View Full Version : The Jesus/Disciple Baptisms of the Gospels: Why?
John 3: 22-36
John the Baptist's Testimony About Jesus
22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. 24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."
27To this John replied, "A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. 28You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ[j] but am sent ahead of him.' 29The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30He must become greater; I must become less.
31"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[k] gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[l]
John 4: 1-3
1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.
===============================================
A few questions for my PAJC friends:
1. If baptism is necessary because we must re-enact in obedience the burial of Christ and it also remits/ washes away sin ... Why did Jesus and/or his disciples baptize prior to HIS DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION? And how could the blood be applied in these baptisms if no blood had been shed yet? Was this a pre-baptism?
------------------------------------------------
2. Notice that verse 25 of chapter 3 notes that to the Jewish believer baptism has always been traditionally viewed as a ceremonial washing ... Why do you view it as act that mitigates grace by resulting in salvation?
------------------------------------------------------
3. When John the Baptist, who was filled w/ the Holy Ghost, had the opportunity to clearly answer his disciples questions about the nature of Jesus' baptism ... yet he doesn't go into the standard Water & Spirit Jesus name 3 step process of salvation doctrine ... or assert that the Jesus' baptism would cause salvation ...
but rather reiterates the same point Jesus made to Nicodemus in verse 18 of chapter 3
Jesus said:
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
John said:
36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[l]
Why didn't he give his disciples an intro to the 3 step process? But rather states that belief in the Son results in eternal life?
----------------------------------------------------
4. It seems counterproductive, under the PAJC view of salvation, for Jesus and/or his believers to baptize believers years prior to the outpouring of the baptism of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2 ... no? Wouldn't these "pre-baptized" saints' souls be in jeopardy during the interim having not been "filled" because they hadn't spoken in tongues yet? ? If they died w/o speaking in tongues would they fall under the old or new covenant?
--------------------------------------------------------
5. [I]This one is for Elder Epley --
In the past you have asserted the keys Jesus gave to Simon Peter were the keys of Acts 2:38 salvation ... Do you think Peter officiated over any of these baptisms in John 3 and 4? Did he get the keys prior to Matthew 16 ...? If he participated in officiating in any of these baptisms did he let the "cat out of the bag" so to speak? Did he share the keys w/ the other disciples in John 3 and 4?
I need an 'on fire' PAJCer to explain these baptisms to me. Please.
mizpeh
07-22-2007, 04:30 AM
Jesus and his disciples also went about preaching the gospel. What gospel do you think they preached?
Matt 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
It couldn't have been this one:
1 Cor 15: 1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Because Christ had not died, nor been buried, nor risen from the dead.
I don't know the answer to your questions. But it would seem that John's baptism, the baptism of repentence for the remission of sins, must have been just that. If sins were remitted by John's baptism and we would assume the Jesus' baptism then it is an odd that Jesus commanded those who came to him (the healed leper)to keep the law of Moses while he was alive.
What is ceremonial washing?
Jesus and his disciples also went about preaching the gospel. What gospel do you think they preached?
Matt 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
It couldn't have been this one:
1 Cor 15: 1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Because Christ had not died, nor been buried, nor risen from the dead.
I don't know the answer to your questions. But it would seem that John's baptism, the baptism of repentence for the remission of sins, must have been just that. If sins were remitted by John's baptism and we would assume the Jesus' baptism then it is an odd that Jesus commanded those who came to him (the healed leper)to keep the law of Moses while he was alive.
What is ceremonial washing?
1. Are you suggesting that John's baptism also caused the remission of sins?
Is it me or would asserting this bring an inherent theological contradiction to the PAJC view of salvation?
Why would some of John's disciples be re-baptized again if their sins had already been remitted under John's baptism?
Clearly, the divergence between PAJC and PCI lies partially in our answers to what baptism means and does for the believer.
------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why would it be odd that Jesus told the leper to keep the law of Moses while he was alive if Jesus himself did? Many Jewish Christians after the ascension kept it too? No?
There have been quite a few posts by Sam, FreeatLast and Ronzo on ceremonial washing, or Mikveh .... Here is one that is very informative that you read.
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=5989&page=2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Also, Miz, What scriptures was Paul referring to in 1 Cor 15? The NT? I think not. Had the Gospels been fully circulated by then? I don't know.
These repentant believers that were baptized before Acts 2:38, had knowledge of the scriptures that the Christ would save them from their sins and acted upon the Word... Isn't this what faith is ... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The moment they put their entire trust in Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah ... even prior to Him fulfilling these things they were part of the Kingdom that had been andwas being preached ... only to be then considered disciples. Yes ... even prior to speaking in tongues.
You asked what gospel they were preaching? Are there 2 gospels? They preached that that the Kingdom of God was at hand!!! Behold the Lamb of God that takes away our sins.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Perhaps the answers to the questions being posed are not as deep as we think? Maybe these believers that were "pre- baptized" were 1/2 saved? Or partially circumcised into the body?
