for word what the bible says. As a Sunday School teacher once said. A man convinced unwillingly, remains unconvinced.

godsgirl
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:43 PM
When does this baptism that Jesus performs, happen?

Jesus baptises believers in the Holy Spirit when we are ready to receive it. Most of the time-we need to ask for this baptism, but not always.
When you receive it the Bible teaches that you will know by the sign of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit enables you.
Acts 2:4
Acts 19 6
Acts 10:46

Water baptism is for believers too, being baptised as a baby means absolutly nothing.

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:37 PM
Umm, yes it is. It very clearly says water, and those WHO HAVE, as in past tense, been saved and received the Holy Spirit.


It says water, not water baptism !

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:48 PM
I don't know why there is so much controversy about Mt. 3:11. It clearly states "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." Seems pretty clear to me. But I think there is a more important issue involved. And that is: Why was Jesus baptized? The main argument I have heard to support baptism is: "If it was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me." But few understand why Jesus was baptized.

Baptism is related to the remission of sins, yet we know that Jesus did not sin. So why was He baptized? Jesus was now preparing to enter into His position as High Priest, and just as the priests in the Old Testament had to be ceremonially cleansed to take this position, so did Jesus have to undergo the cleansing ceremony. His baptism was the means for His introduction as Messiah to His people. (Look at John 1:31-34). By being baptized, Jesus was looking forward prophetically to His own death and resurrection. This would "fulfill all righteousness." In Mt. 20:22 Christ refers to His own death as His baptism.

I'm going to address the issue of baptism in a separate post shortly, but I need to get my notes and information together first.

Just an afterthought - In John 7:37-39, we clearly see that the Holy Spirit was not given until after the glorificaton of Christ.


May I add to what you just said: Jesus also came to fulfill the law. His baptism was a part of the fulfilling of the law of water cleansing. He fulfilled all the law. Now we as christians do not need to be circumcised nor water cleansed nor do any part of the law. If you do the law, you will be judged by the law. We live in grace now, and we of the circumcision made without hands. Its spiritual ! Not seen !

The same with baptism. We were baptized into Christ's death and resurrection. We were cleansed by his blood. There is no further need of any other baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire is based upon the faith to receive and manifest the nine manifestations of the Spirit. Jesus does the baptizing and no one else !

Jesus told us in Acts 1:5 that "John" baptized with water. And that means no one else was given the task to baptize with water. However , Jesus is now the baptizer, and he baptizes with Holy Spirit and "fire". < Unseen by your physical eyes. Its spiritual ! That which manifests that you are baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

No need to circumcise , nor no need to water baptize ! Nor do "any" acts of the law ! None !

The law was for Jews, not those IN Christ = Christians

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:56 PM
May I add to what you just said: Jesus also came to fulfill the law. His baptism was a part of the fulfilling of the law of water cleansing. He fulfilled all the law. Now we as christians do not need to be circumcised nor water cleansed nor do any part of the law. If you do the law, you will be judged by the law. We live in grace now, and we of the circumcision made without hands. Its spiritual ! Not seen !

The same with baptism. We were baptized into Christ's death and resurrection. We were cleansed by his blood. There is no further need of any other baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire is based upon the faith to receive and manifest the nine manifestations of the Spirit. Jesus does the baptizing and no one else !

Jesus told us in Acts 1:5 that "John" baptized with water. And that means no one else was given the task to baptize with water. However , Jesus is now the baptizer, and he baptizes with Holy Spirit and "fire". < Unseen by your physical eyes. Its spiritual ! That which manifests that you are baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

No need to circumcise , nor no need to water baptize ! Nor do "any" acts of the law ! None !

The law was for Jews, not those IN Christ = Christians
Interesting. Perhaps you could show where all Jews were required to be baptized in water?

Also... do you suppose the apostle's just didn't quite understand this concept of not needing to baptize in water... they sure enough did that. Where is it that they missed this revelation that it wasn't necessary any longer?

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:12 PM
Where is it that they missed this revelation that it wasn't necessary any longer?

I guess you would find it in the same place where it says water baptism is necessary....:hmm:

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:19 PM
I guess you would find it in the same place where it says water baptism is necessary....:hmm:
Why would you not be water baptized? If a person was rabid then I suppose that would make sense... perhaps in a very arid land and no water around... makes sense. But when there is water... there is a pretty clear biblical injunction for the task... seems to me that it a pretty simply act of obedience to that injunction if nothing else eh?

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:25 PM
Why would you not be water baptized? If a person was rabid then I suppose that would make sense... perhaps in a very arid land and no water around... makes sense. But when there is water... there is a pretty clear biblical injunction for the task... seems to me that it a pretty simply act of obedience to that injunction if nothing else eh?

Let's not set up the straw man.

In no way am I saying that no one should be baptized with water. Done it myself. I would never forbid it nor tell others it is wrong to do.

However, I also don't kid myself that it is necessary for salvation. Neither is circumcision, nor is the Lord's Supper.

To state it is necessary is to put the yoke on someone due to legalism rather than having them baptized willingly.

Is it an act of obedience? If one who is born again, it is, but if one who is born again is not baptized by water, he is also obedient.

ServantofTruth
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:27 PM
Amen.:hug:..............................

I do not believe that anyone is saved through infant baptism, and I do not believe anyone is saved through any kind of baptism. Being baptized is an act of obedience according to Scripture. If a person is a believer and has never been baptized, I believe they will be in the presence of God when they die.


A short post, full of much truth.

I just wish the Authority of some denominations, would listen more to the rank and file. If the Spirit of God has through personal bible study brought a person to wanting a new baptism, which they personally would consider their first, more should be done to accomodate that individual's needs.

Some will feel the need to change denomination. Others to go to another denomination for awhile, or even secretly, be baptised and then return.

Perhaps with time and the Spirit this is just another thing that will bring denominations closer together. We need on going discussion in love. SofTy. :hug:

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:50 PM
Let's not set up the straw man.

In no way am I saying that no one should be baptized with water. Done it myself. I would never forbid it nor tell others it is wrong to do.

However, I also don't kid myself that it is necessary for salvation. Neither is circumcision, nor is the Lord's Supper.

To state it is necessary is to put the yoke on someone due to legalism rather than having them baptized willingly.

Is it an act of obedience? If one who is born again, it is, but if one who is born again is not baptized by water, he is also obedient.Why is it legalism? Is it legalism to say "don't murder?" Is it legalism to say "do good works?" Or is that simply instructing folks in obedience to the faith?

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:55 PM
Interesting. Perhaps you could show where all Jews were required to be baptized in water?

Also... do you suppose the apostle's just didn't quite understand this concept of not needing to baptize in water... they sure enough did that. Where is it that they missed this revelation that it wasn't necessary any longer?

I can't even show you why, where, when, or how often they cut their fingenails and toenails.

You use the word "need" in your explanation above. What need ?

All Jews were not required to be baptized with water. If that was the case we would read about it in the OT. First you must understand, that water baptism was John's baptism. It was not a requirement. Not of the law, nor of the day and time. God sent John to baptize for the remission of sins. However, under the law their sins were of remission by the works of the levite priests.

This is where it gets interesting. The levite priests fell away from their duty to God. We see this in the book of Malachi. We also see in the gospels, that the law of Moses fell under the law of the land, and not according to the way it was suppose to be under the old covenant.

It seems that Pharisees and Sadducees had more say than Israelites did.

John the baptist was called out by God to fulfill the role of a levite priest . Jesus needed to fuflill the Law. Water cleansing was necessary and he was the passover lamb. He needed to be water cleansed in order for the law to be fulfilled.

Just like he needed to be crucified on a cross (tree). This took the curse of the law away by fulfilling the curse of the law.

Doing a water baptism is a "lack of faith". Because being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is a "act of faith". The reason water baptism is a "lack of faith" , is because God "never" told the church to become water baptized ! It then becomes an act of self righteousness, instead of doing the will of God. Self righeousness is a "lack of faith", because it relies upon your own requirements for doing this. None of which are a requirment of God !

Even being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is not a requirement. Being baptized into Christ's death is a requirement for salvation. And being baptized into Christ's death is not your choice ! God chose you, you didn't choose God. God chose you from before the foundations of the world, to be holy and without blame in love, in Christ.

Now where did I put those finger nail clippers ? :lol::lol:

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:59 PM
I can't even show you why, where, when, or how often they cut their fingenails and toenails.

You use the word "need" in your explanation above. What need ?

All Jews were not required to be baptized with water. If that was the case we would read about it in the OT. First you must understand, that water baptism was John's baptism. It was not a requirement. Not of the law, nor of the day and time. God sent John to baptize for the remission of sins. However, under the law their sins were of remission by the works of the levite priests.

This is where it gets interesting. The levite priests fell away from their duty to God. We see this in the book of Malachi. We also see in the gospels, that the law of Moses fell under the law of the land, and not according to the way it was suppose to be under the old covenant.

It seems that Pharisees and Sadducees had more say than Israelites did.

John the baptist was called out by God to fulfill the role of a levite priest . Jesus needed to fuflill the Law. Water cleansing was necessary and he was the passover lamb. He needed to be water cleansed in order for the law to be fulfilled.

Just like he needed to be crucified on a cross (tree). This took the curse of the law away by fulfilling the curse of the law.

Doing a water baptism is a "lack of faith". Because being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is a "act of faith". The reason water baptism is a "lack of faith" , is because God "never" told the church to become water baptized ! It then becomes an act of self righteousness, instead of doing the will of God. Self righeousness is a "lack of faith", because it relies upon your own requirements for doing this. None of which are a requirment of God !

Even being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is not a requirement. Being baptized into Christ's death is a requirement for salvation. And being baptized into Christ's death is not your choice ! God chose you, you didn't choose God. God chose you from before the foundations of the world, to be holy and without blame in love, in Christ.

Now where did I put those finger nail clippers ? :lol::lol:A lack of faith? So then Jesus encouraged folks in lacking faith? The apostles did the same? You can't get away from the fact that the apostle's baptized and early Christians were baptized in water. Did they just mess this all up?

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:01 PM
Why is it legalism?

To say any act is required for salvation is legalism to me.


Is it legalism to say "don't murder?"

Yes, if you state it is required for salvation.


Is it legalism to say "do good works?"

Yes, if you state it is required for salvation.


Or is that simply instructing folks in obedience to the faith?

It is good instruction, if you do not state it is required for salvation.

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:06 PM
To say any act is required for salvation is legalism to me.



Yes, if you state it is required for salvation.



Yes, if you state it is required for salvation.



It is good instruction, if you do not state it is required for salvation.
So then if one said obeying Christ is required for salvation... that would be legalism? If one said believing and confessing is required... legalism?

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:21 PM
So then if one said obeying Christ is required for salvation... that would be legalism? If one said believing and confessing is required... legalism?

Of course not. Those are characteristics of those who are born again.

The born again are:

obedient through faith (Romans 1:5)
slaves to obedience (Romans 6:16)
doing the works God requires which is believing in Christ (John 6:29)
believing in their heart God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9)
confess that Jesus is Lord with their mouths (Romans 10:9)

Lagalism would be adding to the requirements of God. The characteristics of the born again fulfill the requirements of God which is why they belong to God's family forever (John 8:35, Romans 8:14)

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:26 PM
Of course not. Those are characteristics of those who are born again.

The born again are:

obedient through faith (Romans 1:5)
slaves to obedience (Romans 6:16)
doing the works God requires which is believing in Christ (John 6:29)
believing in their heart God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9)
confess that Jesus is Lord with their mouths (Romans 10:9)

Lagalism would be adding to the requirements of God. The characteristics of the born again fulfill the requirements of God which is why they belong to God's family forever (John 8:35, Romans 8:14)
Well then if baptism is a biblical injunction and the apostle's clearly did this as well... why is it legalism if that is an act of obedience?

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:33 PM
A lack of faith? So then Jesus encouraged folks in lacking faith? The apostles did the same? You can't get away from the fact that the apostle's baptized and early Christians were baptized in water. Did they just mess this all up?


So you say without any scriptural back up ! You say that the apostles baptized with water ! The word "baptize" is not synonomous with water !

Christians were baptized into Christ's death. His shedding of blood, and his death and his resurrection, is what cleansed us from sin.

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:38 PM
Well then if baptism is a biblical injunction and the apostle's clearly did this as well... why is it legalism if that is an act of obedience?

Because, while baptism is good, it is not necessary for salvation, and therefore not a requirement.

As I said before, if one is born again and is baptized by water, he is obedient. If one is born again and not baptized by water, he is also obedient.

Anything that man states is required beyond what God states is required is legalism.

It is good to follow the law of sin and death, but it is not a requirement.

It is good to take the Lord's Supper, but it is not a requirement.

It is good not to marry, but it is not a requirement.

It is good to be circumcised, but it is not a requirement.

No, the work God requires is believing in Christ, and even that is a characteristic of one chosen by God.

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:45 PM
So you say without any scriptural back up ! You say that the apostles baptized with water ! The word "baptize" is not synonomous with water !

Christians were baptized into Christ's death. His shedding of blood, and his death and his resurrection, is what cleansed us from sin.My apologies. I assumed since you spoke with such authority as to call this a "lack of faith" then you would certainly know most all their is to know of Scripture!

Let's take this for example.

Acts 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Now.. they were "baptized" with the Spirit first. Then came "water baptism."

Then we read of Philip.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
13 And even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip; and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.


Now... this is obviously talking water baptism... we know this because we have context and Scripture goes on to say...

14 ¶Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
15 who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.


Now... just to take away the "that was before Paul" argument that is most sure to come... :rolleyes:

Acts 19:1 And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found some disciples,
2 and he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."
4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
5 And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

Paul baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus as well and just as the apostles did after Philip... he laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit and that was manifest in that they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

So clearly... they baptized in water eh?

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:49 PM
Because, while baptism is good, it is not necessary for salvation, and therefore not a requirement.

As I said before, if one is born again and is baptized by water, he is obedient. If one is born again and not baptized by water, he is also obedient.

Anything that man states is required beyond what God states is required is legalism.

It is good to follow the law of sin and death, but it is not a requirement.

It is good to take the Lord's Supper, but it is not a requirement.

It is good not to marry, but it is not a requirement.

It is good to be circumcised, but it is not a requirement.

No, the work God requires is believing in Christ, and even that is a characteristic of one chosen by God.
You have a strange belief... do whatever... it's all good and obedient whether you obey or not because you can't really obey and your sin is not really sin because even though it is sin it is not really sin because it is permissible even though it isn't really permissible according to Scripture. Toss out them there Scriptures... live and let live!!! Doesn't mean much according to your doctrine.

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:50 PM
Because, while baptism is good, it is not necessary for salvation, and therefore not a requirement.

As I said before, if one is born again and is baptized by water, he is obedient. If one is born again and not baptized by water, he is also obedient.

Anything that man states is required beyond what God states is required is legalism.

It is good to follow the law of sin and death, but it is not a requirement.

It is good to take the Lord's Supper, but it is not a requirement.

It is good not to marry, but it is not a requirement.

It is good to be circumcised, but it is not a requirement.

No, the work God requires is believing in Christ, and even that is a characteristic of one chosen by God.

What "good" is water baptism ?

What "good" is it to do the Lord's supper ? Especially when Paul said not to do the Lord's supper ! I Corinth. 11:20

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:54 PM
My apologies. I assumed since you spoke with such authority as to call this a "lack of faith" then you would certainly know most all their is to know of Scripture!

Let's take this for example.

Acts 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Now.. they were "baptized" with the Spirit first. Then came "water baptism."

Then we read of Philip.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
13 And even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip; and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.


Now... this is obviously talking water baptism... we know this because we have context and Scripture goes on to say...

14 ¶Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
15 who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.


Now... just to take away the "that was before Paul" argument that is most sure to come... :rolleyes:

Acts 19:1 And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found some disciples,
2 and he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."
4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
5 And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

Paul baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus as well and just as the apostles did after Philip... he laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit and that was manifest in that they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

So clearly... they baptized in water eh?

You assume !

Acts 10:44 - 48 is not dealing with water baptism ! They received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues . Then Peter baptized in name only - verse 48.

NO WATER Baptism !

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:56 PM
What "good" is water baptism ?

What "good" is it to do the Lord's supper ? Especially when Paul said not to do the Lord's supper ! I Corinth. 11:20
Paul said "not to do the Lord's Supper?"

You really need to read things in context!

1 Corinthians 11:20 *Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,
21 *for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 *What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
23 *For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 *and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25 *In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26 *For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
27 *Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 *But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 *For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly.
30 *For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
31 *But if we judged ourselves rightly, we should not be judged.
32 *But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 *So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34 *If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters I shall arrange when I come.


He was not telling them "not to eat the Lord's supper." He was telling them that when they did in fact meet that isn't what they were doing. Folks were eating all the stuff and even getting drunk INSTEAD of waiting for everyone and partaking of the Lord's supper. These guys were eating it like supper for themselves.

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:59 PM
You assume !

Acts 10:44 - 48 is not dealing with water baptism ! They received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues . Then Peter baptized in name only - verse 48.

NO WATER Baptism !
"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

There... I bold typed and colored your clue blue.

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:02 PM
Paul said "not to do the Lord's Supper?"

You really need to read things in context!

1 Corinthians 11:20 *Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,
21 *for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 *What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
23 *For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 *and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25 *In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26 *For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
27 *Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 *But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 *For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly.
30 *For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
31 *But if we judged ourselves rightly, we should not be judged.
32 *But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 *So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34 *If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters I shall arrange when I come.


He was not telling them "not to eat the Lord's supper." He was telling them that when they did in fact meet that isn't what they were doing. Folks were eating all the stuff and even getting drunk INSTEAD of waiting for everyone and partaking of the Lord's supper. These guys were eating it like supper for themselves.


Just read I Corinth. 11:20 without putting all your own personnal and private interpretations in that verse. This verse is "clear" as to what it says.

And if you want to read context, which you should, it starts back in chapter 10 and ends in chapter 12. In chapter 10 it tells us, that "we" are the bread". Read I Corinth. 10:17

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:05 PM
Just read I Corinth. 11:20 without putting all your own personnal and private interpretations in that verse. This verse is "clear" as to what it says.

And if you want to read context, which you should, it starts back in chapter 10 and ends in chapter 12. In chapter 10 it tells us, that "we" are the bread". Read I Corinth. 10:17
Nothing private about that interpretation... just posted the whole thing there so everyone can read. Not sure where this doctrine is coming from but you're in some pretty grevious error in your use of Scripture.

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:12 PM
"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

There... I bold typed and colored your clue blue.

This verse is a verse that is most misunderstood. Look at the question Peter is asking. Can a man forbid water ? Forbid mean to "stop" or "capture". Water is always moving. Either by evaporation , or flowing. This verse is not saying, that they should be water baptized. That would take a stretch of the imagination !

In the unity of the Spirit there is only "One" baptism. In the Word there are two baptism. Christians do not need both !

The word "baptized" means cleansed !

We were cleansed by the death (shedding of his blood) and his resurrection. There is no further need to be cleansed ! < This is "salvation"

The baptism of the Holy Spirit and "fire" is for the manifestations of the Spirit. < This is not for salvation ! This being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire, is the "power" that Jesus told his disciples would come upon them. This happened on the day of pentecost.

We "needed" for Jesus to die and be resurrected from the dead. We should by faith desire the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire, in order to manifest that power.

Water baptism was "John's baptism"

Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire < Not water !

Being baptized with John's baptism is a "lack of faith" !

Being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire, by Jesus is "by faith".

Read Acts 19:1 - 7 And also remember that in the Unity of the Spirit there is "One" baptism !

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:13 PM
You have a strange belief... do whatever... it's all good and obedient whether you obey or not because you can't really obey and your sin is not really sin because even though it is sin it is not really sin because it is permissible even though it isn't really permissible according to Scripture. Toss out them there Scriptures... live and let live!!! Doesn't mean much according to your doctrine.

I know it may seem strange, going by the Scripture and all that mumbo jumbo....:rolleyes:

The born again are obedient (Romans 1:5)
They are unable to sin (1 John 3:9)
They are permitted to do everything (1 Corinthians 6:12, 10:23)
They were made righteous (Romans 5:19)
They are unable to bear bad fruit (Matthew 7:18)

These are not acts that a person must take to be saved. These are the characteristics of those who are saved.

It's not me who decided what characteristics one who is born again will have, but God alone.

They aren't born again because they are obedient. They are obedient because they are born again.

They aren't born again because they are unable to sin, they are unable to sin because they are born again.

Same thing with all the other characteristics...

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:19 PM
What "good" is water baptism ?

What "good" is it to do the Lord's supper ? Especially when Paul said not to do the Lord's supper ! I Corinth. 11:20

What good is it?

They are symbolic. Peter says this water symbolizes baptism that saves you. The baptism that saves us is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Just as eating the Lord's supper symbolizes eating his flesh and drinking his blood which gives eternal life. It is not the Lord's supper itself that does that, just as it is not water baptism that saves us.