For those who ask the question did Jesus baptize or did the apostles baptize [obviously commissioned to so] ... I say both did ...
the writer states so ...
John 3
22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.
John 4
1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.
The question here is not who but why
J-Roc
07-22-2007, 01:31 PM
HeadMaster Dan, it looks like you've cornered Mizpeh and are forcing her to answer some honest hard questions....I hope she passes the test.
Jesus and his disciples also went about preaching the gospel. What gospel do you think they preached?
Matt 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
It couldn't have been this one:
1 Cor 15: 1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Because Christ had not died, nor been buried, nor risen from the dead.
I don't know the answer to your questions. But it would seem that John's baptism, the baptism of repentence for the remission of sins, must have been just that. If sins were remitted by John's baptism and we would assume the Jesus' baptism then it is an odd that Jesus commanded those who came to him (the healed leper)to keep the law of Moses while he was alive.
What is ceremonial washing?
John's baptism was a baptism unto repentance. The apostle's baptism was a baptism unto salvation. Therein lies the difference.
Steve Epley
07-22-2007, 01:54 PM
:winkgrinJohn 3: 22-36
John the Baptist's Testimony About Jesus
22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. 24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."
27To this John replied, "A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. 28You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ[j] but am sent ahead of him.' 29The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30He must become greater; I must become less.
31"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[k] gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[l]
John 4: 1-3
1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.
===============================================
A few questions for my PAJC friends:
1. If baptism is necessary because we must re-enact in obedience the burial of Christ and it also remits/ washes away sin ... Why did Jesus and/or his disciples baptize prior to HIS DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION? And how could the blood be applied in these baptisms if no blood had been shed yet? Was this a pre-baptism?
------------------------------------------------
2. Notice that verse 25 of chapter 3 notes that to the Jewish believer baptism has always been traditionally viewed as a ceremonial washing ... Why do you view it as act that mitigates grace by resulting in salvation?
------------------------------------------------------
3. When John the Baptist, who was filled w/ the Holy Ghost, had the opportunity to clearly answer his disciples questions about the nature of Jesus' baptism ... yet he doesn't go into the standard Water & Spirit Jesus name 3 step process of salvation doctrine ... or assert that the Jesus' baptism would cause salvation ...
but rather reiterates the same point Jesus made to Nicodemus in verse 18 of chapter 3
Jesus said:
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
John said:
36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[l]
Why didn't he give his disciples an intro to the 3 step process? But rather states that belief in the Son results in eternal life?
----------------------------------------------------
4. It seems counterproductive, under the PAJC view of salvation, for Jesus and/or his believers to baptize believers years prior to the outpouring of the baptism of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2 ... no? Wouldn't these "pre-baptized" saints' souls be in jeopardy during the interim having not been "filled" because they hadn't spoken in tongues yet? ? If they died w/o speaking in tongues would they fall under the old or new covenant?
--------------------------------------------------------
5. [I]This one is for Elder Epley --
In the past you have asserted the keys Jesus gave to Simon Peter were the keys of Acts 2:38 salvation ... Do you think Peter officiated over any of these baptisms in John 3 and 4? Did he get the keys prior to Matthew 16 ...? If he participated in officiating in any of these baptisms did he let the "cat out of the bag" so to speak? Did he share the keys w/ the other disciples in John 3 and 4?
I need an 'on fire' PAJCer to explain these baptisms to me. Please.
I am happy to answer these simple uncomplicated questions to clear them up for you. I would have answered sooner if you had asked.:winkgrin
1. Remission of sins were in veiw. Jesus was to be the sin bearer through His vicarious death-burial-resurrection thus it for-shadowed it. However this destroys your misconception of "for" the remission they were baptized NOT because their sins were ALREADY remitted they were baptizing looking UNTO the remission of sins accomplished at Calvary.
2. The ceremonial washing is YOUR words NOT the words of scripture. Baptism fulfils righteousness Jesus said Mt. 3:15. John's baptism was NOT a ceremonial washing.
3. The term is BelievETH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Noah believed and built and ark, Moses believed and observed passover ETC. BelieVETH is to DO what is required of faith NOT FAITH ALONE!
4. The Testament is NOT in force until the Testator (Heb. 9:15-16) thus if they had died before recieving the the HGB they would have been judged like every OT saint. Surely you can do better than this?
5. I have no idea the Bible does not say??? Makes no difference Jesus did give him the keys much to your dismay and when the time came he used them. I do know how he baptized after Pentecost and I know Who gave him the instructions and he obeyed the command and did it for remission of sins in Jesus Name.