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:22 PM
I know it may seem strange, going by the Scripture and all that mumbo jumbo....:rolleyes:

The born again are obedient (Romans 1:5)
They are unable to sin (1 John 3:9)
They are permitted to do everything (1 Corinthians 6:12, 10:23)
They were made righteous (Romans 5:19)
They are unable to bear bad fruit (Matthew 7:18)

These are not acts that a person must take to be saved. These are the characteristics of those who are saved.

It's not me who decided what characteristics one who is born again will have, but God alone.

They aren't born again because they are obedient. They are obedient because they are born again.

They aren't born again because they are unable to sin, they are unable to sin because they are born again.

Same thing with all the other characteristics...So if they don't have those characteristics?

RogerW
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:23 PM
May I add to what you just said: Jesus also came to fulfill the law. His baptism was a part of the fulfilling of the law of water cleansing. He fulfilled all the law. Now we as christians do not need to be circumcised nor water cleansed nor do any part of the law. If you do the law, you will be judged by the law. We live in grace now, and we of the circumcision made without hands. Its spiritual ! Not seen !

The same with baptism. We were baptized into Christ's death and resurrection. We were cleansed by his blood. There is no further need of any other baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire is based upon the faith to receive and manifest the nine manifestations of the Spirit. Jesus does the baptizing and no one else !

Jesus told us in Acts 1:5 that "John" baptized with water. And that means no one else was given the task to baptize with water. However , Jesus is now the baptizer, and he baptizes with Holy Spirit and "fire". < Unseen by your physical eyes. Its spiritual ! That which manifests that you are baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

No need to circumcise , nor no need to water baptize ! Nor do "any" acts of the law ! None !

The law was for Jews, not those IN Christ = Christians

Greetings Mysteryman,

This is interesting, something I had never considered. Are you saying that when Christ spoke these words, He was not telling the disciples to baptize in water, but rather to teach all nations, and that (teaching the Word of God), not the literal water, will baptize them into Christ's death if/when they believe (have faith)?

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Here, do you believe Christ is saying whoever believes (has faith) and is baptized through the Holy Spirit is the one who shall be saved? Nothing to do with water?

Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Blessings,
RW

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:29 PM
This verse is a verse that is most misunderstood. Look at the question Peter is asking. Can a man forbid water ? Forbid mean to "stop" or "capture". Water is always moving. Either by evaporation , or flowing. This verse is not saying, that they should be water baptized. That would take a stretch of the imagination !Ah... the "most misunderstood passage" rule! Imagine someone taking your stretch of imagination and calling a very simple and clear reading the "misunderstood" one! :lol:



In the unity of the Spirit there is only "One" baptism. In the Word there are two baptism. Christians do not need both !

The word "baptized" means cleansed !

We were cleansed by the death (shedding of his blood) and his resurrection. There is no further need to be cleansed ! < This is "salvation"

The baptism of the Holy Spirit and "fire" is for the manifestations of the Spirit. < This is not for salvation ! This being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire, is the "power" that Jesus told his disciples would come upon them. This happened on the day of pentecost.

We "needed" for Jesus to die and be resurrected from the dead. We should by faith desire the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire, in order to manifest that power.

Water baptism was "John's baptism"

Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire < Not water !

Being baptized with John's baptism is a "lack of faith" !

Being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire, by Jesus is "by faith".

Read Acts 19:1 - 7 And also remember that in the Unity of the Spirit there is "One" baptism !But then his disciples did baptize in water... as did Paul in Acts 19. ;) You can't get around that fact.

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:31 PM
So if they don't have those characteristics?

Then you have two options...

1. They are not born again.
2. God lied.

I'll choose 1.

ServantofTruth
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:33 PM
Nothing private about that interpretation... just posted the whole thing there so everyone can read. Not sure where this doctrine is coming from but you're in some pretty grevious error in your use of Scripture.

I had to check which forum we are in. I thought it must be 'Maturing in Christ', if not 'New in Christ.'

In most cases I recommend people mainly studying the scriptures alone and allowing the Spirit of God to guide.

However this is only a part of our study, and can lead to big errors, as I believe we see on this topic and pointed out by ProjectPeter.

We need the body/ family/ church of our Lord. Why? Because we are each given different gifts. If you turn forward from 1 Corinthians 11, just one chapter to 1 Corinthians 12.

Verse 8 (and of course the whole chapter/ book should be read) - 'Some of us can speak with wisdom, while others can speak with knowledge, but these gifts come from the same Spirit.'

I'm sure you know the verses and others in a similar vein. Down to this day, some teach and some minister. Others translate etc.

I advise you listen to ProjectPeter and others, because they have wisdom from the Spirit of God. Or listen only because it is agreed mainstream Christian thinking - the Spirit has revealed it to many over many years.

I also advise you get into a mainstream church and submit to it's teaching. You can not be forced to believe what the bible says, but it wouldn't hurt to listen a bit more and go to the bible together with a body of believers. Love SofTy.

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:34 PM
Then you have two options...

1. They are not born again.
2. God lied.

I'll choose 1.
So by your choice of options (I would agree)... those things are required. Think about it and see what you are in fact saying.

Mysteryman
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:42 PM
What good is it?

They are symbolic. Peter says this water symbolizes baptism that saves you. The baptism that saves us is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Just as eating the Lord's supper symbolizes eating his flesh and drinking his blood which gives eternal life. It is not the Lord's supper itself that does that, just as it is not water baptism that saves us.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit does not save us !

Being baptized into Christ's death does save us.

I Peter 3:21 is talking about the death and resurrection that saves us.

Romans 6:3 and verse 4 - Likewise the same

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:45 PM
So by your choice of options (I would agree)... those things are required. Think about it and see what you are in fact saying.

Back to topic!

What I am in fact saying is that water baptism is neither a requirement nor an act of obedience.

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:52 PM
Back to topic!

What I am in fact saying is that water baptism is neither a requirement nor an act of obedience.
But then earlier you said it was obedience... you are confusing even yourself now! :lol:

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 05:56 PM
Baptism of the Holy Spirit does not save us !

Being baptized into Christ's death does save us.

I Peter 3:21 is talking about the death and resurrection that saves us.

Romans 6:3 and verse 4 - Likewise the same

1 Peter 3:21 states "And this water symbolizes baptism that saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It (baptism) saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

You are saved by grace through faith.

You are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ through baptism.

It brings us back to characteristics of one who is born again.

One who is born again is baptized into Christ and Christ's death (Romans 6:3)

We are not born again because we are baptized by the Holy Spirit, we are baptized by the Holy Spirit because we are born again.

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 06:00 PM
But then earlier you said it was obedience... you are confusing even yourself now! :lol:

No, I thought I was very clear.

If one who is born again is baptized by water, that baptism is an act of obedience.

If one who is born again is not baptized by water, that non-baptism is also an act of obedience.

No matter what the born again do, they do acts of obedience.

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 06:03 PM
No, I thought I was very clear.

If one who is born again is baptized by water, that baptism is an act of obedience.

If one who is born again is not baptized by water, that non-baptism is also an act of obedience.

No matter what the born again do, they do acts of obedience.
Um... that makes no sense. How can it be obedience to do or not to do? If it is obedience to do because Scripture says so... and one doesn't do regardless of what Scripture says... the latter doesn't sound much like obedience does it?

threebigrocks
Jan 3rd 2009, 06:06 PM
Matthew 28
16But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
18And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."





I've bolded the passage above and ask this question.

If this is water baptism, there is no problem. It is done in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit by man.

If this is baptism of the Spirit we have a huge problem. Man cannot cause the Holy Spirit to indwell anyone. That requires knowledge of the heart of which only God can know.

As this was commanded by Christ to His disciples, how should we read this passage?

Yukerboy
Jan 3rd 2009, 06:18 PM
Um... that makes no sense. How can it be obedience to do or not to do? If it is obedience to do because Scripture says so... and one doesn't do regardless of what Scripture says... the latter doesn't sound much like obedience does it?

That's my point. Scripture doesn't say water baptism is an act of obedience or a requirement.

However, Scripture does say that no matter what the born again does, they do it out of obedience.

If they decide to go out and buy a Hershey bar, they did it in obedience. If they decide to go out and buy a Dove bar, they did it out of obedience. If they decide to not go out, they did it out of obedience.

They are slaves to obedience, just as they were once slaves to sin.

They are obedient through faith.

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 06:22 PM
That's my point. Scripture doesn't say water baptism is an act of obedience or a requirement.

However, Scripture does say that no matter what the born again does, they do it out of obedience.

If they decide to go out and buy a Hershey bar, they did it in obedience. If they decide to go out and buy a Dove bar, they did it out of obedience. If they decide to not go out, they did it out of obedience.

They are slaves to obedience, just as they were once slaves to sin.

They are obedient through faith.
Interesting use of Scripture. So help me understand. One can murder out of obedience, fornicate out of obedience, lie out of obedience, ignore Scripture out of obedience... that about right?

RogerW
Jan 3rd 2009, 06:41 PM
Matthew 28
16But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
18And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

I've bolded the passage above and ask this question.

If this is water baptism, there is no problem. It is done in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit by man.

If this is baptism of the Spirit we have a huge problem. Man cannot cause the Holy Spirit to indwell anyone. That requires knowledge of the heart of which only God can know.

As this was commanded by Christ to His disciples, how should we read this passage?

Greetings TBR,

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach [making disciples] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Going then disciple all the nations baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Is it the teaching that baptizes them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; i.e. faith comes by hearing (Ro 10:17)? Or is Christ telling His disciples that water will ceremonially cleanse when done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

Many Blessings,
RW

threebigrocks
Jan 3rd 2009, 06:50 PM
Greetings TBR,

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach [making disciples] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Going then disciple all the nations baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Is it the teaching that baptizes them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; i.e. faith comes by hearing (Ro 10:17)? Or is Christ telling His disciples that water will ceremonially cleanse when done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

Many Blessings,
RW

How can water ceremonially cleanse them when they are cleansed when they believe prior to being baptized? Make disciples, then baptized. If one is a disciple, don't they already believe?

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 08:04 PM
No, I thought I was very clear.

If one who is born again is baptized by water, that baptism is an act of obedience.

If one who is born again is not baptized by water, that non-baptism is also an act of obedience.

No matter what the born again do, they do acts of obedience.


Hi Yuckerboy,

Just a quick question, this is for those who believe that baptism is an act of obedience. What Scripture tells us that baptism is an act of obedience?

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 08:08 PM
How can water ceremonially cleanse them when they are cleansed when they believe prior to being baptized? Make disciples, then baptized. If one is a disciple, don't they already believe?

The Greek language tells us that making disciples consisits of two parts, teaching them and baptizing them. It is both the teaching and baptizing, that makes one a disciple

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 08:14 PM
Hi Yuckerboy,

Just a quick question, this is for those who believe that baptism is an act of obedience. What Scripture tells us that baptism is an act of obedience?
Are we instructed, Scripturally, to be baptized?

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 08:21 PM
Are we instructed, Scripturally, to be baptized?

I agree, however, where does Scripture say we are doing so to show obedience?

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 08:30 PM
I agree, however, where does Scripture say we are doing so to show obedience?
Doing what Scripture says is obedience... same as not fornicating, lying, stealing, etc. Doesn't need to say what is obvious does it?

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 08:39 PM
Doing what Scripture says is obedience... same as not fornicating, lying, stealing, etc. Doesn't need to say what is obvious does it?

I am not arguing that Point, I agree with what you said. What I am asking is, where does Scripture say that being baptized is an act of obedience?

In other words, did Jesus just give us some commands for the sole purpose that we obey them? If not then there must be another purpose to baptism. Jesus didn't just say, OK, go get in the water because I want to see if you will obey me.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 08:51 PM
Doing what Scripture says is obedience... same as not fornicating, lying, stealing, etc. Doesn't need to say what is obvious does it?

Here is my point. If the purpose of baptism is to show obedience, where do we find Scripture similar to this,

Genesis 17:10-11 ( KJV ) 10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Circumcision was token of the covenant, it was done to in obedience to show the covenant. If baptism is the same, where do find such a statement?

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 09:04 PM
I am not arguing that Point, I agree with what you said. What I am asking is, where does Scripture say that being baptized is an act of obedience?

In other words, did Jesus just give us some commands for the sole purpose that we obey them? If not then there must be another purpose to baptism. Jesus didn't just say, OK, go get in the water because I want to see if you will obey me.
No... Jesus said be baptized... therefore baptism is obedience. If you are fishing for a Church of Christ type response from me... not going to get that. ;)

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 09:05 PM
Here is my point. If the purpose of baptism is to show obedience, where do we find Scripture similar to this,

Genesis 17:10-11 ( KJV ) 10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Circumcision was token of the covenant, it was done to in obedience to show the covenant. If baptism is the same, where do find such a statement?
I don't think it a "token"... nor is there a Scripture calling it a token. Obedience is not a recommendation. Folks treat it as such now days sure... they are in error.

RogerW
Jan 3rd 2009, 09:08 PM
How can water ceremonially cleanse them when they are cleansed when they believe prior to being baptized? Make disciples, then baptized. If one is a disciple, don't they already believe?

Hi TBR,

I'm wondering if Mt 28:19 can be used (as it has been) to teach the doctrine of water baptism as in believers baptism? For that matter can Mk 16:16 be used to teach the doctrine of water baptism, that is believers baptism?

Does Mt 28:19 tell us that one becomes a disciple THEN they are baptized? Or does Mt 28:19 tell us that one becomes baptized (Holy Spirit baptism) through the teaching or hearing the Word, the gospel of salvation? Is this verse speaking of water baptism; i.e. ceremonially cleansed or is this verse speaking of being born again through the power of the Word and Spirit?

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach [making disciples] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Same with Mk 16:16. The one who believes (through hearing the gospel of salvation), is baptized (receives the Holy Spirit), therefore he shall be saved. But if you never receive faith (believe) you will not be baptized by the Holy Spirit, so you remain in unbelief and damned.

Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I'm not denying that water baptism is a doctrine taught in Scripture. As such I believe it is a 'sign' Christ gave His church to be taken seriously. But is this New Covenantal sign something that signifies an outward sign of an inward change as it is often taught? Or is this New Covenantal sign something else? What would be the purpose for ceremonial cleansing?

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Jan 3rd 2009, 09:12 PM
Here is my point. If the purpose of baptism is to show obedience, where do we find Scripture similar to this,

Genesis 17:10-11 ( KJV ) 10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Circumcision was token of the covenant, it was done to in obedience to show the covenant. If baptism is the same, where do find such a statement?

Yes, circumcision was a token (a sign) of the covenant, what does circumcision symbolize?

Many Blessings,
RW

grit
Jan 3rd 2009, 09:20 PM
Should infants be baptized?

I assume (yikes!) most people here would say no. I would as well. So, if it's true that baptism is only for people who believe, then aren't there a whole bunch of people in the world who believe but aren't baptized?

What I mean is that Catholics and a lot of Reformed folk believe in infant baptism. So when the infant grows up to be a believer they don't feel the need to be baptized since they were baptized as a baby. If believer's baptism is true then wouldn't these people be considered unbaptized?
I'd just like to note that generally the answer would be "no", for those Christians over the prevailing history of Christianity who, like myself, have affirmed infant baptism. I mean, I personally don't count believer's baptism as a false baptism, and I know of many Baptists who respect the baptism as infants of other Christians and allow such into membership in their congregations, even though, as believer's in believer's baptism, they themselves do not hold infant baptism as valid for themselves.

That is, those who believe in infant baptism do not discount these infants as non-believers as do many followers of adult baptism, and whatever differences in assessing the meanings of baptisms there are between various Christians should not always be equated with regarding one another as non-baptized - not that that is necessarily what is being apologized for in the OP.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 11:46 PM
No... Jesus said be baptized... therefore baptism is obedience. If you are fishing for a Church of Christ type response from me... not going to get that. ;)

I'm not fishing for anything. Jesus did say to be baptized, for what purpose? Just to see if we would obey?

quiet dove
Jan 3rd 2009, 11:47 PM
I'm not fishing for anything. Jesus did say to be baptized, for what purpose? Just to see if we would obey?

What if that was His only reason? I'm not saying is was or wasn't, just what if it was?

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 11:48 PM
I don't think it a "token"... nor is there a Scripture calling it a token. Obedience is not a recommendation. Folks treat it as such now days sure... they are in error.

Why did Jesus tell us to be baptized? Abraham's circumcision was an act of obedience, however, he was not circumcised for the purose of being obedient.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 11:50 PM
What if that was His only reason? I'm not saying is was or wasn't, just what if it was?

That is my point, if it was, where is Scripture that tells us that. So many claim that it is just an act of obedience, if so, shouldn't we find this in Scripture???

ProjectPeter
Jan 3rd 2009, 11:50 PM
I'm not fishing for anything. Jesus did say to be baptized, for what purpose? Just to see if we would obey?
Oh no... Jesus sure enough used that "saved" word when talking about believing and being baptized. You get no argument from me on that. ;)

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 11:54 PM
Oh no... Jesus sure enough used that "saved" word when talking about believing and being baptized. You get no argument from me on that. ;)

My point is, Scripture doesn't tell us that baptism is for the porpose of showing obedience, yet many claim that is it's purpose.

quiet dove
Jan 3rd 2009, 11:56 PM
That is my point, if it was, where is Scripture that tells us that. So many claim that it is just an act of obedience, if so, shouldn't we find this in Scripture???

You misunderstood me, as I said, I am not saying that Jesus just told us to to see if we would, I ask what if He did? Does He not have the right to do that and should we not comply?

It was a stupid question. I'm sure you would agree that the answer is yes He does and yes we should, but off topic of me.

Butch5
Jan 4th 2009, 01:01 AM
You misunderstood me, as I said, I am not saying that Jesus just told us to to see if we would, I ask what if He did? Does He not have the right to do that and should we not comply?

It was a stupid question. I'm sure you would agree that the answer is yes He does and yes we should, but off topic of me.

I agree He has the right, The whole thing I'm getting at is that people say baptism is an act of obedience, yet Scripture does not tell us that.

Yukerboy
Jan 4th 2009, 01:13 AM
Interesting use of Scripture. So help me understand. One can murder out of obedience, fornicate out of obedience, lie out of obedience, ignore Scripture out of obedience... that about right?

Whatever someone who is born again does, he does out of obedience.

They are unable to bear bad fruit (Matthew 7:18)
They are unable to be deceived (Matthew 24:24)
They do the will of Christ's Father (Matthew 7:21)
They are justified from everything by faith (Acts 13:39, Romans 3:24)
They had their hearts purified by faith (Acts 15:9)
They are dead to sin (Romans 6:2, 6:11)
Their mind is controlled by the Spirit (Romans 8:6)
They are the body of Christ (could Christ sin?) (1 Corinthians 12:27)

I state, beyond a shadow of doubt, that those who are born again are justified freely by his grace and can do whatsoever God works in them to do.....whether it seems to other men good or evil.

God will judge men's secrets, as my gospel declares (Romans 2:16)

Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand (Romans 14:4)

threebigrocks
Jan 4th 2009, 01:15 AM
I'm not fishing for anything. Jesus did say to be baptized, for what purpose? Just to see if we would obey?

What if it is?

Or....

What if it is witness and obedience to Him and testimony to the church and to those who know us but don't know Him? It's like saying to God and the church and anyone around "I'm serious. This is real."

It's not selfish, it's selfless because Christ was selfless. What we can't see of the Spirit is our testimony through something that can be seen. We don't do it for us. We do it because we love Him and He told us to.

BroRog
Jan 4th 2009, 01:18 AM
Yes, circumcision was a token (a sign) of the covenant, what does circumcision symbolize?

Many Blessings,
RW

The faith of the parents.

graceforme
Jan 4th 2009, 01:21 AM
May I add to what you just said: Jesus also came to fulfill the law. His baptism was a part of the fulfilling of the law of water cleansing. He fulfilled all the law. Now we as christians do not need to be circumcised nor water cleansed nor do any part of the law. If you do the law, you will be judged by the law. We live in grace now, and we of the circumcision made without hands. Its spiritual ! Not seen !

The same with baptism. We were baptized into Christ's death and resurrection. We were cleansed by his blood. There is no further need of any other baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire is based upon the faith to receive and manifest the nine manifestations of the Spirit. Jesus does the baptizing and no one else !

Jesus told us in Acts 1:5 that "John" baptized with water. And that means no one else was given the task to baptize with water. However , Jesus is now the baptizer, and he baptizes with Holy Spirit and "fire". < Unseen by your physical eyes. Its spiritual ! That which manifests that you are baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

No need to circumcise , nor no need to water baptize ! Nor do "any" acts of the law ! None !

The law was for Jews, not those IN Christ = Christians


Great words, Mysteryman. It is a mystery to me why so many can't see the simple truth. It's called "right division" and is instructed in Scripture. When we claim for ourselves what was intended for the nation Israel, confusion always follows.

To address a comment made in someone else's post regarding the apostles - yes, they did baptize. Why? Because they had no knowledge of the Body of Christ or grace as we know it. All they knew was law. Jesus was born under the law, taught the law, and the disciples knew nothing other than the law. In the book of Acts, we see a transition taking place - from the program of Peter (law) to the program given to Paul (grace).

We are not under the law in any sense today. Romans 6:14 says "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Some interpret the Bible to make a distinction between moral law and cermonial law. They say that while we are not under ceremonial law, we are still bound by the moral law. The problem with this theory is that the Bible never makes any distinction between moral law and ceremonial law. Those who try to obey the law are bound by every statute - they cannot choose certain parts of the law to obey. Yet they continue to try. James 2:10 tells us "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

Mysteryman, I think you and I are on the same page. I'm not going to post my thoughts and findings regarding baptism. They probably wouldn't be well-received anyway. But I am glad to read your thoughts - it's nice to know there are some who understand what God's program is for the Body of Christ today - that's us!

God Bless.

Yukerboy
Jan 4th 2009, 01:21 AM
Oh no... Jesus sure enough used that "saved" word when talking about believing and being baptized. You get no argument from me on that. ;)

This is baptism with the Holy Spirit. Not a water baptism. As Peter said water is symbolic of the baptism which saves.

Now, understand I am not saying that he who believes and is not baptized will be saved. For there are many who believe yet are not baptized with the Holy Spirit who gives birth to spirit. Those are not born again. They are the seed among the rocks.

Butch5
Jan 4th 2009, 01:27 AM
This is baptism with the Holy Spirit. Not a water baptism. As Peter said water is symbolic of the baptism which saves.

Now, understand I am not saying that he who believes and is not baptized will be saved. For there are many who believe yet are not baptized with the Holy Spirit who gives birth to spirit. Those are not born again. They are the seed among the rocks.

Peter did not say, water was symbolic of the baptism that saves, He that Noah and the ark were an anti-type, a representation, of baptism which saves us.

BroRog
Jan 4th 2009, 01:33 AM
Why did Jesus tell us to be baptized? Abraham's circumcision was an act of obedience, however, he was not circumcised for the purose of being obedient.

Jesus didn't tell us to be baptized. He told his Apostles to make disciples in his name, which included the ceremonial act of baptism. Peter baptized the crowds because that is what his Lord commanded him to do. The obedience was Peter's not the crowds.

We shouldn't forget that the ceremonial act of purification, which involved being put in a bath of water, was already a well established and customary way to start a new life as a disciple. It was already a custom prior to Jesus. The slight modification Jesus made to the ceremony involved our being baptized in his name.

That is, rather than Peter and John making disciples of their own, they were to make disciples for Jesus. If Peter were to make his own disciples, he would have baptized them in his own name. "I baptize you in the name of Peter." or some such formula. Rather, by baptizing disciples in the name of Jesus, it was understood that the new converts would be learning and studying the teachings of Jesus.

Now if a man were to come to Jesus, dedicate his life to righteousness, and become the disciple of Jesus apart from the ceremony of baptism, the ceremony of baptism is superfluous and unnecessary. A de facto disciple is as much a disciple as one who came to it by the rules.

Yukerboy
Jan 4th 2009, 01:34 AM
Peter did not say, water was symbolic of the baptism that saves, He that Noah and the ark were an anti-type, a representation, of baptism which saves us.

It is a double entendre.

The water baptism is symbolic of the of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The water of Noah's flood is symbolic of the baptism that cleanses, which again, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Butch5
Jan 4th 2009, 01:35 AM
Great words, Mysteryman. It is a mystery to me why so many can't see the simple truth. It's called "right division" and is instructed in Scripture. When we claim for ourselves what was intended for the nation Israel, confusion always follows.

To address a comment made in someone else's post regarding the apostles - yes, they did baptize. Why? Because they had no knowledge of the Body of Christ or grace as we know it. All they knew was law. Jesus was born under the law, taught the law, and the disciples knew nothing other than the law. In the book of Acts, we see a transition taking place - from the program of Peter (law) to the program given to Paul (grace).

We are not under the law in any sense today. Romans 6:14 says "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Some interpret the Bible to make a distinction between moral law and cermonial law. They say that while we are not under ceremonial law, we are still bound by the moral law. The problem with this theory is that the Bible never makes any distinction between moral law and ceremonial law. Those who try to obey the law are bound by every statute - they cannot choose certain parts of the law to obey. Yet they continue to try. James 2:10 tells us "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

Mysteryman, I think you and I are on the same page. I'm not going to post my thoughts and findings regarding baptism. They probably wouldn't be well-received anyway. But I am glad to read your thoughts - it's nice to know there are some who understand what God's program is for the Body of Christ today - that's us!

God Bless.


The apostles had no knowledge of the body of Christ or grace???


Ephesians 3:3-5 ( KJV ) 3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

these are Paul's words, notice the plural, "apostles" and "prophets".

The same mystery that was revealed to Paul had been revealed to the other 11.

graceforme
Jan 4th 2009, 01:37 AM
Much discussion regarding law vs. grace.

What is the function of the law? The function of the law is to act as a "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ. "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Gal. 3:24-25)

The law declares a person to be a sinner by showing him that there is no possible way for him to fulfill the law. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20)

Although we are saved solely by grace without observing the law, does that mean that we have a license to sin? God forbid! When a believer is under the law, his behavior is constrained by the law. The law tells him what to do and what not to do. It is different for a believer under grace.

If we are no longer living under the law, then what is our motivation to do right? Our heart motive for serving God should be love and gratitude for all that Christ has done for us. "For the love of Christ constraineth us: because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." (2Cor. 5:14-15).

The believer under grace is motivated by love, not the ordinances of the law. If we go back to the Old Testament to find our rules for living, we have placed ourselves back under the law. Paul described this condition as "fallen from grace." (Gal. 5:4)

Butch5
Jan 4th 2009, 01:40 AM
BroRog---Now if a man were to come to Jesus, dedicate his lifeto righteousness, and become the disciple of Jesus apart from the ceremony of baptism, the ceremony of baptism is superfluous and unnecessary. A de facto disciple is as much a disciple as one who came to it by the rules.

Care to show me where Scripture teaches this?

Butch5
Jan 4th 2009, 01:41 AM
It is a double entendre.

The water baptism is symbolic of the of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The water of Noah's flood is symbolic of the baptism that cleanses, which again, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Funny that Peter ties it to water.

jrick
Jan 4th 2009, 01:41 AM
Great words, Mysteryman. It is a mystery to me why so many can't see the simple truth. It's called "right division" and is instructed in Scripture. When we claim for ourselves what was intended for the nation Israel, confusion always follows.

To address a comment made in someone else's post regarding the apostles - yes, they did baptize. Why? Because they had no knowledge of the Body of Christ or grace as we know it. All they knew was law. Jesus was born under the law, taught the law, and the disciples knew nothing other than the law. In the book of Acts, we see a transition taking place - from the program of Peter (law) to the program given to Paul (grace).

We are not under the law in any sense today. Romans 6:14 says "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Some interpret the Bible to make a distinction between moral law and cermonial law. They say that while we are not under ceremonial law, we are still bound by the moral law. The problem with this theory is that the Bible never makes any distinction between moral law and ceremonial law. Those who try to obey the law are bound by every statute - they cannot choose certain parts of the law to obey. Yet they continue to try. James 2:10 tells us "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

Mysteryman, I think you and I are on the same page. I'm not going to post my thoughts and findings regarding baptism. They probably wouldn't be well-received anyway. But I am glad to read your thoughts - it's nice to know there are some who understand what God's program is for the Body of Christ today - that's us!

God Bless.

Sorry, but I just have to ask. What do you do with Matthew 5:17-20 then?

5:17 “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 5:19 Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Butch5
Jan 4th 2009, 01:50 AM
Much discussion regarding law vs. grace.

What is the function of the law? The function of the law is to act as a "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ. "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Gal. 3:24-25)

The law declares a person to be a sinner by showing him that there is no possible way for him to fulfill the law. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20)

Although we are saved solely by grace without observing the law, does that mean that we have a license to sin? God forbid! When a believer is under the law, his behavior is constrained by the law. The law tells him what to do and what not to do. It is different for a believer under grace.

If we are no longer living under the law, then what is our motivation to do right? Our heart motive for serving God should be love and gratitude for all that Christ has done for us. "For the love of Christ constraineth us: because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." (2Cor. 5:14-15).

The believer under grace is motivated by love, not the ordinances of the law. If we go back to the Old Testament to find our rules for living, we have placed ourselves back under the law. Paul described this condition as "fallen from grace." (Gal. 5:4)

If that is the case, why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

Acts 16:1-5 ( KJV ) 1Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: 2Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. 3Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. 4And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. 5And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Yukerboy
Jan 4th 2009, 01:59 AM
Sorry, but I just have to ask. What do you do with Matthew 5:17-20 then?

5:17 “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 5:19 Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Christ abolished the law in his flesh for those who are born again (Ephesians 2:15)

Not one jot or tittle did pass from the law. It was written for the unrighteous and it still stands as the law of sin and death to them. (1 Timothy 1:9)

We have been freed from sin (Romans 6:7, 18, 22) and the power of sin is the law (1 Corinthians 15:56)

graceforme
Jan 4th 2009, 02:08 AM
The apostles had no knowledge of the body of Christ or grace???

The same mystery that was revealed to Paul had been revealed to the other 11.


I beg to differ with you on this. The 11 had no knowledge of the mystery before it was revealed to Paul. In Ephesians 3:1-4 (Paul's own words) reveal this: "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward. How that by revelation he made known unto me THE MYSTERY: (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. The knowledge of the mystery was given to Paul by direct revelation from Christ Himself - he gained no knowledge from any men.

The information given to Paul was a mystery hidden by God until He decided to reveal it through the Apostle Paul. Scripture describes the information that was given to Paul as a "dispensation."

"Wherefore I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God: Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (Colossians 1:25-26)

"Now to him that is of power to stablih you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Romans 16:25-26)

Paul describes the information that was given to him as a "secret" because it was hidden from the ages until God made it known through Paul. Even after Paul was raised up, Peter and the disciples were still out there teaching and preaching under the law.

All of the Bible is written for our benefit, and all of the Bible is the word of God. That doesn't mean that all of the information contained in the Bible is given as instruction for us today. We are not in the garden of Eden, nor are we under the law. God never changes, but the way He has dealt with mankind throughout the ages has changed. The information that applied to Adam and Eve in a particular context does not apply to us today. That doesn't mean that we can't learn from the Old Testament. There is much to be learned there. However, we should concern ourselves with the particular information God has given us to follow during this dispensation of grace, which was entrusted to the Apostle Paul. Therefore, since we are living in this dispensation of grace, the information about how God is dealing with man today is found in the epistles of Paul - Romans through Philemon. I know the next argument will be: What about the books after Philemon? During this dispensation of grace, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile Galatians 3:28 tells us "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." The books of the New Testament after Philemon are all intended for a future time when there will be a distinction between Jew and Gentile once again.

I hope this helps.

God Bless.

graceforme
Jan 4th 2009, 02:11 AM
Sorry, but I just have to ask. What do you do with Matthew 5:17-20 then?

5:17 “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 5:19 Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.


Keep in mind that Jesus was born under the law and taught law. He was a Jew and his earthly ministry was aimed at the Jewish nation.

graceforme
Jan 4th 2009, 02:16 AM
If that is the case, why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

Acts 16:1-5 ( KJV ) 1Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: 2Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. 3Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. 4And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. 5And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.


You answered your own question - "because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek." He did this so that Timothy would be accepted by the Jews, and would have access to the synagogues. If Timothy had not been circumcised, the Jews would have assumed that he had renounced his Jewish heritage. They would have had nothing to do with him.

God Bless.

Butch5
Jan 4th 2009, 03:02 AM
I beg to differ with you on this. The 11 had no knowledge of the mystery before it was revealed to Paul. In Ephesians 3:1-4 (Paul's own words) reveal this: "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward. How that by revelation he made known unto me THE MYSTERY: (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. The knowledge of the mystery was given to Paul by direct revelation from Christ Himself - he gained no knowledge from any men.

The information given to Paul was a mystery hidden by God until He decided to reveal it through the Apostle Paul. Scripture describes the information that was given to Paul as a "dispensation."

"Wherefore I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God: Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (Colossians 1:25-26)

"Now to him that is of power to stablih you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Romans 16:25-26)

Paul describes the information that was given to him as a "secret" because it was hidden from the ages until God made it known through Paul. Even after Paul was raised up, Peter and the disciples were still out there teaching and preaching under the law.

All of the Bible is written for our benefit, and all of the Bible is the word of God. That doesn't mean that all of the information contained in the Bible is given as instruction for us today. We are not in the garden of Eden, nor are we under the law. God never changes, but the way He has dealt with mankind throughout the ages has changed. The information that applied to Adam and Eve in a particular context does not apply to us today. That doesn't mean that we can't learn from the Old Testament. There is much to be learned there. However, we should concern ourselves with the particular information God has given us to follow during this dispensation of grace, which was entrusted to the Apostle Paul. Therefore, since we are living in this dispensation of grace, the information about how God is dealing with man today is found in the epistles of Paul - Romans through Philemon. I know the next argument will be: What about the books after Philemon? During this dispensation of grace, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile Galatians 3:28 tells us "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." The books of the New Testament after Philemon are all intended for a future time when there will be a distinction between Jew and Gentile once again.

I hope this helps.

God Bless.

Ok, you've made the claim that the other apostles did not have this mystery, can you please use Scripture to show this?

Can you show where the 11 were preaching law?

I have shown you from Paul's own words that the mystery was revealed to the other apostles and prophets, can you please explain how this is wrong?

Butch5
Jan 4th 2009, 03:05 AM
You answered your own question - "because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek." He did this so that Timothy would be accepted by the Jews, and would have access to the synagogues. If Timothy had not been circumcised, the Jews would have assumed that he had renounced his Jewish heritage. They would have had nothing to do with him.

God Bless.

Correct, however according to what you said, wouldn't this mean that Timothy had fallen from grace? You said if we go back to the OT for our rules for living we have fallen from grace.

graceforme
Jan 4th 2009, 01:20 PM
Ok, you've made the claim that the other apostles did not have this mystery, can you please use Scripture to show this?


Can you show where the 11 were preaching law?

I have shown you from Paul's own words that the mystery was revealed to the other apostles and prophets, can you please explain how this is wrong?

I make no claims - I simply believe what the Word says.


I repeat ........

---Quote (Originally by graceforme)---
I beg to differ with you on this. The 11 had no knowledge of the mystery before it was revealed to Paul. In Ephesians 3:1-4 (Paul's own words) reveal this: "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward. How that _by revelation he made known unto me THE MYSTERY:_ (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. The knowledge of the mystery was given to Paul by direct revelation from Christ Himself - he gained no knowledge from any men.

The information given to Paul was a mystery hidden by God until He decided to reveal it through the Apostle Paul. Scripture describes the information that was given to Paul as a "dispensation."

"Wherefore I am made a minister, according to the _dispensation of God which is given to me for you_, to fulfil the word of God: Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (Colossians 1:25-26)

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Romans 16:25-26)

Paul describes the information that was given to him as a "secret" because it was hidden from the ages until God made it known through Paul. Even after Paul was raised up, Peter and the disciples were still out there teaching and preaching under the law.

***************


The disciples had the writings of the prophets at their disposal. But they didn't understand them completely. Do you think that they realized that Isaiah 53 was talking about the crucifixion of Christ? How could they? They didn't even understand what Christ was saying Himself when He told them that he would be killed, buried, and would rise again. Look at Mark 9:31-32. "For he taught his disciples, and said unto the, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." We even find in Mt. 16 that Peter rebuked Christ when he revealed to them what was to happen.

If the disciples had understood the "mystery" at that point, would Peter have cut off the ear of the soldier? No. They simply didn't understand the "mystery" program, and were attempting to stop the killing of Christ. Why? Because the mystery program had not been revealed to them at that time. It was revealed through revelation to the Apostle Paul at a later time.

There is record of Peter, still out there preaching the kingdom gospel, even after Paul was raised up. Peter came to understand grace as we know it in Acts 10 when he experienced a vision from God. But, I find no record that the others were not teaching the kingdom program at this time. I did find in Galatians that several of the disciples "gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas" , that they should teach the uncircumcised, while the disciples taught the circumcised.

God Bless.

graceforme
Jan 4th 2009, 01:33 PM
Correct, however according to what you said, wouldn't this mean that Timothy had fallen from grace? You said if we go back to the OT for our rules for living we have fallen from grace.

No. Without being circumcised, Timothy would have had no access to the Jewish synagogues. Without access into the synagogues, how would they have preached Christ to the Jews?

"fallen from grace" is the term Paul used in Galatians 5:4 to describe what happened to the folks at Galatia when they had learned of God's grace, but then returned to attempted to keep the law. He goes on to admonish them for so quickly returning to the law after learning of God's grace. He didn't tell them that they were no longer saved, since he goes on to give them instruction regarding their freedom and liberty in Christ. And in the last verse, he refers to them as "brethren."

Emanate
Jan 4th 2009, 09:28 PM
No. Without being circumcised, Timothy would have had no access to the Jewish synagogues. Without access into the synagogues, how would they have preached Christ to the Jews?


The NT is full of references to Greeks (uncircumcised) in the synagogues. Are you suggesting that Timothy and Paul conspired to trick Jews into accepting their message?

RogerW
Jan 4th 2009, 09:30 PM
The faith of the parents.

The child was circumcised according to the law of the covenant. Any child not receiving the sign was cut off from among God's covenant people, having broken God's covenant.

Ge 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

At one point the LORD was ready to kill Moses because he had not circumcised his son. His wife, Zipporah intervened, cutting off the foreskin of her son, saving Moses' life (Ex 4:24,25). God takes very seriously the sign of His covenant. To be cut off was to have no part in the covenants, adoption, giving of the law service and promises of God.

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

Ro 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

God has enacted a covenant with the seed of Abraham. The sign of covenant inclusion was circumcision which symbolized the circumcision made without hands; i.e. the circumcision of the heart or regeneration.

De 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Ro 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.

So God instructs the nation to administer the sign of circumcision, that symbolizes regeneration, to eight day old infants who have no knowledge of grace or faith. What sign is given in the New Covenant that symbolizes the circumcision of the heart? Baptism!

Col 2:11 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:
Col 2:12 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.

Php 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Prior to Christ, circumcision represented the sign of being in covenant with God. It was administered to every male at eight days, including those who later show themself to be reprobates (Ishmael, Esau). Even the unbelieving were in covenant with God through the outward sign. In the New Testament baptism is the sign given to those in covenant with God.

Water baptism, and circumcision are outward signs that symbolize the cutting away and cleansing of the flesh eternally, which only Christ can administer. Is there anything in Scripture that proves since Christ cross, God no longer permits infants to receive the covenant sign, and become partakers of all God's promises with His covenant body externally, and perhaps eternally?

Many Blessings,
RW

grit
Jan 4th 2009, 10:14 PM
I always found it ironic that so many who look to John's baptism of Jesus for support of adult baptism and a 'silent' denial of infant baptism seem to discount that time in John's life recorded in Luke's Gospel where he lept for joy in his mother's womb:

Luke 1: 41-44, NKJV:

And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Butch5
Jan 5th 2009, 12:00 AM
No. Without being circumcised, Timothy would have had no access to the Jewish synagogues. Without access into the synagogues, how would they have preached Christ to the Jews?

"fallen from grace" is the term Paul used in Galatians 5:4 to describe what happened to the folks at Galatia when they had learned of God's grace, but then returned to attempted to keep the law. He goes on to admonish them for so quickly returning to the law after learning of God's grace. He didn't tell them that they were no longer saved, since he goes on to give them instruction regarding their freedom and liberty in Christ. And in the last verse, he refers to them as "brethren."

Yes, if thy go back to the law, they will be lost. That is how they have fallen form grace. Paul also said, if you seek to be justified by the law Christ will profit you nothing. That is the key to Paul statement of fallen from grace, it is those who choose to be justified by the law.