NOW FOR YOU: Since the sins of those baptized under John & Jesus were NOT baptized BECAUSE THEIR SINS HAD ALREADY BEEN REMITTED why would you believe a SILLY unbiblical doctrine like that????????????:winkgrin EVERYONE them were baptized LOOKING FORWARD UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS ACCOMPLISHED BY HIS DEATH-BURIAL-RESURRECTION?:winkgrin:winkgrin
SHOUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:choir:choir:c hoir
Steve Epley
07-22-2007, 01:55 PM
1. Are you suggesting that John's baptism also caused the remission of sins?
Is it me or would asserting this bring an inherent theological contradiction to the PAJC view of salvation?
Why would some of John's disciples be re-baptized again if their sins had already been remitted under John's baptism?
Clearly, the divergence between PAJC and PCI lies partially in our answers to what baptism means and does for the believer.
------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why would it be odd that Jesus told the leper to keep the law of Moses while he was alive if Jesus himself did? Many Jewish Christians after the ascension kept it too? No?
There have been quite a few posts by Sam, FreeatLast and Ronzo on ceremonial washing, or Mikveh .... Here is one that is very informative that you read.
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=5989&page=2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Also, Miz, What scriptures was Paul referring to in 1 Cor 15? The NT? I think not. Had the Gospels been fully circulated by then? I don't know.
These repentant believers that were baptized before Acts 2:38, had knowledge of the scriptures that the Christ would save them from their sins and acted upon the Word... Isn't this what faith is ... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The moment they put their entire trust in Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah ... even prior to Him fulfilling these things they were part of the Kingdom that had been andwas being preached ... only to be then considered disciples. Yes ... even prior to speaking in tongues.
You asked what gospel they were preaching? Are there 2 gospels? They preached that that the Kingdom of God was at hand!!! Behold the Lamb of God that takes away our sins.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Perhaps the answers to the questions being posed are not as deep as we think? Maybe these believers that were "pre- baptized" were 1/2 saved? Or partially circumcised into the body?
2. BECAUSE THE NAME OF JESUS WAS NOT INVOKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve Epley
07-22-2007, 01:56 PM
HeadMaster Dan, it looks like you've cornered Mizpeh and are forcing her to answer some honest hard questions....I hope she passes the test.
What hard questions???????????? I have had kindergardners ask harder questions than these.:winkgrin:winkgrin:winkgrin
What hard questions???????????? I have had kindergardners ask harder questions than these.:winkgrin:winkgrin:winkgrin
The hardest question to answer is "Why?", so yes, I believe kindergartners have asked harder questions. LOL!
John's baptism was a baptism unto repentance. The apostle's baptism was a baptism unto salvation. Therein lies the difference.
Really?? It it's amazing how eis here is conveniently used by PAJCer as unto when John mentions it but not in when referencing Peter in Acts .... the same eis Elder Epley thinks is translated by EVERY GREEK SCHOLAR to mean to cause because he uses an appeal to authority cut and paste job .....
Let's look at the inconsistency of this argument.
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luke 3:3
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Prior to Jesus' public ministry, John the Baptist had preached a baptism of repentance for remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion; Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). Those people who rejected John's baptism rejected for themselves the counsel of God (Luke 7:29, 30). Its purpose is identical with the purposes suggested for Jesus' death (Matthew 26:28) and for the baptism of Pentecost (Acts 2:38).
Jesus died (shed His blood) in order that people could have remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion; Matthew 26:28). Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). No one could argue that Jesus died because sins had already been forgiven. He purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). With His blood He purchased a people for His own possession (Titus 2:14). He died for our sins (huper ton hamartion; I Corinthians 15:3).
Jesus, after the resurrection, informed His disciples that it was written that the Christ should suffer and be raised on the third day and that repentance and the remission of sins (eis aphesis hamartion) be preached in His name unto all the nations (Luke 24:47). Would anyone want to argue that repentance is to be done because sins have already been forgiven?
In each of these verses, the phrase is the same as that in Acts 2:38--eis aphesin hamartion. If one case means "because of," then all should mean that.
EVERYONE them were baptized LOOKING FORWARD UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS ACCOMPLISHED BY HIS DEATH-BURIAL-RESURRECTION
A hearty AMEN Elder!!! You've nailed it.
these pre-baptized saints ... baptized before Acts 2:38 were making a public confession of faith looking forward ....to HIS DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION!!!
Now did those baptized in Acts get baptized LOOKING BACK to THE WORK OF THE LAMB <<<<< That would fly in the face of many of the eis arguments made by PAJCers ....????
Really?? It it's amazing how eis here is conveniently used by PAJCer as unto when John mentions it but not in when referencing Peter in Acts .... the same eis Elder Epley thinks is translated by EVERY GREEK SCHOLAR to mean to cause because he uses an appeal to authority cut and paste job .....
Let's look at the inconsistency of this argument.
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luke 3:3
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Prior to Jesus' public ministry, John the Baptist had preached a baptism of repentance for remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion; Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). Those people who rejected John's baptism rejected for themselves the counsel of God (Luke 7:29, 30). Its purpose is identical with the purposes suggested for Jesus' death (Matthew 26:28) and for the baptism of Pentecost (Acts 2:38).
Jesus died (shed His blood) in order that people could have remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion; Matthew 26:28). Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). No one could argue that Jesus died because sins had already been forgiven. He purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). With His blood He purchased a people for His own possession (Titus 2:14). He died for our sins (huper ton hamartion; I Corinthians 15:3).
Jesus, after the resurrection, informed His disciples that it was written that the Christ should suffer and be raised on the third day and that repentance and the remission of sins (eis aphesis hamartion) be preached in His name unto all the nations (Luke 24:47). Would anyone want to argue that repentance is to be done because sins have already been forgiven?
In each of these verses, the phrase is the same as that in Acts 2:38--eis aphesin hamartion. If one case means "because of," then all should mean that.
It sounds to me like you are saying there is no difference in John's baptism and the Apostle's baptism. If that were true, then why were John's disciples rebaptized in the Book of Acts?
Ac 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Ac 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Steve Epley
07-22-2007, 02:11 PM
Really?? It it's amazing how eis here is conveniently used by PAJCer as unto when John mentions it but not in when referencing Peter in Acts .... the same eis Elder Epley thinks is translated by EVERY GREEK SCHOLAR to mean to cause because he uses an appeal to authority cut and paste job .....
Let's look at the inconsistency of this argument.
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luke 3:3
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Prior to Jesus' public ministry, John the Baptist had preached a baptism of repentance for remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion; Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). Those people who rejected John's baptism rejected for themselves the counsel of God (Luke 7:29, 30). Its purpose is identical with the purposes suggested for Jesus' death (Matthew 26:28) and for the baptism of Pentecost (Acts 2:38).
Jesus died (shed His blood) in order that people could have remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion; Matthew 26:28). Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). No one could argue that Jesus died because sins had already been forgiven. He purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). With His blood He purchased a people for His own possession (Titus 2:14). He died for our sins (huper ton hamartion; I Corinthians 15:3).
Jesus, after the resurrection, informed His disciples that it was written that the Christ should suffer and be raised on the third day and that repentance and the remission of sins (eis aphesis hamartion) be preached in His name unto all the nations (Luke 24:47). Would anyone want to argue that repentance is to be done because sins have already been forgiven?
In each of these verses, the phrase is the same as that in Acts 2:38--eis aphesin hamartion. If one case means "because of," then all should mean that.
Have you seen the light???????????????? Praise the Lord Dan is back in the camp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
EVERYONE OF THESE MEANS IN ORDER TO NOT ONCE DOES IT MEAN BECAUSE OF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHOUT FOLKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! It took awhile but Dan is back with the Bible on baptism.
FOR(in order to) the remission of sins and Jesus had not died!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOKING UNTO NOT BEHIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!
J-Roc
07-22-2007, 02:12 PM
A hearty AMEN Elder!!! You've nailed it.
these pre-baptized saints ... baptized before Acts 2:38 were making a public confession of faith looking forward ....to HIS DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION!!!
Now did those baptized in Acts get baptized LOOKING BACK to THE WORK OF THE LAMB <<<<< That would fly in the face of many of the eis arguments made by PAJCers ....????
Where did you get that quote from...who said that?
J-Roc
07-22-2007, 02:15 PM
Have you seen the light???????????????? Praise the Lord Dan is back in the camp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
EVERYONE OF THESE MEANS IN ORDER TO NOT ONCE DOES IT MEAN BECAUSE OF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHOUT FOLKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! It took awhile but Dan is back with the Bible on baptism.
FOR(in order to) the remission of sins and Jesus had not died!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOKING UNTO NOT BEHIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!
Dan, I think you need to explain the "huper ton hamartion" part to him...what else is new?
Have you seen the light???????????????? Praise the Lord Dan is back in the camp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
EVERYONE OF THESE MEANS IN ORDER TO NOT ONCE DOES IT MEAN BECAUSE OF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHOUT FOLKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! It took awhile but Dan is back with the Bible on baptism.
FOR(in order to) the remission of sins and Jesus had not died!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOKING UNTO NOT BEHIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!
You have serious reading comprehension issues!!! LOL!!!
Unto ... does not mean IN ORDER TO ...
I submit that "eis" in it's truest sense ...
does not mean "in order to"
nor is not best translated into "because of" .... although it is a truer translation than the first ...
eis means with a view towards ... or "unto" ....
Those believers were baptized because they sought to publicly profess their belief in the Lamb of God who would take away their sins ...
Those baptized post the ascension do the same .... but with a view towards the Lamb of God that was slain ....
but the act was never construed to the be the agency or the cause of the salvation ....
Titus 3:5 says:
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
It sounds to me like you are saying there is no difference in John's baptism and the Apostle's baptism. If that were true, then why were John's disciples rebaptized in the Book of Acts?