Butch5
Jan 5th 2009, 12:03 AM
I make no claims - I simply believe what the Word says.
I repeat ........
---Quote (Originally by graceforme)---
I beg to differ with you on this. The 11 had no knowledge of the mystery before it was revealed to Paul. In Ephesians 3:1-4 (Paul's own words) reveal this: "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward. How that _by revelation he made known unto me THE MYSTERY:_ (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. The knowledge of the mystery was given to Paul by direct revelation from Christ Himself - he gained no knowledge from any men.
The information given to Paul was a mystery hidden by God until He decided to reveal it through the Apostle Paul. Scripture describes the information that was given to Paul as a "dispensation."
"Wherefore I am made a minister, according to the _dispensation of God which is given to me for you_, to fulfil the word of God: Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (Colossians 1:25-26)
"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Romans 16:25-26)
Paul describes the information that was given to him as a "secret" because it was hidden from the ages until God made it known through Paul. Even after Paul was raised up, Peter and the disciples were still out there teaching and preaching under the law.
***************
The disciples had the writings of the prophets at their disposal. But they didn't understand them completely. Do you think that they realized that Isaiah 53 was talking about the crucifixion of Christ? How could they? They didn't even understand what Christ was saying Himself when He told them that he would be killed, buried, and would rise again. Look at Mark 9:31-32. "For he taught his disciples, and said unto the, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." We even find in Mt. 16 that Peter rebuked Christ when he revealed to them what was to happen.
If the disciples had understood the "mystery" at that point, would Peter have cut off the ear of the soldier? No. They simply didn't understand the "mystery" program, and were attempting to stop the killing of Christ. Why? Because the mystery program had not been revealed to them at that time. It was revealed through revelation to the Apostle Paul at a later time.
There is record of Peter, still out there preaching the kingdom gospel, even after Paul was raised up. Peter came to understand grace as we know it in Acts 10 when he experienced a vision from God. But, I find no record that the others were not teaching the kingdom program at this time. I did find in Galatians that several of the disciples "gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas" , that they should teach the uncircumcised, while the disciples taught the circumcised.
God Bless.

Hi Graceforme,

Paul clearly says in the very verse you quoted that the mystery had also been revealed to the Prophets and Apostles, the references you made above about the apostles were all before Christ's death, you are correct that before Christ's death they did not fully understand. However that changed after the crucifiction. Notice Jesus words,

John 16:12-14 ( KJV ) 12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.

This speaks of when the Spirit would come, however notice what Jesus did before the Spirit came,

Luke 24:25-32 ( KJV ) 25Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 28And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. 29But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. 30And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luke 24:43-49 ( KJV ) 43And he took it, and did eat before them. 44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48And ye are witnesses of these things. 49And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Concerning the Apostles teaching the kingdom gospel,

Acts 14:19-22 ( KJV ) 19And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead. 20Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe. 21And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, 22Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 19:5-8 ( KJV ) 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And all the men were about twelve.
8And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months,
disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

OK, Here we have Paul preaching the kingdom of God to the Jews,

Acts 20:16-27 ( KJV ) 16For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.
17And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. 18And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, 19Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews: 20And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, 21Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 22And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: 23Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. 24But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. 25And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. 26Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Here, Paul clearly calls the gospel of grace that kingdom of God. We have already seen that Paul was preaching the kingdom of God to the Jews.

Acts 28:25-29 ( KJV ) 25And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: 27For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 28Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. 29And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Paul says that the salvation of God was going to the gentiles because, their hearts had waxed gross, they did believe Paul, so Paul took his gospel to the gentiles.

Romans 14:17 ( KJV ) 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 4:20 ( KJV ) 20For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
These verses sound like, the grace that Paul taught.

2 Thessalonians 1:5 ( KJV ) 5Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
That you may be found worthy of the kingdom of God, that sounds like what Jesus said,

Luke 9:2 ( KJV ) 2And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

Luke 9:11 ( KJV ) 11And the people, when they knew it, followed him: and he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing.

Luke 9:60 ( KJV ) 60Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

Luke 16:16 ( KJV ) 16The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Since John the kingdom of God is preached and "every man presses into it. The kingdom of God was being preached both the 11 and Paul, it is plain here.

Harvest Ministries
Jan 5th 2009, 12:18 AM
Baptism for a baby? but the baby cannot hear the gospel and respond by faith. " The righteous shall live by faith"
A baby can be dedicated to the LORD and in that ceremony the parents are challenged to raise that child in the instruction of the scriptures so that eventually the baby now able to reason can make a decision to accept the LORD then be Baptized.

BroRog
Jan 5th 2009, 01:12 AM
Maybe later right? LOL

It's been my experience that when someone says, "Care to show me where Scripture teaches this?" the question implies a hidden proviso: quote me a verse that states your point of view verbatim.

I think the New Testament, taken as a whole, teaches the principle that a de facto disciple is a true disciple. But in order to "show" you this, I would need to teach you major portions of the New Testament.

Perhaps you know the term "de facto" speaks about something that exists in fact but not as a matter of law. I'll give you two examples of this from the NT.

In Romans 2, Paul speaks about a man "without circumcision" who keeps the requirements of the law, being counted in actuality as circumcised; by comparison to a circumcised man who transgresses the law, being counted in actuality as "without circumcision." He concludes that the Jew "in fact" is the Jew who is one internally.

The second example comes from the Gospels where we read Jesus' conversation with a woman at Jacob's well. During the discussion the subject of where to worship comes up. Jesus tells the woman that with regard to the question of whether God wanted the temple located in Jerusalem or somewhere else, the Jews were right to say that the temple should be located in Jerusalem. But then, he adds,

But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.

At some point in her history, it will come to pass that people will neither worship on her mountain, or in Jerusalem. And at that hour, it will become known that the Father seeks worshipers who will worship in spirit and in truth. That is, God will have "de facto" worshipers who worship him in actuality even though they don't worship according how the law says one should worship.

The point is, if water baptism is simply a conventional means to make disciples, but disciples get made without it, these de facto disciples are just as much a disciple as anyone who became a disciple during a baptism ceremony.

RogerW
Jan 5th 2009, 01:30 AM
Baptism for a baby? but the baby cannot hear the gospel and respond by faith. " The righteous shall live by faith"
A baby can be dedicated to the LORD and in that ceremony the parents are challenged to raise that child in the instruction of the scriptures so that eventually the baby now able to reason can make a decision to accept the LORD then be Baptized.

Greetings Harvest Ministries,

Welcome to the community!

Who says a baby cannot hear and have faith? Is not salvation of the Lord? How do you explain John being filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb? (Lu 1:15) Is this not evidence of salvation? Where is this baby dedication ceremony found in Scripture? Are we saved by our righteous work (making a decision), or are we saved by grace through faith that is not our own, but the gift of God?

Many Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Jan 5th 2009, 01:39 AM
It's been my experience that when someone says, "Care to show me where Scripture teaches this?" the question implies a hidden proviso: quote me a verse that states your point of view verbatim.

I think the New Testament, taken as a whole, teaches the principle that a de facto disciple is a true disciple. But in order to "show" you this, I would need to teach you major portions of the New Testament.

Perhaps you know the term "de facto" speaks about something that exists in fact but not as a matter of law. I'll give you two examples of this from the NT.

In Romans 2, Paul speaks about a man "without circumcision" who keeps the requirements of the law, being counted in actuality as circumcised; by comparison to a circumcised man who transgresses the law, being counted in actuality as "without circumcision." He concludes that the Jew "in fact" is the Jew who is one internally.

The second example comes from the Gospels where we read Jesus' conversation with a woman at Jacob's well. During the discussion the subject of where to worship comes up. Jesus tells the woman that with regard to the question of whether God wanted the temple located in Jerusalem or somewhere else, the Jews were right to say that the temple should be located in Jerusalem. But then, he adds,

But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.

At some point in her history, it will come to pass that people will neither worship on her mountain, or in Jerusalem. And at that hour, it will become known that the Father seeks worshipers who will worship in spirit and in truth. That is, God will have "de facto" worshipers who worship him in actuality even though they don't worship according how the law says one should worship.

The point is, if water baptism is simply a conventional means to make disciples, but disciples get made without it, these de facto disciples are just as much a disciple as anyone who became a disciple during a baptism ceremony.

The problem is, Scripture doesn't teach that one who is not baptized is a disciple. Jesus gave clear instructions to His disciples, on how to make disciples, and He said, baptize them, and teach them all I have commanded you.

Do you know of other instructions Christ gave for making disciples?

BroRog
Jan 5th 2009, 01:52 AM
The problem is, Scripture doesn't teach that one who is not baptized is a disciple. Jesus gave clear instructions to His disciples, on how to make disciples, and He said, baptize them, and teach them all I have commanded you.

Do you know of other instructions Christ gave for making disciples?

The question is, did Jesus invent a new way to be become a disciple in Matthew 28:19? Or was it already a cultural practice?

I think we can find both internal and external evidence that Baptism was already a well established practice in Jesus day. If so, then his command to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is an adjustment to this well established cultural practice. His emphasis is not on the practice itself, but on the name by which one should baptize.

In other words, I don't think Jesus was teaching his apostles HOW to make disciples. They already knew HOW. Rather, he was commanding them to put the emphasis on WHO the teacher will be.

That is, seeing that baptism in the name of the teacher is a common way to baptize, make sure that you baptize in Jesus' name and not in your own.

Toymom
Jan 5th 2009, 02:03 AM
Greetings Harvest Ministries,

Welcome to the community!

Who says a baby cannot hear and have faith? Is not salvation of the Lord? How do you explain John being filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb? (Lu 1:15) Is this not evidence of salvation? Where is this baby dedication ceremony found in Scripture? Are we saved by our righteous work (making a decision), or are we saved by grace through faith that is not our own, but the gift of God?

Many Blessings,
RW
I have not read the many replies and I imagine this was already brought up, but the Bible says to repent and be baptised. Do you think that babies repent?
I think that babies are sanctified - set apart to God by having believing parents - based on 1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and theunbelieving wife is sanctified by the brother; otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

Butch5
Jan 5th 2009, 02:47 AM
The question is, did Jesus invent a new way to be become a disciple in Matthew 28:19? Or was it already a cultural practice?

I think we can find both internal and external evidence that Baptism was already a well established practice in Jesus day. If so, then his command to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is an adjustment to this well established cultural practice. His emphasis is not on the practice itself, but on the name by which one should baptize.

In other words, I don't think Jesus was teaching his apostles HOW to make disciples. They already knew HOW. Rather, he was commanding them to put the emphasis on WHO the teacher will be.

That is, seeing that baptism in the name of the teacher is a common way to baptize, make sure that you baptize in Jesus' name and not in your own.

I find it hard to comprehend that the apostles would have thought to baptize in their own names.

How does one make a disciple? Is it not to teach them to follow the teacher? He tells them to make disciples, then He gives them instruction, granted they probably knew how to make disciples, which I think magnifies the point of Jesus telling them, teaching "all" I have commanded you and baptizing them.

RogerW
Jan 5th 2009, 03:07 AM
I have not read the many replies and I imagine this was already brought up, but the Bible says to repent and be baptised. Do you think that babies repent?
I think that babies are sanctified - set apart to God by having believing parents - based on 1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and theunbelieving wife is sanctified by the brother; otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

How do you explain John being filled with the Holy Spirit from birth? He sure didn't repent, and he wasn't even baptized, nor did he understand grace or faith...yet as evidenced by the indwelling Spirit he was born again from the womb.

I agree that babies are set apart through believing parents. As believing parents the first thing they would do is baptize the baby, bringing him/her into God's covenant so the child too would be made a partaker of all the promises of God toward His covenant body.

Many Blessings,
RW

Emanate
Jan 5th 2009, 04:01 AM
I always found it ironic that so many who look to John's baptism of Jesus for support of adult baptism and a 'silent' denial of infant baptism seem to discount that time in John's life recorded in Luke's Gospel where he lept for joy in his mother's womb:

Luke 1: 41-44, NKJV:

And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.


I am sure that John's leaping in the womb is a direct link to the pagan practice of baptising children.

Toymom
Jan 5th 2009, 04:17 AM
How do you explain John being filled with the Holy Spirit from birth? He sure didn't repent, and he wasn't even baptized, nor did he understand grace or faith...yet as evidenced by the indwelling Spirit he was born again from the womb.

I agree that babies are set apart through believing parents. As believing parents the first thing they would do is baptize the baby, bringing him/her into God's covenant so the child too would be made a partaker of all the promises of God toward His covenant body.

Many Blessings,
RW
I do not draw the conclusion that John was at that time born again, nor do I think he ever was since He died before Christ died and was resurrected. Before that time, the Lord spoke through the prophets and to men, and He surely could have acted upon John the Baptist while John was in the womb at that time. However, Jesus had not yet been incarnated, crucified and resurrected and become the Life-Giving Spirit. No one was born again yet, neither was John the Baptist. And I don't think John was baptised before he was born. I don't think that example has anything to do with baptising babies at all actually.

I think that baptism should be the choice of the person who is being baptised. It is something that we chose to do. We chose to repent and follow the Lord and accept Him as our Lord and savior. Babies cannot do that nor is there any need for them to do so.
Babies don't need to be baptised to be brought into any covenant, nor is there any example of it being done or command for it to be done or any explanation saying that it should be done. We are told to believe and be baptised and to repent and be baptised. It is not necessary for a baby to be baptised nor would it have any effect upon the baby.

graceforme
Jan 5th 2009, 12:19 PM
The NT is full of references to Greeks (uncircumcised) in the synagogues. Are you suggesting that Timothy and Paul conspired to trick Jews into accepting their message?


No trickery involved. It was needed to speed the gospel. It didn't save him or curse him - he didn't go back on the gospel. Paul simply did what was needed at different times and in different circumstances. Later, in Galatians, we find Paul refusing to circumcise Titus, who was a Gentile.

Paul's policy in service is found in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 "For though I be free, from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without law; To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak; I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you."

Paul simply met the people where they were, then presented the gospel of Jesus Christ to them.

God Bless.

threebigrocks
Jan 5th 2009, 03:01 PM
How do you explain John being filled with the Holy Spirit from birth? He sure didn't repent, and he wasn't even baptized, nor did he understand grace or faith...yet as evidenced by the indwelling Spirit he was born again from the womb.

I agree that babies are set apart through believing parents. As believing parents the first thing they would do is baptize the baby, bringing him/her into God's covenant so the child too would be made a partaker of all the promises of God toward His covenant body.

Many Blessings,
RW

So how does that reconcile with this?

Romans 3
10as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
13"THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,"
"THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
14"WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
15"THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
18"THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."

Yukerboy
Jan 5th 2009, 04:53 PM
So how does that reconcile with this?

Romans 3
10as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
13"THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,"
"THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
14"WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
15"THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
18"THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."

I ask this not to argue, but because I honestly have no answer myself.

These prophets were appointed since birth. Were they not righteous since birth? And if they are not righteous, how did they become righteous?

Toymom
Jan 5th 2009, 05:40 PM
I ask this not to argue, but because I honestly have no answer myself.

These prophets were appointed since birth. Were they not righteous since birth? And if they are not righteous, how did they become righteous?
Which prophets do you refer to? And where does it say they were righteous since birth? There were and are none who are righteous except for Christ. When we are born again and have Christ in us and follow His leading from within us, we are righteous. When the old testament prophets allowed the Lord to speak through them - and even then I am not sure if they actually had a choice, they may have been considered righteous at that moment in time.

Emanate
Jan 5th 2009, 05:46 PM
Which prophets do you refer to? And where does it say they were righteous since birth? There were and are none who are righteous except for Christ. When we are born again and have Christ in us and follow His leading from within us, we are righteous. When the old testament prophets allowed the Lord to speak through them - and even then I am not sure if they actually had a choice, they may have been considered righteous at that moment in time.


Of course they had a choice, some of them argued about doing it.

Toymom
Jan 5th 2009, 05:59 PM
Of course they had a choice, some of them argued about doing it.
That is true and some did not say what they were told to, but I am not sure if they asked to be a prophet or if God just made them prophets.
And some of them were obviously unrighteous even though they spoke God's words at times.
God spoke through Baalam's donkey and I don't know if the donkey had a "say" in the matter or not.

Yukerboy
Jan 5th 2009, 09:39 PM
Which prophets do you refer to? And where does it say they were righteous since birth? There were and are none who are righteous except for Christ. When we are born again and have Christ in us and follow His leading from within us, we are righteous. When the old testament prophets allowed the Lord to speak through them - and even then I am not sure if they actually had a choice, they may have been considered righteous at that moment in time.

John the Baptist is spoken of when Elizabeth states "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy"

Jeremiah is spoken of when God states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

I ask were they righteous at birth? And if they were not righteous, then how did they become righteous?

To leap in the womb.

I am of the camp that says no one is born righteous, even John the Baptist, but I struggle with stating that.

Yuke

grit
Jan 6th 2009, 03:49 PM
I ask this not to argue, but because I honestly have no answer myself.

These prophets were appointed since birth. Were they not righteous since birth? And if they are not righteous, how did they become righteous?


John the Baptist is spoken of when Elizabeth states "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy"

Jeremiah is spoken of when God states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

I ask were they righteous at birth? And if they were not righteous, then how did they become righteous?

To leap in the womb.

I am of the camp that says no one is born righteous, even John the Baptist, but I struggle with stating that.

Yuke

I don’t answer this to be argumentative either - I’m a believer in infant baptism and reformed and covenantal theology, I find answers to your question in such a Biblical understanding of Scripture, and I appreciate that such an ancillary to the OP may need a separate thread to fully vet the question.

Most Christian churches have historically practiced infant baptism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism) (wiki link), so there are a variety of justifications and Biblical defenses within various groups of Christians for both the practice and the meaning of such. Core to your question is what it means to be “righteous” or “born righteous”.

Few proponents of infant baptism (none of an orthodox stance) would say that children are born without sin. There are, however, a few factors that influence a clearer perspective on your question from the viewpoint of reformed theology, any one of which might be helpful though controversial in detail, and which might be tied back into the original OP of, “wouldn't these people [adults baptized as infants] be considered unbaptized?”:

[note: I don’t here (in this thread) wish to Scripturally apologize for either infant baptism or reformed theology, merely to outline a response in keeping with both the question at hand and the OP.]


1) Perhaps the most controversial for this board would be the factor of God’s election or choosing of His children from before the foundation of the world. That is, Jeremiah and John were, in one sense and from God’s perspective (according to reformed theology), ‘saved’ before they were ‘saved’ – they were ‘righteous’ in Christ and through faith in aspects beyond our temporal, time-bound, or event-driven considerations – they were ‘baptized’ for eternity with God before they were born.
2) Perhaps the most agreeable to this board, and in initial conflict with his disciples, Jesus repeatedly calls children to himself and hails them as exemplary of kingdom members, even conditions that we must become like these to enter into his kingdom at all. These children do not “feel” as though they have been excluded from baptism when Jesus includes them as foundational to his kingdom. Many modern proponents of adult believer’s baptism even acknowledge a special place for children in being “dedicated to the Lord”. It’s a profound mystery that any of them would view in Scripture any justification for completely excluding all infants from Christ’s table simply on the grounds of original sin, to which proponents of reformed theology readily attest, without also considering evident grace through Christ. Jeremiah and John were born sinners just like the rest of us (excepting Jesus himself), and remained sinners in one sense even after becoming “righteous” by faith through the blood of Christ. I’ve been a Christian my whole life (in my estimation, and that of God) and am righteous through Christ, even though I continue to sin in thought and deed every day. It wasn’t the holiness of the children that evidenced Christ’s calling of them to himself as kingdom examples – one must closer examine the Scriptures to fully appreciate just why and how it was that our rabbi did this wonderful thing, and what weight that carries to our considerations of infant baptism or baptism at all.
3) I say, yes, to the OP, there are “a whole bunch of people in the world who believe but aren't baptized”, when we make a physical (as contrasted to spiritual) separation between water baptism as an outward sign and the actual baptism that most matters, which takes place internally or spiritually through God’s Holy Spirit.
4) So much of what is communicated through the Gospel is a matter of paradox and of parable – it is foolishness and contradictory to “the world”, but much clearer (even through a “glass, darkly”) to those indwelt and educated by the Holy Spirit. It only seems illogical* to speak of Jeremiah and John as both unrighteous and righteous at the same time and as infants (or earlier), because they are not righteous and unrighteous in exactly the same sense of relationship. They are sinners in and of themselves by the condition of their heart or fallen nature. They are righteous in and of Christ and being found in him, covered, as it were, by the blood of God’s covenant through his sacrifice for their sin.
*law of non-contradiction:
(from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction)): “it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same quality”.
(from Theopedia (http://www.theopedia.com/Law_of_Noncontradiction)): A cannot be both A (what it is) and non-A (what it is not) at the same time and in the same relationship.

graceforme
Jan 6th 2009, 11:57 PM
Still looking for Scriptural basis and evidence for infant baptism.

God Bless.

grit
Jan 7th 2009, 12:27 AM
*Not looking for Scriptural support of keeping children out of the kingdom of God by any signs.*

RogerW
Jan 7th 2009, 01:03 AM
Still looking for Scriptural basis and evidence for infant baptism.

God Bless.

Why not try looking for covenantal continuity instead? What you will find is that children have always been included in God's covenant with man. Can you find any place in Scripture to prove that since the cross God has determined to keep covenantal children from partaking of His covenantal promises and blessings? From the foundation of the world, have children ever been excluded? I could give you the answer, but imagine your delight when you finally learn the truth for yourself.

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jan 7th 2009, 01:15 AM
Why not try looking for covenantal continuity instead? What you will find is that children have always been included in God's covenant with man. Can you find any place in Scripture to prove that since the cross God has determined to keep covenantal children from partaking of His covenantal promises and blessings? From the foundation of the world, have children ever been excluded? I could give you the answer, but imagine your delight when you finally learn the truth for yourself.