Ac 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Ac 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
They did so to to make a public confession that they believe in th Son of God .... they were now Christians and did what we all do after being saved and justified by the blood ... they were baptized.
Next question ....
This is what you PAJCers don't get ... we're not against baptism but look at its true purpose.
It sounds to me like you are saying there is no difference in John's baptism and the Apostle's baptism. If that were true, then why were John's disciples rebaptized in the Book of Acts?
Ac 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Ac 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
They did so to to make a public confession that they believed in the Son of God .... they were now Christians and did what we all do after being saved and justified by the blood ... they were baptized.
Next question ....
This is what you PAJCers don't get ... we're not against baptism but look at its true purpose.
They did so to to make a public confession that they believe in th Son of God .... they were now Christians and did what we all do after being saved and justified by the blood ... they were baptized.
Next question ....
This is what you PAJCers don't get ... we're not against baptism but look at its true purpose.
If all they wanted to do was make a public confession then they could have done just that, without getting baptized. What's the deal, don't you believe in baptism as being required for salvation?
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 02:45 PM
A few questions for my PAJC friends:
1. If baptism is necessary because we must re-enact in obedience the burial of Christ and it also remits/ washes away sin ... Why did Jesus and/or his disciples baptize prior to HIS DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION? And how could the blood be applied in these baptisms if no blood had been shed yet? Was this a pre-baptism?
Water baptism IS symbolic of his buriel and resurrection, can you deny that? IF you agree then perhaps you can answer why they were practicing it before Jesus actually died? Well simply, there is no requirement in the bible that it must only be practiced AFTER Jesus died.
They practiced it before hand because they were making disciples before Jesus died. Baptism was sort of an initiation of discipleship. The disciples of John were baptized into Johns baptism, when they realized who the Messiah was and were to become HIS disciples, they were re baptized into Jesus's baptism (see Acts 19).
They also practiced repentance...what does that show?
2. Notice that verse 25 of chapter 3 notes that to the Jewish believer baptism has always been traditionally viewed as a ceremonial washing ... Why do you view it as act that mitigates grace by resulting in salvation?
The Jews had a view of ceremonial washings or baptisms. That does not mean John's baptism or Jesus's baptism were merely ceremonial. They would have to be specific laws in order for it to be a ceremonial washing of the law. That some disciples of John and a Jew had a dispute over ceremonial baptisms does not make John's and Jesus's merely ceremonial in nature. In fact the question could suppose that if John's baptism was ceremonial in nature then perhaps Jesus was putting aside the idea that it was ceremonial in nature and their question and confusion was over why Jesus was gaining more disiciples and baptizing more and John does not do anything...John's reply was
Joh 3:26 So they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, the one who was with you on the other side of the Jordan River, about whom you testified — see, he is baptizing, and everyone is flocking to him!"
Joh 3:27 John replied, "No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven.
Joh 3:28 You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ,' but rather, 'I have been sent before him.'
Joh 3:29 The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands by and listens for him, rejoices greatly when he hears the bridegroom's voice. This then is my joy, and it is complete.
Joh 3:30 He must become more important while I become less important."
See, John's baptism was merely there to pave the way for Jesus...who is the true baptizer. John's baptism then HAD to be symbolic. But does that mean Christ's was ONLY symbolic? There is no reason from this text to assert that. That is pure conjecture
The NET commentary has some interesting insight into the question
sn What was the controversy concerning ceremonial washing? It is not clear. Some have suggested that it was over the relative merits of the baptism of Jesus and John. But what about the ceremonial nature of the washing? There are so many unanswered questions here that even R. E. Brown (who does not usually resort to dislocations in the text as a solution to difficulties) proposes that this dialogue originally took place immediately after Joh_1:19-34 and before the wedding at Cana. (Why else the puzzled hostility of the disciples over the crowds coming to Jesus?)
Also, the synoptics imply John was imprisoned before Jesus began his Galilean ministry. At any rate, there is no reason to rearrange the material here--it occurs in this place for a very good reason. As far as the author is concerned, it serves as a further continuation of the point made to Nicodemus, that is, the necessity of being born "from above" (Joh_3:3). Note that John the Baptist describes Jesus as "the one who comes from heaven" in Joh_3:31 (ἄνωθεν [anōthen], the same word as in Joh_3:3). There is another lexical tie to preceding material: The subject of the dispute, ceremonial washing (Joh_3:25), calls to mind the six stone jars of water changed to wine at the wedding feast in Joh_2:6, put there for "Jewish ceremonial washing." This section ultimately culminates and concludes ideas begun in chapter 2 and continued in chapter 3.
Although the author does not supply details, one scenario would be this: The disciples of John, perplexed after this disagreement with an individual Jew (or with the Jewish authorities), came to John and asked about the fact that Jesus was baptizing and more and more were coming to him. John had been preaching a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sin (see Mar_1:4, Luk_3:3). Possibly what the Jew(s) reported to John's disciples was that Jesus was now setting aside the Jewish purification rituals as unnecessary. To John's disciples this might also be interpreted as: (a) a falling away from Judaism, and (b) a break with John's own teaching.