Many Blessings,
RW


The point is, if the doctrine of "covenantal continuity", as you call it, was an apostolic doctrine, we would find evidence of it in the NT, which we don't.

:)

graceforme
Jan 7th 2009, 01:25 AM
Why not try looking for covenantal continuity instead? What you will find is that children have always been included in God's covenant with man. Can you find any place in Scripture to prove that since the cross God has determined to keep covenantal children from partaking of His covenantal promises and blessings? From the foundation of the world, have children ever been excluded? I could give you the answer, but imagine your delight when you finally learn the truth for yourself.

Many Blessings,
RW


Covenantal continuity? Jeremiah 31:31 says "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"

Notice that the promises of the new covenant belong to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We, who are not of the house of Israel or Judah, have no right to claim these promises. They do not belong to us.

Yes, we are living after the Cross, but we are not living in the New Testament. We live during a different dispensation - the dispensation of grace.

Still no basis for infant baptism.

God Bless.

RogerW
Jan 7th 2009, 01:33 AM
The point is, if the doctrine of "covenantal continuity", as you call it, was an apostolic doctrine, we would find evidence of it in the NT, which we don't.

:)

You're just not looking hard enough. God's covenant with men was established in heaven before the foundation of the world. This covenant is a continual covenant, and has never excluded infants and children. Even Christ did not exclude children, in fact He invited them to come to Him, and told His disciples to forbid them not.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Jan 7th 2009, 02:07 AM
Covenantal continuity? Jeremiah 31:31 says "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"

Notice that the promises of the new covenant belong to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We, who are not of the house of Israel or Judah, have no right to claim these promises. They do not belong to us.

Yes, we are living after the Cross, but we are not living in the New Testament. We live during a different dispensation - the dispensation of grace.

Still no basis for infant baptism.

God Bless.

How is the Covenant made new? The old covenant was that of deliverance from bondage, a covenant they brake.

Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

How is the covenant to Israel made new in Christ? This covenant they will not be able to break, because God will write it in their hearts, and He will be their God, and they His people. The old covenant depended upon the faithfulness of the nation, but the new covenant depends upon the faithfulness of Christ alone.

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Notice it says "I will make with the house of ISRAEL." This is important because they are not all Israel who are of Israel, but in Isaac shall His seed be called.

In the new covenant Christ Himself will cleanse them, and God will give them a new heart and put a new spirit within them, so they will walk in His statutes and keep His judgments.

Eze 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

The new covenant is established upon better promises because Christ is the Mediator. He will be a merciful Mediator of the new covenant and will remember their sins and iniquities no more.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

As you can see the covenant is new only in the sense that obedience for fulfilling the covenant promises rests with Christ and not with man. In this way it is new and better because God always keeps His covenant promises.

To whom does God give this covenant promise? To the Spiritual seed of Abraham. Not to all the physical seed, but only those of the same faith of Abraham. The Israel of God (Ga 6:16). This Israel of God are the Spiritual seed, made up of both Jews and Gentiles being grafted into the true Israel of God. All who believe and receive the Holy Spirit are counted as the spiritual seed, not only to us, but also our children and all the Lord our God shall call.

Ac 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Now perhaps you can make a connection between the sign of covenant inclusion under the old covenant and the sign of covenant inclusion under the new covenant, if you look for covenantal inclusion then maybe you will see that God has never excluded infants and children from His covenant promises.

Many Blessings,
RW

graceforme
Jan 7th 2009, 03:11 AM
How is the Covenant made new? The old covenant was that of deliverance from bondage, a covenant they brake.

Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

How is the covenant to Israel made new in Christ? This covenant they will not be able to break, because God will write it in their hearts, and He will be their God, and they His people. The old covenant depended upon the faithfulness of the nation, but the new covenant depends upon the faithfulness of Christ alone.

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Notice it says "I will make with the house of ISRAEL." This is important because they are not all Israel who are of Israel, but in Isaac shall His seed be called.

In the new covenant Christ Himself will cleanse them, and God will give them a new heart and put a new spirit within them, so they will walk in His statutes and keep His judgments.

Eze 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

The new covenant is established upon better promises because Christ is the Mediator. He will be a merciful Mediator of the new covenant and will remember their sins and iniquities no more.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

As you can see the covenant is new only in the sense that obedience for fulfilling the covenant promises rests with Christ and not with man. In this way it is new and better because God always keeps His covenant promises.

To whom does God give this covenant promise? To the Spiritual seed of Abraham. Not to all the physical seed, but only those of the same faith of Abraham. The Israel of God (Ga 6:16). This Israel of God are the Spiritual seed, made up of both Jews and Gentiles being grafted into the true Israel of God. All who believe and receive the Holy Spirit are counted as the spiritual seed, not only to us, but also our children and all the Lord our God shall call.

Ac 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Now perhaps you can make a connection between the sign of covenant inclusion under the old covenant and the sign of covenant inclusion under the new covenant, if you look for covenantal inclusion then maybe you will see that God has never excluded infants and children from His covenant promises.

Many Blessings,
RW



With all respect, that still doesn't show that infants should be baptized. Those who believe in the act of water baptism (which I don't), would argue that because Scripture says "repent and be baptized" that an infant does not have the ability to repent (that fact I do agree with).

You said, "How is the covenant to Israel made new in Christ? This covenant they will not be able to break, because God will write it in their hearts, and He will be their God, and they His people. The old covenant depended upon the faithfulness of the nation, but the new covenant depends upon the faithfulness of Christ alone."

That covenant still belongs to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. I don't know how you can explain that fact away.

God Bless.

RogerW
Jan 7th 2009, 03:48 AM
With all respect, that still doesn't show that infants should be baptized. Those who believe in the act of water baptism (which I don't), would argue that because Scripture says "repent and be baptized" that an infant does not have the ability to repent (that fact I do agree with).

You said, "How is the covenant to Israel made new in Christ? This covenant they will not be able to break, because God will write it in their hearts, and He will be their God, and they His people. The old covenant depended upon the faithfulness of the nation, but the new covenant depends upon the faithfulness of Christ alone."

That covenant still belongs to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. I don't know how you can explain that fact away.

God Bless.

If the covenant of redemption belongs only to the physical house of Israel, and Judah then Gentiles cannot be saved.

Who is the house of Israel according to the Seed (Christ) of Abraham?

Would you deny that infants can be saved? Consider the evidence of John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.

If John can be saved, he can also receive baptism as the sign of salvation. To say that infants cannot have the sign when they can have the salvation to which the sign points is inconsistent, to say the least.

That infants are saved without their knowledge is self-evident with John. But this means that there is no other way to save an infant than by sovereign grace. John did not respond to the Gospel, exercise saving faith, make any decision, or do any works, and must, then, be saved solely by the sovereign grace of God. Infant salvation, therefore, is a powerful demonstration of salvation by grace alone.

You are still looking for baptism when you should be looking for covenantal continuity, or at the very least you shoud be trying to discover whether or not God determined that infants and children could no longer be included in the covenant, and partakers of all the covenant promises in Christ.

This promise does not mean that every baptized infant will be saved. Nor does some vain hope for the salvation of all their children cause believing parents to have their children baptized. The foundation for infant baptism is the PROMISE of God made to believers that He will be their God and the God of their children (Gen. 17:7 (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gen+17+7), Acts 2:39 (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Acts+2+39)). Believing parents, therefore, expect that God will gather His elect from among their children and have their children baptized in the sure hope that God who promised will also perform it.

But why should all our children be baptized, when we know that not all will be saved? For the same reason that we bring them all under the preaching of the gospel. Believing parents have all their children baptized because they understand that baptism is a kind of visible gospel that will have the same twofold fruit among their children that the preaching of the gospel has, according to God's own purpose in predestination. Baptism, like the gospel, they believe, will be used by God for the salvation of those of their children who are elect, and for the condemnation of the rest.

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jan 7th 2009, 06:00 AM
You're just not looking hard enough. God's covenant with men was established in heaven before the foundation of the world. This covenant is a continual covenant, and has never excluded infants and children. Even Christ did not exclude children, in fact He invited them to come to Him, and told His disciples to forbid them not.

Many Blessings,
RW

I'm not saying children are left out of anything. But the fact remains, infant baptism is a man-made doctrine that merely trades baptism for circumcision in some kind of silly attempt to please God through play acting the Mosaic Covenant. The doctrine would simply be another silly, goofy religion except for the fact that good Christian men and women killed each other over it.

Now, who is pleasing God? The man who refuses to have his child baptized or the man who kills his fellow brother in the Lord for refusing to do it?

BroRog
Jan 7th 2009, 06:05 AM
If the covenant of redemption belongs only to the physical house of Israel, and Judah then Gentiles cannot be saved.

Gentiles are not saved by a covenant. They are saved as a gift of God's grace.

grit
Jan 7th 2009, 11:46 AM
Well, as a genteel Southern Christian I can respectfully engage such a debate with whatever language may be helpful toward the peace, purity, and unity of the Body of Christ. I have Baptists in my own family and love them dearly. I respect our difference of insight into the Scriptures and find that God surely has value in our diversity even while praying for our unity.

I do, however, also believe that frank honesty without flattery and couching behind a falsely sanitized presentation of viewpoint both enhances and furthers a clearer understanding between disparate opinions.

To wit, I think the Baptists are misnamed, and that so-called believer’s baptism is more accurately termed gnostobaptism or geriatric-baptism, since it derives from and is conditional upon Christians being old and wizened enough to be officially counted as children (oddly) of God. I find that any doctrine that would rip children and the mentally handicapped from the arms of Jesus and kick them out of heaven into, at best, limbo, or at worst, the arms of Satan himself is a horrible and monstrous doctrine straight from the pit of hell, and I’m glad to find ample support in Christian Scripture, and overwhelming historical Christian clarity of orthodoxy, which acknowledges Christ’s quick correction of both his disciples and any prevailing Jewish or cultural tendency so that children are hardily welcomed into God’s kingdom and championed as exemplary, even to a necessity of being born again and becoming like infants; especially if we find ourselves tired and wanting ‘adults’ claiming some exclusive right to heavenly access based upon some quasi-indeterminate notion of outward intelligent confession that has absolutely nothing to do with how God views our inward heart.

Plain and simple, Scriptural baptism included households of believers, and Jesus, who gave the command to baptize, never once excluded children from his family telling them to maybe come back later when they understood enough of what he was talking about. No, Jesus gave a high premium to the blissful ignorance of child-like faith over and against that careful weighing of the cost of discipleship that drove the rich young ruler and the Jewish religious and intellectual leader’s to look elsewhere for a messiah.

I think being a confessional adult severely complicated matters for Judas, and even Peter, full of the Holy Spirit of Pentecost, occasionally let the complications of adult and cultural responsibilities of the church woo him away from a more child-like obedience and trust (cf. Acts 15: 1-21; Galatians 2). And lest we forget, even with baptized adults of fully recognized church membership there’s no iron-clad guarantee that these confessional intellectuals, these gnostobaptists, geriatric-baptists, or, as they seem to prefer, credobaptists are indeed members of Christ’s family as fully spiritually vested by Him. God looks on the heart and his baptism is true, regardless of what we publicly do with water by his command.

graceforme
Jan 7th 2009, 02:15 PM
This promise does not mean that every baptized infant will be saved. Nor does some vain hope for the salvation of all their children cause believing parents to have their children baptized. The foundation for infant baptism is the PROMISE of God made to believers that He will be their God and the God of their children (Gen. 17:7 (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gen+17+7), Acts 2:39 (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Acts+2+39)). Believing parents, therefore, expect that God will gather His elect from among their children and have their children baptized in the sure hope that God who promised will also perform it.

But why should all our children be baptized, when we know that not all will be saved? For the same reason that we bring them all under the preaching of the gospel. Believing parents have all their children baptized because they understand that baptism is a kind of visible gospel that will have the same twofold fruit among their children that the preaching of the gospel has, according to God's own purpose in predestination. Baptism, like the gospel, they believe, will be used by God for the salvation of those of their children who are elect, and for the condemnation of the rest.

Many Blessings,
RW



Baptism saves no one and it accomplishes nothing. Do you actually believe that God will only save those people who were baptized as infants? Please don't tell me that you believe such a thing.

graceforme
Jan 7th 2009, 02:17 PM
Well, as a genteel Southern Christian I can respectfully engage such a debate with whatever language may be helpful toward the peace, purity, and unity of the Body of Christ. I have Baptists in my own family and love them dearly. I respect our difference of insight into the Scriptures and find that God surely has value in our diversity even while praying for our unity.

I do, however, also believe that frank honesty without flattery and couching behind a falsely sanitized presentation of viewpoint both enhances and furthers a clearer understanding between disparate opinions.

To wit, I think the Baptists are misnamed, and that so-called believer’s baptism is more accurately termed gnostobaptism or geriatric-baptism, since it derives from and is conditional upon Christians being old and wizened enough to be officially counted as children (oddly) of God. I find that any doctrine that would rip children and the mentally handicapped from the arms of Jesus and kick them out of heaven into, at best, limbo, or at worst, the arms of Satan himself is a horrible and monstrous doctrine straight from the pit of hell, and I’m glad to find ample support in Christian Scripture, and overwhelming historical Christian clarity of orthodoxy, which acknowledges Christ’s quick correction of both his disciples and any prevailing Jewish or cultural tendency so that children are hardily welcomed into God’s kingdom and championed as exemplary, even to a necessity of being born again and becoming like infants; especially if we find ourselves tired and wanting ‘adults’ claiming some exclusive right to heavenly access based upon some quasi-indeterminate notion of outward intelligent confession that has absolutely nothing to do with how God views our inward heart.

Plain and simple, Scriptural baptism included households of believers, and Jesus, who gave the command to baptize, never once excluded children from his family telling them to maybe come back later when they understood enough of what he was talking about. No, Jesus gave a high premium to the blissful ignorance of child-like faith over and against that careful weighing of the cost of discipleship that drove the rich young ruler and the Jewish religious and intellectual leader’s to look elsewhere for a messiah.

I think being a confessional adult severely complicated matters for Judas, and even Peter, full of the Holy Spirit of Pentecost, occasionally let the complications of adult and cultural responsibilities of the church woo him away from a more child-like obedience and trust (cf. Acts 15: 1-21; Galatians 2). And lest we forget, even with baptized adults of fully recognized church membership there’s no iron-clad guarantee that these confessional intellectuals, these gnostobaptists, geriatric-baptists, or, as they seem to prefer, credobaptists are indeed members of Christ’s family as fully spiritually vested by Him. God looks on the heart and his baptism is true, regardless of what we publicly do with water by his command.


Applause, Applause!

graceforme
Jan 7th 2009, 02:40 PM
Gentiles are not saved by a covenant. They are saved as a gift of God's grace.


Thank you! I just wasn't ready to change my name to "covenantforme."

Have a wonderful, Christ-filled day!

ServantofTruth
Jan 7th 2009, 02:51 PM
Baptism saves no one and it accomplishes nothing. Do you actually believe that God will only save those people who were baptized as infants? Please don't tell me that you believe such a thing.

Many baptised as infants will be saved, by how they respond to Jesus Christ on a personal level later in life. Many sadly will never know our Lord and in their blindness, think they have faith through an infant baptism.

Equally many will recite a believers prayer, give a testimony and have a full emersion baptism and be still in darkness too.

Funnily enough some will actually do one then the other and just end up confused.

We need people within the church learning God's Word regularly and when they respond to that Word/ bible/ gospel message water baptism will be a natural step within a much bigger picture. Love SofTy.

RogerW
Jan 7th 2009, 05:58 PM
I'm not saying children are left out of anything. But the fact remains, infant baptism is a man-made doctrine that merely trades baptism for circumcision in some kind of silly attempt to please God through play acting the Mosaic Covenant. The doctrine would simply be another silly, goofy religion except for the fact that good Christian men and women killed each other over it.

Now, who is pleasing God? The man who refuses to have his child baptized or the man who kills his fellow brother in the Lord for refusing to do it?

Neither is pleasing God! They are by their unrighteous deeds showing they have little understanding of the covenant God. Not to be disrespectful, or to pick on you, but your remarks also show you too have little understanding of what it means to be a covenant people unto God. God has given us signs that set apart those in covenant with Him from the rest of the world (unbelievers). God takes very seriously the signs He has given us, and in fact warns those who refuse to take His covenant signs as seriously as does He, will be cut off from the covenant. That means that they will not be partakers of the many blessings and promises that God has given first to the nation of Israel, and now to His universal church. Therefore to deny infants inclusion through administration of the sign is to deny them participation of the blessings and promises that God has given His church.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Jan 7th 2009, 06:12 PM
Gentiles are not saved by a covenant. They are saved as a gift of God's grace.

The Covenant of Redemption is God's gift of salvation by grace through faith. The Covenant of Redemption is established in heaven when God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit determined to save an elect people from their sins through the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. If there is no Covenant of Redemption, there is NO salvation for mankind. All people who are saved, are saved by the Covenant keeping God because Christ IS the Lamb slain for their sins. Unless Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain by way of the Covenant, then every man is left in their sins.

Many blessings,
RW

RogerW
Jan 7th 2009, 06:15 PM
Baptism saves no one and it accomplishes nothing. Do you actually believe that God will only save those people who were baptized as infants? Please don't tell me that you believe such a thing.

Either you are not reading my posts, or you are being deliberately obtuse! Have a nice day!

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Jan 7th 2009, 06:16 PM
Well, as a genteel Southern Christian I can respectfully engage such a debate with whatever language may be helpful toward the peace, purity, and unity of the Body of Christ. I have Baptists in my own family and love them dearly. I respect our difference of insight into the Scriptures and find that God surely has value in our diversity even while praying for our unity.

I do, however, also believe that frank honesty without flattery and couching behind a falsely sanitized presentation of viewpoint both enhances and furthers a clearer understanding between disparate opinions.

To wit, I think the Baptists are misnamed, and that so-called believer’s baptism is more accurately termed gnostobaptism or geriatric-baptism, since it derives from and is conditional upon Christians being old and wizened enough to be officially counted as children (oddly) of God. I find that any doctrine that would rip children and the mentally handicapped from the arms of Jesus and kick them out of heaven into, at best, limbo, or at worst, the arms of Satan himself is a horrible and monstrous doctrine straight from the pit of hell, and I’m glad to find ample support in Christian Scripture, and overwhelming historical Christian clarity of orthodoxy, which acknowledges Christ’s quick correction of both his disciples and any prevailing Jewish or cultural tendency so that children are hardily welcomed into God’s kingdom and championed as exemplary, even to a necessity of being born again and becoming like infants; especially if we find ourselves tired and wanting ‘adults’ claiming some exclusive right to heavenly access based upon some quasi-indeterminate notion of outward intelligent confession that has absolutely nothing to do with how God views our inward heart.

Plain and simple, Scriptural baptism included households of believers, and Jesus, who gave the command to baptize, never once excluded children from his family telling them to maybe come back later when they understood enough of what he was talking about. No, Jesus gave a high premium to the blissful ignorance of child-like faith over and against that careful weighing of the cost of discipleship that drove the rich young ruler and the Jewish religious and intellectual leader’s to look elsewhere for a messiah.

I think being a confessional adult severely complicated matters for Judas, and even Peter, full of the Holy Spirit of Pentecost, occasionally let the complications of adult and cultural responsibilities of the church woo him away from a more child-like obedience and trust (cf. Acts 15: 1-21; Galatians 2). And lest we forget, even with baptized adults of fully recognized church membership there’s no iron-clad guarantee that these confessional intellectuals, these gnostobaptists, geriatric-baptists, or, as they seem to prefer, credobaptists are indeed members of Christ’s family as fully spiritually vested by Him. God looks on the heart and his baptism is true, regardless of what we publicly do with water by his command.


Applause, Applause!

I too feel this post is worthy of APPLAUSE!!! Well said grit!

RogerW
Jan 7th 2009, 06:31 PM
Many baptised as infants will be saved, by how they respond to Jesus Christ on a personal level later in life. Many sadly will never know our Lord and in their blindness, think they have faith through an infant baptism.

Exactly! I don't know of any Reformed Covenantal Christians who would say that water baptism saves anyone. We baptize infants to bring them into covenant externally, claiming God's promise that they too may one day profess saving faith and be eternally saved, just as anyone else under the hearing of the Word can become saved.



Equally many will recite a believers prayer, give a testimony and have a full emersion baptism and be still in darkness too.

Which just goes to prove that it is WRONG to teach that water baptism is an outward sign of an inward change.



Funnily enough some will actually do one then the other and just end up confused.

We need people within the church learning God's Word regularly and when they respond to that Word/ bible/ gospel message water baptism will be a natural step within a much bigger picture. Love SofTy.

What we need is for people within the church to understand they are members of God's covenant body externally or outwardly. They have been set apart by God through the sign given His body (universal church), that is water baptism. Having become partakers through the administration of the sign they are now privileged to share in all the blessings and promises God has given His church in the world. It is the church (universal) that has been given the Word of God that brings eternal life. It is the universal church that has been given apostles, prophets, preachers and teachers of the Word. It is the universal church that has been commanded to go and make disciples. Why would anyone want to keep infants, or mentally impaired people from being partakers of the many blessings and promises that God has bestowed upon His church in time? Especially when we consider the FACT that John the Baptist was saved from his mother's womb, proving that infants too can be saved.

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jan 7th 2009, 08:28 PM
Neither is pleasing God! They are by their unrighteous deeds showing they have little understanding of the covenant God. Not to be disrespectful, or to pick on you, but your remarks also show you too have little understanding of what it means to be a covenant people unto God.

Roger, no disrespect, but you appear to be speaking out of your covenant theology, not the Bible. I don't affirm covenant theology and so I'm not impressed by your presumptuous accusations that I have little understanding of it. Covenant theology is a vestal organ left over from the RCC, which the Reformers were unable to have surgically removed, thinking it still had merit. Once us dumb hicks got access to the Bible, though, and started reading it for ourselves, we could see right away what a pack of lies it was and had no basis in scripture.

Graceforme asked a simple question, which has no Biblical answer. We can find no scripture that talks about infant baptism. Rather, you and Grit are arguing from a concocted fairytale, a house made of straw, that cannot stand under close scrutiny, but which like a cannon ball continues to run over everybody in its path, and continues to have momentum until it finally comes to rest.


God has given us signs that set apart those in covenant with Him from the rest of the world (unbelievers). God takes very seriously the signs He has given us, and in fact warns those who refuse to take His covenant signs as seriously as does He, will be cut off from the covenant.

As I said, it is clear from the NT that we are not saved by covenant. But even if, for the sake of argument, I were to concede the point, there is, in fact, only one sign of his covenant and that is the blood of Jesus. The rest, in my opinion is just theater.


That means that they will not be partakers of the many blessings and promises that God has given first to the nation of Israel, and now to His universal church. Therefore to deny infants inclusion through administration of the sign is to deny them participation of the blessings and promises that God has given His church.

To point out the absurdity of such a statement seems too embarrassing for me as I'm sure it would be to you had you been so aware as to know you were being embarrassed.

Just as in the act of circumcision, the infant baptism is an act of faith by the parents, which in no way says anything at all about the child. Just as Abraham obediently circumcised all of his sons, and thereby demonstrating his loyalty, faith and love of God, our misguided Christian Parents faithfully and obediently and out of a love for God baptize their infant children. And Just as God was free to have mercy on Isaac and not Ishmael, God is free to decide which Christian baby will be a child of promise and which will not.

And it rises to the level of vain glory to give parents a false hope in such an absurd and misguided dogma. Imagine telling parents that infant baptism is a sure sign of God's election. Why not just let the baby float until his head turns toward true north? At least one would have a clear sign of his magnetism, if nothing else.

I can read the Bible for myself monsignor, and I am not going to be intimidated by your condescending attitude.

jrick
Jan 7th 2009, 08:52 PM
The way I see it, the Bible does approve of infant baptism, although in a more indirect way. Look at these verses:

Acts 16:13-15 (WEB)
16:13 On the Sabbath day we went forth outside of the city by a riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down, and spoke to the women who had come together. 16:14 A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one who worshiped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened to listen to the things which were spoken by Paul. 16:15 When she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and stay.” So she persuaded us.

Acts 16:29-34 (WEB)
16:29 He called for lights and sprang in, and, fell down trembling before Paul and Silas, 16:30 and brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
16:31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 16:32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him, and to all who were in his house.
16:33 He took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was immediately baptized, he and all his household. 16:34 He brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his household, having believed in God.

Was everyone in their households believers? Maybe. Maybe not. Were some in their families infants? Maybe. But then again, maybe not. But what the Bible is clear about is that promise of salvation was not just for them, but for their entire families.

Emanate
Jan 7th 2009, 08:55 PM
Gentiles are not saved by a covenant. They are saved as a gift of God's grace.


uh, the grace is the covenant. If Gentiles are not part of a covenant then Saul is a liar.

(no longer strangers to the covenants of promise)

RogerW
Jan 7th 2009, 09:36 PM
Roger, no disrespect, but you appear to be speaking out of your covenant theology, not the Bible. I don't affirm covenant theology and so I'm not impressed by your presumptuous accusations that I have little understanding of it. Covenant theology is a vestal organ left over from the RCC, which the Reformers were unable to have surgically removed, thinking it still had merit. Once us dumb hicks got access to the Bible, though, and started reading it for ourselves, we could see right away what a pack of lies it was and had no basis in scripture.

Graceforme asked a simple question, which has no Biblical answer. We can find no scripture that talks about infant baptism. Rather, you and Grit are arguing from a concocted fairytale, a house made of straw, that cannot stand under close scrutiny, but which like a cannon ball continues to run over everybody in its path, and continues to have momentum until it finally comes to rest.



As I said, it is clear from the NT that we are not saved by covenant. But even if, for the sake of argument, I were to concede the point, there is, in fact, only one sign of his covenant and that is the blood of Jesus. The rest, in my opinion is just theater.



To point out the absurdity of such a statement seems too embarrassing for me as I'm sure it would be to you had you been so aware as to know you were being embarrassed.

Just as in the act of circumcision, the infant baptism is an act of faith by the parents, which in no way says anything at all about the child. Just as Abraham obediently circumcised all of his sons, and thereby demonstrating his loyalty, faith and love of God, our misguided Christian Parents faithfully and obediently and out of a love for God baptize their infant children. And Just as God was free to have mercy on Isaac and not Ishmael, God is free to decide which Christian baby will be a child of promise and which will not.

And it rises to the level of vain glory to give parents a false hope in such an absurd and misguided dogma. Imagine telling parents that infant baptism is a sure sign of God's election. Why not just let the baby float until his head turns toward true north? At least one would have a clear sign of his magnetism, if nothing else.

I can read the Bible for myself monsignor, and I am not going to be intimidated by your condescending attitude.

Sorry BroRog, you and I are in much agreement in these forums, but on the matter of Covenant Theology I have to wonder if you have even the least understanding of what exactly it is. I can't help but think that your opinions have been formed, not through researching what Covenant Theology actually teaches, but through the lense of credobaptism.

I don't mean to display a condescending attitude, but it is very frustrating to hear opinions that clearly show you have not studied Covenant Theology from the covenants of the OT forward, but instead allow your credobaptist bias to direct you to look for infant baptism in the NT. Not finding clear instructions to baptize infants in the NT does not explain Covenant Theology.

Again, before commenting further against something you clearly have no real understanding of, please stop looking for reasons infants should not be included, and search the Scripture for Covenant continuity...or show me where and when God's covenant no longer includes infants. Why would God command the covenant sign, that symbolizes redemption to be administered to eight day old infants who have no faith? And even to those who are not of the elect of God, but are in fact reprobates?

If God commanded the sign, symbolizing redemption to be given to unbelievers under the old covenant, why would He exclude infants under the new? Certainly you understand that the Old Covenant sign of circumcision has been changed to water baptism under the New Covenant? I don't think you believe water baptism is a sign of salvation, so why did Christ give us this new sign? What is the purpose of water baptism, since it is not a sign of salvation? What was the purpose for the sign of circumcision in the OT? The answer is the same for both the Old and New Covenant.

Many Blessings,
RW

nascarbob4824
Jan 7th 2009, 09:38 PM
i think you should be baptised after accepting jesus.

BroRog
Jan 8th 2009, 03:31 AM
The way I see it, the Bible does approve of infant baptism, although in a more indirect way. Look at these verses:

Acts 16:13-15 (WEB)
16:13 On the Sabbath day we went forth outside of the city by a riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down, and spoke to the women who had come together. 16:14 A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one who worshiped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened to listen to the things which were spoken by Paul. 16:15 When she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and stay.” So she persuaded us.

Acts 16:29-34 (WEB)
16:29 He called for lights and sprang in, and, fell down trembling before Paul and Silas, 16:30 and brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
16:31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 16:32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him, and to all who were in his house.
16:33 He took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was immediately baptized, he and all his household. 16:34 He brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his household, having believed in God.

Was everyone in their households believers? Maybe. Maybe not. Were some in their families infants? Maybe. But then again, maybe not. But what the Bible is clear about is that promise of salvation was not just for them, but for their entire families.

I agree. But let's make sure we understand what they thought they were doing when they got baptized. Were they seeking forgiveness through repentance, or did they think they were entering into some kind of covenant?

BroRog
Jan 8th 2009, 04:11 AM
uh, the grace is the covenant. If Gentiles are not part of a covenant then Saul is a liar.

(no longer strangers to the covenants of promise)

In Galatians chapter 3, Paul argues that the Mosaic Covenant does not nullify a covenant previously ratified by God 430 years earlier. The so-called covenant God made with Abraham, was, in reality, an unconditional, non-contingent promise God made to Abraham, as God walked through the cuttings while Abraham was incapacitated. Thus he says,

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

The emphasis remains on "promise".

He argues,

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations will be blessed in you." This promise has preeminence over the Covenant in Genesis 15 or the Mosaic Covenant that came 430 years later. No covenant after that, can nullify the promise that all the nations will be blessed by being "in Abraham." And to be "in Abraham", Paul asserts, is to have the faith of Abraham.

So then, the Gentiles gain their inheritance according to a promise God made with Abraham to bless those who are "in Abraham." And those "in Abraham" are those who have the faith of Abraham, who demonstrated his faith prior to being circumcised. That is, before Abraham entered any kind of covenant, God declared that Abraham was justified in view of his faith, just as all of us are justified in view of our faith. Just as Abraham's faith and his salvation took preeminence over the covenant he was about to make with God, our faith and salvation has preeminence over any so-called covenant that comes after it.

saved and know it
Jan 8th 2009, 04:37 AM
In regards to this subject on infant baptism I completely agree with Karenoka27.
I would like to ask, what is the basis or authority for our faith in God? What do we use as the basis to guide us in our lives? The 'churches' be it whatever or the Word of God. Either God's Word is true or its not. One or the other. Baptism, as Karenoka says, is identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. What I am saying in effect is that I have died with Christ and have been buried and raised again to walk in newness of life. It is a testimony to the world of my identification with Christ. It is a mature decision made by an understanding mind. An infant is unable to do this. Baptism is NOT a choice. It's a COMMAND. The Word of God nevers anticipates an unbaptized believer. Just read the book of Acts, yes, even the 3000 on the day of Pentecost, we're told in chapter 2, "They that believed were baptized etc." Sorry folks, the problem that I see today among professing christians is that the Word of God is a looked upon as a buffet where one can pick and choose whatever suits them best. It doesn't work that way. When I received Christ as Saviour, I received Him as LORD in my life. As LORD is in control of me and I do as HE says not as I determine best for me. I sound harsh but we are living in days of loose living where 'every man does that which is right in their own eyes.' God help us to follow the 'BOOK' - the pure Word of God.
Another point, the verse quoted by one of the replies on this question, mentions about the Lord baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire. These are two different events. The baptizing with the Holy Spirit is Pentecost, Acts 2. There was only ONE outpouring of the Spirit. When a person trusts Christ as Saviour they are immediately indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Ephes 1:6). You can't get more of the Holy Spirit. You can be filled with the Spirit but that simply means that the Holy Spirit is in complete control of you.
The baptism of fire is an entirely separate event. This does not refer to the cloven tongues lie as of fire on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:3) wpeaking of new fervency in testimony. Rather it refers to judgment, and the burning up of chaff "with fire unaquenchable" (Matt 3:11, 12; Luke 3:17) It refers to a future day when our Lord will return to earth.
The Lord bless

Sirus
Jan 8th 2009, 06:04 AM
wow.....all these pages....
I'm sure someone has said it so just a reminder......

One Baptism saves.....
The Spirit baptizing us into Christ body.........
....it is by faith, and faith alone.......
see how easy that was?

grit
Jan 8th 2009, 01:09 PM
Thanks, Siris. I really do think that for the most part most of us agree on that plain truth. What complicates the matter, as with many other areas of theology, is our temporal seeing through a glass darkly, which is worthy of another thread, and that we still often let sin into the mix. I mean, we have the Spirit as our teacher and a written revelation from God to guide us, but for His own divine purposes (that have nothing whatsoever to do with any authoring of confusion) God allows for these little challenges amongst His covenant people. This diversity doesn’t have to be something which divides us, in my opinion, but indeed it’s difficult from any perspective to call out other family members as ‘wrong’ or their beliefs as ‘satanic’ without ruffling up some ‘attitude’ from either ‘side’. Each of us wants to be divided from sin and error. Beliefs held are usually and rightly strong and emotive in serious Christians, and the issue of baptism is an important one, since Christ commands it.

And there’s the rub. God truly baptizes, but yet he commands (as an ordinance) that we baptize. On the issue of baptism and your insightful simple truth, it’s the mode, method, meaning, and attitude of the command to us in this secondary aspect that causes us to search the Scriptures and give an ear to greater clarity on what we’re to do for our part in fulfilling Christ’s command.

One of the things that stands out to me in this thread is that even from the first post it’s evident that perhaps no two of us completely agree on exactly what baptism is. We agree we’re commanded to do it (for our part), but just what is it we’re commanded to do, and in what manner and with what import of meaning?

Again, the OP generally approaches baptism as simply a sign, as do most credobaptists. Most proponents of paedobaptism view baptism as something more – a sacrament. Some folk, especially like the Lutherans and Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, add regenerative aspects to the mix. Each of these enriches our considerations and can be readily defended from the Christian Scriptures, not simply through doctines of "'churches'" (whatever they be, and however admirably they explain and defend the Scriptures (just as the post from which "'churches'" is quoted [- welcome to the board, btw])), but our clarity and agreement of understanding is perhaps best expressed through your post, #415 of the thread.

OP:

Should infants be baptized?

I assume (yikes!) most people here would say no. I would as well. So, if it's true that baptism is only for people who believe, then aren't there a whole bunch of people in the world who believe but aren't baptized?

What I mean is that Catholics and a lot of Reformed folk believe in infant baptism. So when the infant grows up to be a believer they don't feel the need to be baptized since they were baptized as a baby. If believer's baptism is true then wouldn't these people be considered unbaptized?

BroRog
Jan 8th 2009, 02:40 PM
Thanks, Siris. I really do think that for the most part most of us agree on that plain truth. What complicates the matter, as with many other areas of theology, is our temporal seeing through a glass darkly, which is worthy of another thread, and that we still often let sin into the mix.

Well, Grit. All one needs to do is produce the requested scriptural passage that speaks about infant baptism. Considering this demonic teaching came from the RCC originally, it's no wonder why some would like to keep the glass dark just as they did and do even today.

grit
Jan 8th 2009, 03:32 PM
Well, Grit. All one needs to do is produce the requested scriptural passage that speaks about infant baptism. Considering this demonic teaching came from the RCC originally, it's no wonder why some would like to keep the glass dark just as they did and do even today.
LOL :kiss:, I chose not to do so here because it seemed to me a derail (in order to do justice to the Biblical doctrine of infant baptism) of the OP (not that tangental diversions are less welcome here than at other sites where spinoff threads are common - perhaps it's just my own peculiar familiarity or experience with boards) and such Scriptural evidences have been repeated proffered at this site in other threads and indeed in this one, though I hartily admit that you've chosen not to view them as such, respectfully.

I don't dismiss your just concerns, especially since you deem demonic activity at its heart. The OP, however, clearly assumes "no", to the matter of infant baptism, postulates it as "true" that baptism is only for believing adults, and merely seeks insight into how Christians baptized as infants "feel" and whether we are, oddly to me, "unbaptised?".

As an aside also worthy of another thread, addressing the RCC and the early history of the Church, at roughly the same time-frame in Church history the RCC also established many foundational orthodox doctrines which you perhaps believe and hold dear - things like all those wonderful, 'churchy' doctrines of the Apostle's Creed (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed)) and Nicene Creed (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed)), which include the confession that Jesus Christ was born, suffered, died on the cross, resurrected, ascended, was exalted, and will yet come again in judgment; a doctrine of belief in the Holy Spirit as a person of divine trinity (a term, like infant baptism, also not appearing in Scripture); the communion of saints, the resurrection of the body from death, the forgiveness of sins; the divinity of Jesus, his begotteness of the Father and his essence - all of which are also taught in Scripture and not generally considered as demonic simply because they were and are attested to by the RCC, the premier orthodox Christian communion at the time infant baptism was confirmed and practiced with continuity (still) by most Christians.

:hug:

TexasBeliever
Jan 8th 2009, 03:57 PM
Here's another 2 cents for the change pot: If Jesus thought water baptism was necessary for salvation, why didn't HE baptise His followers after they came to believe He was the Messiah?

He did not water baptise Peter after his statement of faith or Martha or Mary or anyone else.

Butch5
Jan 8th 2009, 07:23 PM
Here's another 2 cents for the change pot: If Jesus thought water baptism was necessary for salvation, why didn't HE baptise His followers after they came to believe He was the Messiah?

He did not water baptise Peter after his statement of faith or Martha or Mary or anyone else.

How do you know He didn't?

TexasBeliever
Jan 8th 2009, 07:37 PM
How do you know He did?

Emanate
Jan 8th 2009, 07:57 PM
How do you know He didn't?


He may have required them all to do 28 push ups, but all we have is what was written.

Besides, baptism is a requirement under the law.

Butch5
Jan 8th 2009, 08:15 PM
How do you know He did?

I'm not claiming He did, you however, have made the claim that He did not. How do you know that He did not?

Butch5
Jan 8th 2009, 08:17 PM
He may have required them all to do 28 push ups, but all we have is what was written.

Besides, baptism is a requirement under the law.

My point exactly, Texas makes a claim that is not stated in Scripture.

Emanate
Jan 8th 2009, 08:18 PM
My point exactly, Texas makes a claim that is not stated in Scripture.


gotcha. my misunderstanding.

RogerW
Jan 8th 2009, 08:48 PM
In Galatians chapter 3, Paul argues that the Mosaic Covenant does not nullify a covenant previously ratified by God 430 years earlier. The so-called covenant God made with Abraham, was, in reality, an unconditional, non-contingent promise God made to Abraham, as God walked through the cuttings while Abraham was incapacitated. Thus he says,

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

The emphasis remains on "promise".

He argues,

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations will be blessed in you." This promise has preeminence over the Covenant in Genesis 15 or the Mosaic Covenant that came 430 years later. No covenant after that, can nullify the promise that all the nations will be blessed by being "in Abraham." And to be "in Abraham", Paul asserts, is to have the faith of Abraham.

So then, the Gentiles gain their inheritance according to a promise God made with Abraham to bless those who are "in Abraham." And those "in Abraham" are those who have the faith of Abraham, who demonstrated his faith prior to being circumcised. That is, before Abraham entered any kind of covenant, God declared that Abraham was justified in view of his faith, just as all of us are justified in view of our faith. Just as Abraham's faith and his salvation took preeminence over the covenant he was about to make with God, our faith and salvation has preeminence over any so-called covenant that comes after it.

Greetings BroRog,

I would like to apologize to you for the un-loving attitude I have displayed in this thread. I ask your forgiveness, and the forgiveness of anyone else I may have offended. If we cannot discuss these doctrinal differences in brotherly love, then it is best we don't discuss them at all.

What about the Covenant that originates in heaven before the foundation of the world? Would you not agree this is the Covenant that has pre-eminence over any covenant coming after it?

Psalm 110:4 “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou arta priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

This is a conversation between God the Father and God the Son, before the world began. The reference to Melchizedek is important. The book of Hebrews bases the entire validity of the priesthood of Jesus Christ on this very text. The writer quotes it more than any other passage in the Old Testament in his letter. This is before creation itself. God is dealing with the problem of sin in eternity past. This is important. God the Father and God the Son make a covenant here. How do I define covenant?

A covenant is an “agreement between two people.” The Westminster Confession defines it as “life…promised…upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” We should remember that the covenant is a binding and legal agreement between two parties, and it carries with it the idea of curses, blessings, and the spilling of blood. Covenants are literally “cut” between God and men. God sovereignly initiates and contracts such an agreement, and men must obey all that God stipulates in it. In our passage at hand, though, we find this covenant being ratified by an oath, the fact of sin, and ultimately surrounding the work of Jesus Christ as the Great High Priest for our sin. There we have God, the man Jesus Christ, and a sacrifice. All the necessary aspects needed to set a covenant in motion. Jesus is the priest in the order of Melchizedek, the “ageless one,” the mysterious priest, whose priesthood is never ending. Jesus continually makes intercession on behalf of His people. A priest offers sacrifice and intercession. This is what Christ is sworn to by the Father. What is important about the idea of sin in this passage? Even before the foundation of the world, before anyone had sinned, God is already providing a manner of redemption before creation.

Some theologians like to refer to passages like this as describing The Covenant of Redemption. Others like to use biblical terms, and prefer The Counsel of Peace.

In Zechariah 6:13 we find this verse, “Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the Counsel of Peaceshall be between them both.”