That Jesus could have said this is very evident from many incidents in his ministry in all the gospels. The thrust would be that outward cleansing (that is, observance of purification rituals) was not what made a person clean. A new heart within (that is, being born from above) is what makes a person clean. So John's disciples came to him troubled about an apparent contradiction in doctrine though the explicit problem they mentioned is that Jesus was baptizing and multitudes were coming to him. (Whether Jesus was or was not baptizing really wasn't the issue though, and John the Baptist knew that because he didn't mention it in his reply. In Joh_4:2 the author says that Jesus was not baptizing, but his disciples. That reference would seem to cover this incident as well, and so the disciples of John are just reporting what they have heard, or thought they heard.)
The real point at issue is the authority of Jesus to "overturn" the system of ritual purification within Judaism. John replied to this question of the authority of Jesus in Joh_3:27-36. In Joh_3:27-30 he reassured his disciples, reminding them that if more people were coming to Jesus, it did not threaten him at all, because "heaven" had ordained it to be so (Joh_3:27). (After all, some of these very disciples of John had presumably heard him tell the Jewish delegation that he was not the Messiah but was sent before him, mentioned in John 1.) Then John compared himself to the friend of the bridegroom who stands by and yet participates in the bridegroom's joy (Joh_3:29). John was completely content in his own position as forerunner and preparer of the way.
Lastly, the word ceremonial is not in the greek, so the whole thing is translated from one word. I say that because there is no way to look up the meaning of ceremonial without just going to the dictionary. So I might ask what is it that you think ceremonial means that it means baptism has absolutely nothing to do with necessity of salvation?
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 02:45 PM
3. When John the Baptist, who was filled w/ the Holy Ghost, had the opportunity to clearly answer his disciples questions about the nature of Jesus' baptism ... yet he doesn't go into the standard Water & Spirit Jesus name 3 step process of salvation doctrine ... or assert that the Jesus' baptism would cause salvation ...
but rather reiterates the same point Jesus made to Nicodemus in verse 18 of chapter 3
Jesus said:
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
John said:
36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[l]
Why didn't he give his disciples an intro to the 3 step process? But rather states that belief in the Son results in eternal life?Notice John DIDN'T also go into what Jesus said in verse 3-5 about being born again...does that mean John was saying we don't need to be born again? This in no way disproves the necessity of water baptism in Jesus name. In fact he also NEVER told his disciples there that they would need to be rebaptized in Jesus name, but that is exactly what happened in Acts 19. So there isn't much point here to respond to. Why why why? Unanswered Why's abound but don't prove anything. Additionally, it was not up to John to do this. He only laid a foundation of repentance and pointed to Christ.
4. It seems counterproductive, under the PAJC view of salvation, for Jesus and/or his believers to baptize believers years prior to the outpouring of the baptism of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2 ... no?
No...in fact you'd have to be more specific than just allude to your feelings. Give some facts that show this is not merely you thinking it "seems" that way. Give some facts that would make someone else that is going by facts understand that this is somehow counterproductive under their view...and make sure you represent their view accurately too :-)
Wouldn't these "pre-baptized" saints' souls be in jeopardy during the interim having not been "filled" because they hadn't spoken in tongues yet? ? If they died w/o speaking in tongues would they fall under the old or new covenant?During the interim between what? Why would THEY be in jeopardy as opposed to anyone else that was NOT already water baptized? This would then logically mean ANYONE during the interim was in jeopardy. I don't believe anyone before Jesus came, during his life or just after his death but before Pentecost was lost simply because Peter had not preached Acts 2:38 yet. As for the PAJCers, I believe they usually say they were all still under the law and covered by that, which is a bogus argument since nobody was saved BY the law. However the baptism of Jesus transcends the law since it's practiced after the law and even with gentiles.
5. This one is for Elder Epley --
In the past you have asserted the keys Jesus gave to Simon Peter were the keys of Acts 2:38 salvation ... Do you think Peter officiated over any of these baptisms in John 3 and 4? Did he get the keys prior to Matthew 16 ...? If he participated in officiating in any of these baptisms did he let the "cat out of the bag" so to speak? Did he share the keys w/ the other disciples in John 3 and 4?I'll respond anyways. I don't know everything, however this I know...Even Peter was a little clueless of all the whats and hows till after Jesus was resurrected as evidenced by His discourse with the disciples over why Jesus had to do and going to Jerusalem where repentance and remission of sins would begin to be preached. Being given the "keys" really was more about authority than knowledge. The commission was done after Jesus died. Even afterwards, AFTER Jesus went up, he continued to give instructions to the disciples through the Holy Spirit.
I need an 'on fire' PAJCer to explain these baptisms to me. Please.Im more interested in what the bible actually says and why than some idiotic competition between acronyms :winkgrin
If all they wanted to do was make a public confession then they could have done just that, without getting baptized. What's the deal, don't you believe in baptism as being required for salvation?
Commandments are just that, Rico ... commandments.
Yet there isn't a thing or work of righteousness you and I can do to fulfill a requirement for salvation .... We are baptized because of what HE DID ... not to re-enact in obedience HIS DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION ...
if that's the case then did the apostles preach this in their bible studies to prospective believers in John 3 and 4 .... Imagine if they had used the PAJC soteriological view ... on this ... those believers would have laughed in their faces ... they did it as the Elder said with a view unto what HE WOULD DO ....
J-Roc
07-22-2007, 02:46 PM
If all they wanted to do was make a public confession then they could have done just that, without getting baptized. What's the deal, don't you believe in baptism as being required for salvation?
Absolutely and indubitably NOT!
Praxeas ... are you stating they weren't commissioned in John 3 and 4???
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 02:48 PM
BTW have any of you ever noticed a somewhat short post is said to be too long to post? I've had this happen a number of times and the reason is when you have a lot of scripture citations (not the actual verses, but the chapter book and number)....the script here underlines them. You've probably noticed that. Well in WYSIWYG mode you don't see it, but in edit mode you see that this is a link to Gateway or whereever, to look up the bible passage and all that link information is taking up the character space needed to post. If you high lite all your text and then hit the "remove link" butten at the top of your edit window, it will remove all that extra character spacing and make your posts shorter to the board software
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 02:50 PM
Praxeas ... are you stating they weren't commissioned in John 3 and 4???
There are several different commissions. The 70 were commissioned to go out and preach the kingdom and cast out devils and heal etc etc, but that was a different commission than at the end of the synaptic gospels.
BTW commission is more about authority than what to do...being commissioned means they had power, but not necessarily all the facts yet
I don't believe anyone before Jesus came, during his life or just after his death but before Pentecost was lost simply because Peter had not preached Acts 2:38 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+2%3A38) yet. As for the PAJCers, I believe they usually say they were all still under the law and covered by that, which is a bogus argument since nobody was saved BY the law. However the baptism of Jesus transcends the law since it's practiced after the law and even with gentiles.
I can agree with this ... especially the bogus saved by the Law argument ... they were saved by faith in Jesus Christ ... like you and I.
J-Roc
07-22-2007, 02:51 PM
BTW have any of you ever noticed a somewhat short post is said to be too long to post? I've had this happen a number of times and the reason is when you have a lot of scripture citations (not the actual verses, but the chapter book and number)....the script here underlines them. You've probably noticed that. Well in WYSIWYG mode you don't see it, but in edit mode you see that this is a link to Gateway or whereever, to look up the bible passage and all that link information is taking up the character space needed to post. If you high lite all your text and then hit the "remove link" butten at the top of your edit window, it will remove all that extra character spacing and make your posts shorter to the board software
Prax...you have no short posts. :slaphappy
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 02:52 PM
If all they wanted to do was make a public confession then they could have done just that, without getting baptized. What's the deal, don't you believe in baptism as being required for salvation?
Well consider this. IF and I say IF all baptism is is a public confession then it has become just as salvational unwittingly....
Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
If to be baptized in Jesus name is a public confession of Jesus then to NOT be baptized in Jesus name before men is also a denial
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 02:53 PM
Prax...you have no short posts. :slaphappy
Actually I have several short posts...ALL my posts are short....I just happen to conglomerate most of them into one long post :winkgrin
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 02:54 PM
I can agree with this ... especially the bogus saved by the Law argument ... they were saved by faith in Jesus Christ ... like you and I.
They were, YET none of those that were saved under the law were disobedient to the law
They were, YET none of those that were saved under the law were disobedient to the law
Nor could they fulfill it all ... PAUL tells us that doing so was downright impossible.
Well consider this. IF and I say IF all baptism is is a public confession then it has become just as salvational unwittingly....
Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
If to be baptized in Jesus name is a public confession of Jesus then to NOT be baptized in Jesus name before men is also a denial
Here is the giant leap in logic that bothers me Jesus talks about Himself ... Praxeas jumps to formulaic baptism ... one doesnt deny Jesus because of a formula pronounced over a believer by a third person ...
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 03:02 PM
Nor could they fulfill it all ... PAUL tells us that doing so was downright impossible.
That is a deceptive way of putting it. Paul never said they could not fulfill all of it. They DID fulfill all of it. Paul said concerning the law he was blameless.
What Paul and James meant was that nobody was at any one time perfect in the law, in other words they might have fulfilled ALL the laws ceremonial requirements at one time or another and have lived somewhat righteously according to the law at one time or another, but just ONE sin at anytime even if it was interspersed by many years, meant legalally speaking they have broken the whole law and were guilty. It was not impossible to FULFILL the law. It was impossible to keep all the moral law requirements all the time without ever once sinning.