Now we find Zechariah prophesying about the coming of the Branch, the Messiah, and we find that the “conversation” here, or the conversation implied concerning this Counsel of Peace, is between the Branch who takes his place as a priest on his throne, and the Lord. So we find that some prefer to use biblical language. God is providing the sole manner to redeem men before the foundation of the world. He does this by divine oath. By oath, the Son is consigned to covenant with the Father. He is to be priest. He is to be the sacrifice for sin and the priest who continually intercedes for those for whom he dies. In this, the Son is ratified by the oath to make the Counsel of Peace effectual. He now must obey. If he does not obey, the oath is broken, and curse would result.

Hebrews 7:26 says, “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.” Luke 22:42, “nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” John 4:34, “Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.” John 6:38, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Jesus is going to do the will of the Father and complete the covenant righteousness he is bound to by oath by the Father.

You would be surprised at the number of people who think that election and reprobation are bound up in what is called The Covenant of Grace, and not the Covenant of Redemption. All of our election passages, Romans 9, Ephesians 1, for instance, are bound up in this Counsel of Peace, or this oath consigned to the Son. When the Son becomes incarnate, willingly, to redeem his bride, something he is going to have and desires to have as a love gift from his Father, he performs what is bound up in the oath. That is where election takes place – in the Covenant of Redemption.

God has sworn and will not relent of this “swearing.” The Son, is, forever, a priest, and will redeem his people. That is why I like the term Covenant of Redemption. There is also reference to the priestly work here; that involves sin and intercession; and it also implies that Jesus must fulfill this work, or else the oath is seen as false.

Unless Christ fulfills the office of Priest, no one would be redeemed, and the oath made with him would render him cursing and not seeing the “travail of his soul.” We know that Jesus Christ completed the will of God for the covenant oath. Does this give you a basic grasp of the covenantal theme that runs throughout Scripture?

The covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15 pertains to the physical seed(s) of Abraham. The covenant God made with Abraham when He passed between the pieces was a promise of land, seed and blessing, this covenant is conditioned upon obedience, it was not unconditional. The unconditional covenant promise God made to Abraham through his Seed (Christ) is found in Genesis 17:

The first seven verses of Genesis 17 says, “When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. “And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. “I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.”

This unconditional Covenant speaks of the fulfillment of the Covenant of Redemption or Counsel of Peace that was enacted in heaven before the foundation of the world. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham's faithfulness. God initiates the Covenant, and tells Abraham how He alone will multiply his seed, and make him a father of many nations. There is nothing in this Covenant required of Abraham, for this Covenant is established between God the Father and God the Son.

The Covenant of Redemption has great benefit for God's elect people, but this Covenant is fulfilled through the faithfulness of the God-man, Jesus Christ alone. The only faithfulness required in the Covenant of Redemption is the faithfulness of Christ to fulfill the promises made in heaven in eternity past.

Abraham, and all of God's elect people will most certainly be a people of faith...however neither Abraham's faith, nor our faith is a requirement for being included in the Covenant of Redemption. Faith in fact is a benefit of the Covenant of Redemption. All of the elect of God receive faith to believe through the power of the Word and the Holy Spirit. Our salvation is not dependent upon our faithfulness. If it were then none of us would be saved, because no man possesses saving faith apart from the regenerating work of God.

Since our faith is not a requirement for salvation, even infants can be baptized, for even infants can possess Christ's saving faith, that is the work and gift of God, not of ourselves, lest any man should boast.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Jan 8th 2009, 08:51 PM
How do you know He didn't?

Joh 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
Joh 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

ServantofTruth
Jan 8th 2009, 09:08 PM
This is a Protestant forum, which is why most of us come here. Therefore a person who believes infant baptism is best, is not going to be comfortable here or likely to be able to express their views without promoting the RCC - which is against forum rules.

The vast majority of us agree that baptism is best, when the person is mature enough to mentally and with all their heart turn to Jesus Christ personally, and ask for forgiveness of their sins.

But water baptism MUST be part of a bigger picture. Not even a begining. Because a certain amount of teaching should happen before baptism is given and then baptism will be part of an on going process. That process, as we know, continues every day of our lives in bible study, prayer, witness, love ....so many things.

Perhaps a better question than this topic starts with would be

Water baptism, how it fits into the bigger picture of our faith? SofTy.

TexasBeliever
Jan 8th 2009, 10:46 PM
I'm not claiming He did, you however, have made the claim that He did not. How do you know that He did not?

I'm going by what is recorded in scripture. You would think that the baptism by Jesus of anyone professing who He was would have merited being recorded.

Thank you RogerW for the scripture confirming that He did not.

grit
Jan 8th 2009, 11:03 PM
This is a Protestant forum, which is why most of us come here. Therefore a person who believes infant baptism is best, is not going to be comfortable here or likely to be able to express their views without promoting the RCC - which is against forum rules.

The vast majority of us agree that baptism is best, when the person is mature enough to mentally and with all their heart turn to Jesus Christ personally, and ask for forgiveness of their sins.


Wow! :hug: I'm sorry, SofTy, but most Protestants now and historically have believed in and practiced infant baptism.

Butch5
Jan 8th 2009, 11:14 PM
Joh 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
Joh 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

We are talking about His disciples, surly they wouldn't baptize themselves.

Butch5
Jan 8th 2009, 11:19 PM
I'm going by what is recorded in scripture. You would think that the baptism by Jesus of anyone professing who He was would have merited being recorded.

Thank you RogerW for the scripture confirming that He did not.

Why would you think that?

Also, the Scripture that Roger quoted does not deal with the issue. Obviously if Christ did baptize the disciples, He did so before He had them baptizing others. My point is, the statement, that Christ did not baptize the apostles or Mary, is not addressed in the Scriptures, so, your statement cannot be validated.

grit
Jan 8th 2009, 11:39 PM
He did, however, wash their feet. :)

RogerW
Jan 9th 2009, 12:23 AM
Why would you think that?

Also, the Scripture that Roger quoted does not deal with the issue. Obviously if Christ did baptize the disciples, He did so before He had them baptizing others. My point is, the statement, that Christ did not baptize the apostles or Mary, is not addressed in the Scriptures, so, your statement cannot be validated.

Since Scripture does say that Christ did not baptize, would not the logical conclusion be that His disciples and Mary would have been baptized by John the baptizer?

Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Jan 9th 2009, 12:27 AM
Since Scripture does say that Christ did not baptize, would not the logical conclusion be that His disciples and Mary would have been baptized by John the baptizer?

Blessings,
RW

We can't form doctrine on, the logical conclusion. They probably were baptized by John the Baptist, however, Scripture does not tell us. So, I will not assume.

RogerW
Jan 9th 2009, 12:42 AM
We can't form doctrine on, the logical conclusion. They probably were baptized by John the Baptist, however, Scripture does not tell us. So, I will not assume.

I base my logical conclusion on the following text. I do not argue from silence, or probable assumption.

Mt 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
Mt 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Mt 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Many blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jan 9th 2009, 04:37 AM
I base my logical conclusion on the following text. I do not argue from silence, or probable assumption.

Mt 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
Mt 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Mt 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Many blessings,
RW

Roger has a good point Butch. From this it seems highly probable that many of Jesus disciples accepted the Baptism of John. But this begs the question. They weren't baptized in Jesus name.

Butch5
Jan 9th 2009, 05:14 AM
Roger has a good point Butch. From this it seems highly probable that many of Jesus disciples accepted the Baptism of John. But this begs the question. They weren't baptized in Jesus name.


Exactly. We know some were baptized in both, as seen when Paul met the 12 in Acts. I was not arguing that they were baptized, my point was that the statement made by Texas could not be validated.

RogerW
Jan 9th 2009, 02:43 PM
Which Baptism is Baptism?

by Tony Warren




Many legitimate questions have been raised by Christians regarding "what the proper mode of the sacrament of baptism is, and what it does." These are questions which certainly should be addressed by faithful theologians. Especially since there are several Churches which teach that water baptism is a 'required' sacrament for Salvation. However, any such requirement in order to gain (or maintain) Salvation would qualify as a gospel predicated upon our works. And this is an unbiblical if not heretical idea. Baptism in water has no power of it's own, for there is no efficacy in literal water. Rather, water baptism is a token of the baptism (cleansing) of the Spirit which is the real power within Christians. The outward token which we apply in the sacrament of baptism is to 'signify' this inward occurrence. Indeed it is very much like the ceremonial ablutions in the old testament were an outward sign of the cleansing of God. Or as circumcision was an outward sign of a Covenant (promissory) relationship with God. It didn't mean everyone was righteous, but that they received the signification of the people of righteousness.
And just as circumcision made no one righteous, water baptism does nothing to make us righteous. Circumcision was the Old Covenant sign God wanted His people to apply to illustrate something infinitely more important than the literal cutting off of flesh. It was a token of the righteousness of faith wherein through the shedding of blood their sins were cut off. The ceremonial act itself was not that faith, it was the 'sign' of that faith. Romans chapter four touches on this principle as it speaks of Abraham saying, righteousness was not imputed to him by circumcision, for he was already righteous by faith before the circumcision. But his circumcision was the 'sign' of that Faith.
Romans 4:11

"..and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:..."
And so while we can read passages in the Old Covenant that 'appear' to indicate they were required to be circumcised in order to have the righteousness of faith, we see clearly that this was really never the case. The circumcision was just a sign of the real occurrence of faith. In this exact same way, water baptism is a sacrament that Christians receive as a sign of the real occurrence of faith, which is baptism or cleansing by the Spirit. We must be baptized in the Holy Spirit in order to be Saved, not H˛0. Without this true baptismal cleansing of God, we are still unwashed and deep in trespass and Sin. While water baptism is a precept of God (as circumcision was), baptism in the Spirit is the only requirement for Salvation.

This we should know inherently because water cannot save. It will make you wet, it will wash filth from the flesh, and it can be a sacrament and signification that a Christian is under the Covenant of God, but it cannot Save. Just as in Old Covenant times, the blood of sacrificed lambs did nothing for the children of Israel to wash away sin (Heb 10:4), yet was a precept or commandment of God. In the same way as baptism today, it was a sign of the blood of Jesus (The Lamb) that would come and truly wash away that sin. The sacrificing of a lamb is something that they did illustrating by it that it would be by the lamb of the tribe of Juda that true cleansing would come. Likewise, water baptism is something that God commands us to do as a token of the washing by the Spirit which cleansed us. There is a very big difference between a command of God to do something, and a requirement in order to be Saved. Not all understand this as I received a letter from a Christian which stated:

" I believe when it says in the scriptures that we are to be Baptized in water, that it is a commandment, and if one does not follow it, then they do not follow what God has told us, Hence they are lost...."
He is right about what God tells us and what we should do, but his logic is flawed on the last point. Because likewise we are also commanded that in, "whatever we do, do all to the Glory of God." So when we do something that is not to the Glory of God, are we all therefore Lost? We would be if that logic followed through. We are commanded to sin not, so when we have a sinful thought pop into are heads, does that mean we are all Lost? We are commanded to go to Church, if we have neglected going to Church this week, then are we all Lost? Of course you see my point here. And neither are we 'necessarily' lost if we were not baptized. It is a command like any other command of God which should be obeyed, but it is most certainly not a requirement that one must have or we can say they are unsaved. There is a subtle and yet distinct difference, which is illustrated in understanding true Sovereignty and Grace of God.
I gave this person the example of the thief on the cross who was not baptized, and yet was Saved by Christ, to which he retorted:

"..this was on the Old Testament side of the cross, and though he was Saved by the grace of the Lord, we today are to follow the ordinances that have been set forth, and if we do not, then we are lost!"
This sounds like Salvation by Grace has changed, but has it? We are to follow the ordinances of God today, and they were to follow the ordinances of God before the cross also. But they weren't Saved by following it anymore than we are. The Salvation program of Grace has not changed. And for this theory to be true, either the Salvation program changed, or there was one Salvation program for this thief, and another entirely different program with different rules for everyone else. The truth is, the thief, as well as all other old covenant saints, were Saved the exact Same way that we are today. By Grace, through faith. They, looking forward to the finished work of Christ, and we looking backward at the finished work of Christ. Their obeying the command to make animal sacrifices couldn't Save them anymore than our obeying the command to have water baptism.
Hebrews 10:4

"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins".
We were/are all Saved the same way, which is by Grace. No one today is being made whole by someone's work of sprinkling, dipping, dunking, or splashing. The Salvation program was the same for the thief on the cross as it is for us. The total Sovereign un-merited Grace of God.

If I can make an (admittedly imperfect) analogy, it's very much like when we get married and we exchange wedding rings. Those rings in truth really don't mean anything with regards to us 'actually' being married. Yet we desire to have them as a sign or token of our marriage Covenant. In other words, we are married 'with or without' the rings, but we have them because they are a sign, or a token of our joining in the sacred marriage bond before God. In the same way, when you are Saved, you are Saved with or without being baptized with water. But water baptism is a sign or token of the true Covenant bond. As circumcision illustrated the righteousness of the Covenant bond, so baptism illustrates the righteousness of the Covenant bond. And God tells us to apply that sign just as He told the Israelites to apply the sign of circumcision. Even simple reason tells us that if baptism in water was required to be Saved, then anyone who didn't have the opportunity to become baptized in water, could never be Saved (what a horrible thought). ..else it's not really a requirement. Because we can't have it both ways.
Another error is that some Church groups take great pains in pointing out that the word Baptize means to dip. But in actuality the word doesn't really mean dip (though it is taken from a root word [bapto] meaning to whelm, which is by implication dipping). For example, whelming a pot with water could be done by dipping it in water. However, the word [baptizo] does not mean to dip (despite what your dictionary might say), it is used in the sense of whelming or putting water on something to wash it, as illustrated in the form of the word [baptismos]. For example:
Luke 11:38

"And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first [B]Washed before dinner."
Mark 7:4

"And when they come from the Market, except they Wash , they eat not."
The words translated "wash" and "washed" there is the exact same word translated baptize. It was translated wash there because that is precisely what it means. To place water on something in order to get rid of dirt. When used in the Christian Baptismal sense, the word signifies the ceremonial cleansing or ablution (not the putting away of filth of flesh, but the washing away of sins). It is a sacrament signifying a Spiritual ablution. It's not the dipping of our sins away, but the washing or cleansing of our sins. Should we read scripture this way: "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first dipped before dinner?" Of course that would not a correct translation, because what is being said in these verses is that they washed. They whelmed (but by implication) washed their hands before dinner. Obviously the word should be (and was) accurately translated wash. Of all the common translations, not one of them ever translated this dip or dipped. And the reason is obvious, it clearly means to wash. Moreover, the Bible is it's own interpreter and it's own dictionary, and by comparing scripture with scripture we discover how God wants words defined. Again, we see the word used this way in mark:

Mark 7:4

"..And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the [B]Washing of cups, and pots brazen vessels and of tables."
I'm sure no one is going to speak saying, I'm going into the kitchen to dip my tables, or I'm going into the kitchen to dip [baptismos] the cups and and pots. People do not talk like that, and neither did the people of this time. They spoke of Washing their hands and washing their beds or tables, and washing cups and pots. That is why the word is translated correctly, 'washing.' they could not honestly translate it anything else, for that is what it means. [baptizo] means to wash, and only those predisposed to believing otherwise because of Church tradition would argue this a bad translation. Again:

Hebrews 9:10

"Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers [B]Washings.."
Would divers dippings work there? No, it wouldn't work here at all. The word is used here to illustrate ceremonial ablution. A sacrament, a ceremonial washing or cleansing, a SIGN of the Spiritual washing God would do for them. This defining as washing is made abundantly clear in other verses, such as:

Acts 22:16

"And why tarriest thou? arise and be [B]Baptized and Wash away thy Sins..."
By rule of precedence, context, and common sense, this word baptized [baptizo] means to be cleansed in the washing away our sins, not in immersing away sins, or dipping away our sins. Again, as we just read in Hebrews 9:10 of “various baptisms” [baptismos] or literally 'diverse washings' that were part of the Old Testament sacraments or ceremonies. This baptism most certainly is not entailing dippings? And as we read down a few verses to 21, God makes that abundantly clear.

to be continued:

RogerW
Jan 9th 2009, 02:45 PM
Hebrews 9:13

"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:"
Hebrews 9:19

"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,"
Hebrews 9:21-22

"Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
These diverse baptisms (different washings) of the old testament do not in any way mean dippings. It signified cleansing in ceremonial washing. In these cases, definitely sprinkling. This blood sprinkled is the shadow or picture of the death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, by whose blood we are cleansed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with immersion, it has to do with the 'washing' away of our sins in his blood. They weren't immersed in blood. Did the Israelites immerse the Altar or whatever they sprinkled the blood on? Not at all. This cleansing is what the sacrament of these diverse baptisms signified. The baptism in which the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, is sanctification for the purifying of the flesh. The New Covenant is the confirming of the old Covenant by Christ. Christ came not to do away with the law, but to fulfill or complete it. Old Covenant ablution becomes New Covenant baptism. Old Covenant Sacrifice becomes New Covenant Communion. Old Covenant Sabbath becomes New Covenant Sabbath. Old Covenant Israel becomes New Covenant Israel. These were all everlasting laws, continued in Christ. Likewise, Old Covenant baptisms refers to our being 'cleansed' ceremonially, not to us being dipped ceremonially.

Would we say we are 'dipped' with the Holy Spirit? God washes or cleanses us with the Holy Spirit, not dips or immerses. This is the cleaning or washing of God that has everything to do with Salvation. It's about making clean spiritually, not about Church tradition of dipping or immersion. That is not to say that immersion cannot be an acceptable way to baptize, it is to say that it is not the 'only' or 'most Biblical' way to baptize, as unfortunately is so often postulated.
When we consider if water can wash away the sins of anyone, the answer is a resounding, no. And so how could the amount of water used be a qualifier when water is simply a token? Thus a cup, a tub full, or a river is not the point. Water or H˛0 is not the Holy Spirit of God, which is the point. As Hebrews 9:21-22, and all through the Bible, it is so clearly illustrated.
Ephesians 5:26

"that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the [B]washing of water by the Word."
Not dipping of water, but washing of water by the word. Literal water does not cleanse in sanctification, but the washing that cleanses is of something far superior than literal water.

John 3:5

"..except a man be born OF WATER and of The Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."
Does that mean water baptism? Not at all! The water we are born of is not H˛0, but Pure water which comes from the new birth, whereby we being regenerated are washed clean from the stain of sin. And the truth be known, when we carefully study scripture, we most often see this symbolism of cleansing in sprinkling, not in immersion. For example:

Hebrews 10:22

"Let us draw near with a true heart in assurance of faith, having our hearts Sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies Washed with pure water."

This is the baptism that Saves and cleanses our desperately wicked hearts, not H˛0. That water spoken of there is not literal water upon our body, but pure spiritual water, the cleansing of the Holy Spirit which can only come through Christ.
Again, when Philip met the Ethiopian eunuch whom he baptized, the passage of scripture he was reading from was Isaiah chapter 53, which is introduced by the end of chapter 52:
Isaiah 52:15

"So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider."
This prophesies of the baptizing of all nations in the New Covenant dispensation, and God says He sprinkled. Did the Prophet speak of Himself or some other, and Philip says he spoke of Christ. This is the context of the passages the Ethiopian eunuch would have been reading. That Christ would cleanse many nations (including his Ethiopia), and this is surely what Philip was speaking of when he asked him if he understood what he read, and then expounded unto him beginning at Christ the Saviour.

Acts 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?"
Surely after philip explained to him the cleansing of many nations by sprinkling which the Prophet Isaiah spoke of was of Christ, the eunuch wanted to be baptized.

Acts 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."
Some theologians say that this proves immersion because it says that the eunuch went down into the water, but this is presupposition. For it doesn't say the eunuch went down into the water, it 'clearly' says that they stopped the chariot, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. If this meant immersion, then they both were immersed. And God meticulously inspired this language so there would be no mistake. They simply stepped out of the chariot, they both stepped down into the water, and Then it says philip baptized the eunuch. How much clearer can it get? The going down into the water has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual baptism, which occurs after they go down into the water. Likewise, when they came out.

Acts 8:39

"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."
You see, both went down into the water, THEN the eunuch was baptized, and THEN they both came up out of the water. So contrary to some wishful thinking, the going down into the water was not the baptism. We would expect that because of the context of Isaiah which the eunuch was reading, they went down into the water, and then Philip sprinkled the eunuch, and then they both came up out of the water. The sprinkling is God's Word of baptismal cleansing (washing) which prophesied of this baptism. How does the Bible deal with the baptismal cleansing throughout scripture?

to be continued:

RogerW
Jan 9th 2009, 02:47 PM
Numbers 8:7

"And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean."
Ezekiel 36:25-26

"Then will I Sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be Clean: from all your filthiness, and from your idols, will I cleanse you.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh."
Note God says he will sprinkle clean water upon us and we shall be clean from all our sins. God says sprinkle, not immerse. Because of Church tradition, do we retort, 'wrong God our tradition says you must dip or immerse in water as a signification of spiritual baptism?' God forbid, for true baptism or washing is of God and not our denominational presuppositions. These scriptures should preclude anyone from claiming that immersion is the 'only' mode of baptism. In Illustrating spiritual baptism, God uses sprinkling. I believe that sprinkling is the more biblically defensible way of baptizing, based upon my study of the 'whole' of scripture.


Water baptism is not the real cleansing, it is water much efficacious and important than H˛0. When God says, repent (Acts 2:38) and be baptized, and you will be Saved, repentance is unto Salvation, but baptism in literal water is not. Baptism in the Spiritual water is. Consider Ephesians carefully as God says there is one baptism:
Ephesians 4:5

"One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.."
Those are God's words. They are faithful and true. The One baptism is baptism in the Holy Spirit. What that 'clearly' means is that any other baptism (water) is merely a sign or token of this one baptism. Anyone who denies that might as well call God's Word a lie, because He says there is only one.

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."
John baptized with water as a sign, but the "One Baptism" which the sign pointed to was this baptism in the Holy Spirit he spoke of that Christ brought. There is no contradiction of these baptisms. Because the Only real baptism (Cleansing/Washing) is the baptism of the Spirit, and water baptisms are simply a 'token' of that One Baptism. We could say the same thing about circumcision. There was one circumcision, and that was the circumcision of the Heart. The circumcision of the flesh was merely a token of that One circumcision.

Colossians 2:11

"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:"
That's the One Circumcision of Salvation. The circumcision of the flesh was merely a token of this one circumcision of the cutting off of sins. And anyone not of this one circumcision, God says is as 'uncircumcised' to Him. Even if he had been circumcised in the flesh. This is the principle at work here.


Likewise, there is one Lamb of God slain for our sins. Those literal lambs slain in the Old Testament were simply tokens of the One Lamb of God that would be slain for our sins. Can you imagine those of the Old Testament congregation arguing over if the blood used from the lamb slain should be two cups or three? But that is exactly what some of the Church today argue over. It's ridiculous for the Church to argue over how much, or literally, the amount of water used to signify baptism. What is Biblically commanded in baptism is water, and that's all. Any other added requirements are meaningless. So why is the Church today so concerned whether a splash of water should be used in the sign of baptism, or a pool of water, or a river? It is because of their Church traditions. But while they are busy pointing, they are in truth (and ironically), missing the whole point.

And those who even insist that baptism in water is synonymous with baptism in the Spirit are treading on dangerous ground. It is easily proven by scripture that this belief is Biblically indefensible.
Acts 8:15

"Who when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might RECEIVE the Holy Ghost.
for as yet He was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
So here we see that although they had been baptized in water, they still were yet Saved, because they didn't yet have the Holy Ghost. And God plainly tells us, He that doesn't have the Holy Spirit is none of His (Romans 8:9). Proof positive that water baptism does not mean one has been baptized in the Spirit, or Saved.


True Salvation is when God baptizes us with the Holy Spirit. It can happen at the same time or it can happen at different times. But the water is merely a token. While anyone can set a date and time to be baptized in water, no one can set a date for baptizing in the Spirit, but God. So then honestly, rationally, logically and Biblically, how could water baptism mean one is Saved or not Saved? Are we in control or God? We can set a date to have the sign of water put on us but the baptism that Saves us is of the Spirit, and is controlled by God. That is basically what 1st Peter chapter three is illustrating. Water can cleanse our flesh, but it can't bring real Salvation.
1st Peter 3:21

"The like FIGURE whereunto even baptism doth also now SAVE us, not the putting away of filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
You see baptism does Save us, but NOT baptism in water that can put away the filth of the flesh (washing), but baptism of the Spirit which is provided us by the redemption secured by the death and Resurrection of Christ. Baptism is a figure, a sign, or a token of something INFINITELY more important. Water is the FIGURE of something spiritual, the acknowledgement of a good conscience toward God. A token that we are made clean of our filth (which is sin) by Christ's resurrection. Not washed away by literal water, but washed away by the Spiritual waters of the Holy Spirit of God in the Resurrection of Christ. It is our New Birth where we are born of the water and baptized in this Spirit. And that work was accomplished by the death and resurrection of Christ, not by any work of applying literal water.

Titus 3:5

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His Mercy He Saved us, BY the WASHING of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."
We are regenerated by the cleansing of the Holy Spirit of God. That word regeneration means a spiritual nativity or a spiritual rebirth. We gladly put on the sign of water baptism to signify the true washing that came when Christ entered our lives. John the Baptist baptized with the baptism of repentance with water, but after the cross, Jesus made it so we were baptized with something infinitely more permanent.

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:"
Again, ask yourself honestly, would John say, "I dip you with water but Jesus shall dip you with the Holy spirit and Fire?" No, because the word Baptize does not mean dip, it means to wash or cleanse. Dip makes no sense. This is the "REAL" baptism or cleansing that will take place. It's by the Holy Spirit, and it's by fire because we have gone through the 'refiner's fire' in Him. Not dipped in it, cleansed in it. This is the One Baptism the Lord talks about.

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."
And so, knowing all these things, we know that the 'amount' of water, the position, or the mode of application has no bearing upon the token. Christians saying that you must be immersed in water to be legitimately baptized, are claiming more than scripture will allow. They're adding Church tradition to the Word.


Also, in their insistence that, "to be buried like Christ in death, you should be totally immersed," they are making a personal commentary, not declaring something scripture says. Baptism is a synonym for cleansing or washing. Water baptism is a 'token' or sign of the washing clean of the Holy Spirit, not a token of burial in a tomb. Water cleanses, it does not bury. It's a picture not of the immersing in dirt, but the cleansing which was done inside us by Christ. If God had wanted baptism to be a sign of burial, He would have had us bathe in dirt. On the contrary, baptism is a symbol of washing or cleansing, which is why it is done in water and also symbolized by fire. A refiners fire cleanses, and water cleanses. A tomb or burial does not take away filth.

And even in the only instance in scripture that speaks of dipping in this manner (2nd kings 5:14), it is clearly to illustrate using water to wash and be clean, not to bury.
2nd Kings 5:13

"And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?"
And this is God's representation of baptism, not of being buried, but of being cleansed in water. And the amount is insignificant. Yes it is true that baptism is brought about by the death of Christ, but that is not the picture in water. e.g., wine is a picture of blood, but it's not a picture of burial, a dove is a picture of the Spirit, but it's not a picture of a coffin, bread is a picture of the body of Christ, but it's not a picture of a tomb. Yet they are all related, and surely one could say that the communion bread represents the death and burial of Christ. But that is NOT the picture put forth by using the symbol of 'bread.' Rather, it's a symbol of the food of life that we live by. The Word of God. Neither is using water a symbol of burying anyone, it's a symbol of what we use to wash clean with. Washing of the Holy Spirit. When Colossians says we are 'buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God,' it merely means that it is by this death and resurrection of Christ that we receive the cleansing of the Spirit. i.e., the efficacy in the cleansing of the Spirit is by Christ's work on the cross. Water is not being equated with dirt or burial, cleansing is being equated to be by Christ's work.


The amount of water, the way it is applied, or the position of water does not in any way make the sacrament of baptism valid, or invalid. In other words, to believe that immersion is the only way to baptize (as some do) is nonsense. Again, immersion is fine if that's the way we want to do it. I see nothing inherently wrong with that (2nd kings 5:14), even though I believe sprinkling is the more biblically correct. I'm not condemning immersion, but declaring that it is incorrect for Christians to think that this is the only right way to baptize. Especially with all the scriptures illustrating sprinkling. And this I believe is really the position the Church should take. The Westminster confession of faith, states:

Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person. -XXVIII:III.
In other words, they agree that either mode is a legitimate baptism, but they rightly show the scriptures illustrate cleansing by pouring or sprinkling water. They understand that the amount of water is not the issue. When we think about this coherently, what those who insist upon immersion are doing is putting the efficacy on the amount of water used, 'as if' there is some magic formula in being covered with literal water. That would be like me saying in order for a communion service to be legitimate, the bread wafer must be baked 3 days and nights because Christ was in the earth 3 days and nights. That's not sound biblical exegesis. Or if I said it must be class AAA bread used in communion only, because my Church thinks it's a better quality, or if I said that the wine must be the finest we can get, because Jesus was perfect, etc. Those kinds of man made rules or ordinances miss the mark. We don't have to be buried in water to signify being clean, or have the efficacy of being buried with Christ. That is a man made requirement, but it is not what is God's command.

Let me give you another Biblical example. Remember when Jesus was washing the feet of His Disciples and how brother Peter thought our Lord shouldn't be washing their feet?
John 13:8-10

"Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me.
Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord NOT MY FEET ONLY, but also my hands and my head!
Jesus saith to him, He that is Washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and yea are all clean, but not all.
Jesus is equating the washing of feet with water, with Salvation. He's saying, if I don't wash your feet, you're not a part of Me (Saved). He goes on to say you're clean with this washing of your feet, but not all are clean. In other words, He knew that Judas was still unsaved. He was the one 'Not Clean.' i.e., there was no efficacy in the literal water. Jesus used this washing of those made clean to illustrate being Saved. Now note 'carefully,' Jesus says if He washes just their feet, they are nonetheless clean all over. ..How can that be? Think about it! It can be because there is no efficacy in that water washing. They are not actually washed clean by that water, but by the Holy Spirit. Thereby are they clean all over. There is none of this burial business, Jesus was simply using the water as a 'sign' or token of the real cleansing. That is why only the feet need be washed and not immersing their whole body as Peter might have assumed. Because the water was 'just' a token.


That should be a lesson to us on the principle of the sacrament of baptism. And Jesus gives us the commission. As He washed our feet, so we are to go forth and wash others feet. As He Saved us, we go forth with the gospel to Save others. The great commission to evangelize the world and baptize them into Christ. And when we wash or baptize with water, we need not cover their whole body, for the efficacy is NOT in the water, or the amount of water, but of the Spirit. Judas could have been washed all over from head to toe and from dusk to dawn, and he still would remain unclean. Because it's not in the mode of applying the water or the amount of water. Likewise, a Child of God could simply have his little pinky washed, and is clean all over. For it's not in the literal water, it's in the washing of the Spirit.

And so, Sprinkling can be a legitimate baptism, as can dipping, as can dunking, as can splashing, as can washing, as can immersion. To be buried with Him in baptism, 'does not' mean we must be immersed. It's the baptism of the Holy Spirit (not Water) that Signifies that we had our sins laid upon him, were buried with Him, and we were raised up in His Resurrection. While there is nothing wrong with that way of putting the sign of baptism on believers, it is certainly not called for in scripture, nor does it invalidate sprinkling or splashing.

Unfortunately, sometimes it seems Christians tend to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I think that the principle of Romans 14:15 applies here. If our Brother eats meat, let him eat meat. If he doesn't eat meat, fine, let him not eat meat. Neither eating meat, nor not eating meat is a sin. By the same token, neither NOT baptizing by immersion, nor NOT baptizing by sprinkling, is a sin. Either way can Glorify God. Let each do their baptism to the Glory of God in faith. For whatsoever is not of faith, is Sin. If you want to be baptized by immersion, be baptized by immersion. If by Sprinkling, be baptized by Sprinkling, remembering that it is but a token of what Christ HAS done. The efficacy is not in the ceremony, it's in working of the Spirit within us. But judge not thy Brother in his mode of baptism.
And "May the Lord give us all the wisdom to discern the truth of His most holy Word".
Amen.
Peace,
Copyright 1994 Tony Warren

Emanate
Jan 9th 2009, 02:49 PM
These diverse baptisms (different washings) of the old testament do not in any way mean dippings.

True. They immersed, they did not dip.

RogerW
Jan 9th 2009, 05:14 PM
Roger has a good point Butch. From this it seems highly probable that many of Jesus disciples accepted the Baptism of John. But this begs the question. They weren't baptized in Jesus name.

Which is precisely the point! Water baptism is a sign like that of circumcision. The sacrament of water baptism points to the One, the True baptism that saves; i.e. baptism of the Holy Spirit, just as circumcision did. Just because someone receives the baptism of John, does not mean they have also been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

It seems the real differences in our beliefs is not whether or not one should or should not receive the sign, but the manner by which the sign is administered. (hence the reason for the lengthy commentary) You link water baptism to salvation by arguing it can only be given to those who profess saving faith, and it must be done by dunking one fully into the baptismal water. I argue that water baptism is a sign, pointing to the true baptism that saves, that only Christ can give. Since the water has no saving properties whatsoever, it matters not whether the one being baptized is dunked or sprinkled, and since it is a sign pointing to salvation, but not necessarily a sign of having been saved already, the sign should be given to every believer and their entire household in keeping with the instructions of Christ to be baptized in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Jan 9th 2009, 06:07 PM
Which is precisely the point! Water baptism is a sign like that of circumcision. The sacrament of water baptism points to the One, the True baptism that saves; i.e. baptism of the Holy Spirit, just as circumcision did. Just because someone receives the baptism of John, does not mean they have also been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

It seems the real differences in our beliefs is not whether or not one should or should not receive the sign, but the manner by which the sign is administered. (hence the reason for the lengthy commentary) You link water baptism to salvation by arguing it can only be given to those who profess saving faith, and it must be done by dunking one fully into the baptismal water. I argue that water baptism is a sign, pointing to the true baptism that saves, that only Christ can give. Since the water has no saving properties whatsoever, it matters not whether the one being baptized is dunked or sprinkled, and since it is a sign pointing to salvation, but not necessarily a sign of having been saved already, the sign should be given to every believer and their entire household in keeping with the instructions of Christ to be baptized in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Many Blessings,
RW

Actually, I think you have me confused with someone else. I believe Butch is the one who is convinced by scripture that God strongly correlates water baptism with repentance and salvation. I see and understand his arguments but I am not convinced as he is. I could be wrong; he could be right.

With regard to the concept of baptism as a sign, I'm not convinced that baptism IS a sign. The act itself may have symbolic meaning, which it does, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it signifies anything.

A sign has to have a tangible, physical emblem, the presence of which acts to signify something else. For instance, the rainbow acts as a sign of the covenant God made with mankind, that he would not destroy the earth again with a flood. The rainbow is tangible and visible. The circumcision, which is not normally visible, is a tangible, physical mark on the body that signifies a father's commitment to his communion with the covenant God made with Abraham.

Unlike these tangible, physical emblems, baptism does not have the essential qualities to be a sign. After the act of baptism, the water evaporates leaving nothing physical or tangible to act as an emblematic signal. It's just conceptually not the same as circumcision or the rainbow.

A Wedding ceremony, for instance, is symbolic of a couple's union, marking for society the initial point at which the couple has decided to cast their lot in with each other. At that ceremony, the couple exchanges golden rings with each other, which remains a sign of their union and the hope of its longevity.

The baptism is more akin to the wedding ceremony, symbolic yes, but not emblematic like the wedding rings. The wedding ceremony is symbolic. The Baptism is symbolic. The wedding ring is a sign. The Baptism has no corresponding physical emblem to act as a sign.

Perhaps if we all wore a thimble full of water around our neck or something . . . :)

In Romans Paul asks the question, "Do we continue to sin since Grace is increased"? To answer that question he asks another one, "what did you think you were doing when you got baptized?" (paraphrase) "Wasn't it the case that when you got baptized you decided to enter into Christ's death?" That is, when you went into the pool, you affirmed the truth of the fact that Jesus Christ paid a high penalty for your sin. An innocent man died so that you might be freed from sin. Well, if your baptism represented THAT idea, then what would motivate you to continue in sin? What seems logical to you? If you really believed that Jesus Christ came to free you from sin, and you really wanted to be freed from sin, then how is it logical that you would continue in sin, contrary to what you want? It doesn't make sense to suggest that the Gospel of Christ promotes sin, when in fact, it promotes freedom from sin.

Paul isn't teaching us about baptism here. Rather, his argument assumes a certain teaching about baptism his readers would already affirm, taking it as a given, to build his argument that those who convert to becoming Jesus' disciples will strive against sin, not increase in sin.

The common interpretation of baptism that he and his readers share, is that baptism is a person's communion with Christ's death, in acknowledgment that his death is the answer to our problem with sin.

The idea of infant baptism as a covenantal sign etc. is completely foreign to the apostles, having some other meaning outside of apostolic teaching. What you all do with your children is your business but please don't claim that it has anything to do with obedience or salvation. It doesn't. The infant can no more identify with Christ's death than he can understand that puke shouldn't come out of the mouth after each meal.

RogerW
Jan 9th 2009, 08:22 PM
[quote=BroRog;1937227]

Greetings BroRog,

Now we come back to my first reply in this thread. My initial question is in regard to how we understand the "Great Commission." In Mt 28:19 is Christ telling His disciples that teaching all nations will baptize them into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Ro 10:17). Also in Mk 16:16 "He that believes and is baptized (born again by the HS) shall be saved"... Have we linked water baptism with salvation because we have not properly discerned between the baptism of water and the true baptism that only Christ can give?

I've done my own editing in red of your reply below. I hope it will help you to see how you have confused baptism of water and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

In Romans Paul asks the question, "Do we continue to sin since Grace is increased"? To answer that question he asks another one, "what did you think you were doing when you got baptized?" "what did you think happened when you were baptized into Christ's death?" (paraphrase) "Wasn't it the case that when you got baptized you decided to enter into Christ's death?" "wasn't it the case that when you were baptized you entered into Christ's death?" That is, when you went into the pool, That is, when the Holy Spirit came upon you, you affirmed the truth of the fact that Jesus Christ paid a high penalty for your sin. through the power of the Holy Spirit you ceased doubting the truth of the fact that Jesus Christ paid a high penalty for your sin. An innocent man died so that you might be freed from sin. Well, if your baptism represented THAT idea, then what would motivate you to continue in sin? Knowing the freedom from sin you received by His death, and the power of the Holy Spirit living in you, why would you continue in sin? You know you have been freed from the power of sin. What seems logical to you? If you really believed that Jesus Christ came to free you from sin, and you really wanted to be freed from sin, then how is it logical that you would continue in sin, contrary to what you want? It doesn't make sense to suggest that the Gospel of Christ promotes sin, when in fact, it promotes freedom from sin.

Paul isn't teaching us about baptism here. Rather, his argument assumes a certain teaching about baptism his readers would already affirm, taking it as a given, to build his argument that those who convert to becoming Jesus' disciples will strive against sin, not increase in sin.

I agree! Paul is not teaching about water baptism here. He is teaching the power we received, the power to stop sinning when we received baptism into Christ's death. That is when we were baptized into Christ, Holy Spirit baptism; i.e. we were born again of the Spirit.

The common interpretation of baptism that he and his readers share, is that baptism is a person's communion with Christ's death, in acknowledgment that his death is the answer to our problem with sin.

This is common only to those who confuse water baptism with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The way to interpret baptism is to distinguish between the baptism in water and baptism of the Holy Spirit. Only in Holy Spirit baptism does a person have communion with Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Water baptism is a sign that points to the reality of Holy Spirit baptism. Some are born again by the Holy Spirit baptism, then profess faith, and are baptized in water...but some are also baptized in water then Holy Spirit baptism follows. How then can we interpret water baptism as a person's communion (partnership/fellowship) with Christ's death? It is only HS baptism that gives us communion with Christ.

The idea of infant baptism as a covenantal sign etc. is completely foreign to the apostles, having some other meaning outside of apostolic teaching. What you all do with your children is your business but please don't claim that it has anything to do with obedience or salvation. It doesn't. The infant can no more identify with Christ's death than he can understand that puke shouldn't come out of the mouth after each meal.

Not meaning to beat a dead horse to death, but again your error is looking for infant baptism in the New Testament, when you should be looking for covenant continuity, and how God's covenant has always included infants and children.

Many Blessing,
RW

BroRog
Jan 9th 2009, 10:15 PM
[quote=BroRog;1937227]
Not meaning to beat a dead horse to death, but again your error is looking for infant baptism in the New Testament, when you should be looking for covenant continuity, and how God's covenant has always included infants and children.

Many Blessing,
RW

My "error" if you will, is that I don't go looking for anything when I read the New Testament. It isn't up to me to find what isn't already there. To be specific, my hermeneutic does not involve a process like the following.

1. Read and Study the Westminster Confession.

2. Study a Bible passage.

3. Find a way to make the passage either say something about Jesus or confirm the Westminster Confession.

4. Once having achieved number 3, preach it.

Rather, I throw away all the confessions and creeds. Then I read the Bible in order to understand what IT wants to say to me. Then I believe what it says.


So no, I am not going to go looking for "covenant continuity". If that is an error, so be it.

graceforme
Jan 10th 2009, 02:04 PM
Either you are not reading my posts, or you are being deliberately obtuse! Have a nice day!

Many Blessings,
RW


Well, either you're not expressing yourself clearly, or you don't have an inkling of what you're talking about, and I will have a nice day. You do the same.

God bless.