Maybe a better word is "Nor could they KEEP it all at all times, Paul tells us that doing so was downright impossible"
Php 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Absolutely and indubitably NOT!
In that case what do you with Mark 16:16, chunk it out the window?
Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Well consider this. IF and I say IF all baptism is is a public confession then it has become just as salvational unwittingly....
Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
If to be baptized in Jesus name is a public confession of Jesus then to NOT be baptized in Jesus name before men is also a denial
Good point, Bro.
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 03:05 PM
Here is the giant leap in logic that bothers me Jesus talks about Himself ... Praxeas jumps to formulaic baptism ... one doesnt deny Jesus because of a formula pronounced over a believer by a third person ...
Dan, the leap is your assumption that I think this is a formula. Sheeeesh. This is your topic and you brought up Jesus's baptism and what Peter preached so the assumption is set up by YOU that baptism in Jesus name, that Peter preached in Acts 2:38 and that the PAJCers believe in, was done BEFORE Jesus actually died. Come on, get back to the topic Dan and stop the red herrings and strawmen arguments.
I never said one denies Jesus BECAUSE of a formula pronounced blah blah blah...
I said IF baptism in Jesus name is merely a public confession of Christ. I didn't raise the issue that baptism in Jesus name is a public confession. I merely pointed out what Jesus said.
That is a deceptive way of putting it. Paul never said they could not fulfill all of it. They DID fulfill all of it. Paul said concerning the law he was blameless.
What Paul and James meant was that nobody was at any one time perfect in the law, in other words they might have fulfilled ALL the laws ceremonial requirements at one time or another and have lived somewhat righteously according to the law at one time or another, but just ONE sin at anytime even if it was interspersed by many years, meant legalally speaking they have broken the whole law and were guilty. It was not impossible to FULFILL the law. It was impossible to keep all the moral law requirements all the time without ever once sinning.
Maybe a better word is "Nor could they KEEP it all at all times, Paul tells us that doing so was downright impossible"
Php 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
I think you what I was saying ... now back on point. No reason to qualify it as DECEPTIVE ...
Dan, the leap is your assumption that I think this is a formula. Sheeeesh. This is your topic and you brought up Jesus's baptism and what Peter preached so the assumption is set up by YOU that baptism in Jesus name, that Peter preached in Acts 2:38 and that the PAJCers believe in, was done BEFORE Jesus actually died. Come on, get back to the topic Dan and stop the red herrings and strawmen arguments.
I never said one denies Jesus BECAUSE of a formula pronounced blah blah blah...
I said IF baptism in Jesus name is merely a public confession of Christ. I didn't raise the issue that baptism in Jesus name is a public confession. I merely pointed out what Jesus said.
No strawman here ... these are YOUR WORDS ...
If to be baptized in Jesus name is a public confession of Jesus then to NOT be baptized in Jesus name before men is also a denial
AND YOU LINKED IT TO A VERSE SPEAKING ABOUT JESUS HIMSELF.
No strawman here ... these are YOUR WORDS ...
If to be baptized in Jesus name is a public confession of Jesus then to NOT be baptized in Jesus name before men is also a denial
AND YOU LINKED IT TO A VERSE SPEAKING ABOUT JESUS HIMSELF.
Come on Dan. You are smarter than this. He was only saying that "IF" what you are saying is true then the opposite would also have to be true.
Come on Dan. You are smarter than this. He was only saying that "IF" what you are saying is true then the opposite would also have to be true.
and his prooftext holds no water ... just demystifying it for rest of the crowd.
Back on point.
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 03:19 PM
No strawman here ... these are YOUR WORDS ...
If to be baptized in Jesus name is a public confession of Jesus then to NOT be baptized in Jesus name before men is also a denial
AND YOU LINKED IT TO A VERSE SPEAKING ABOUT JESUS HIMSELF.
Right see the IF part Dan? Im responding to what someone else said. IF we are talking about baptism in Jesus name being a public confession THEN...
If someone is going to assert that baptism in Jesus name is merely a public confession, then I think this verse is applicable.
IF, however, one is going to assert that any generic baptism is a public confession of faith in Christ then they need to be prepared to show HOW any generic baptism is a public confession of Christ.
And again, this is your topic where you set the ground rules that the topic is about baptism IN JESUS NAME as believed by the PAJCers....that assumes we are talking about baptism while someone saying "In the name of Jesus"...You did that, not me. And I responded to someone else about that baptism being a public confession and assert IF that is the case then this verse I raised is relevant.
Of course I don't believe baptism in Jesus name IS merely a public confession, but the topic here is not and was not whether or not a third person saying "I baptize you in Jesus name" constitutes baptism in the name of Jesus Christ OR even if that was what Jesus and his disciples were doing prior to his death....your initial post ASSUMES it is the same and for the sake of discussion on what YOU assumed that is my reply
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 03:20 PM
Come on Dan. You are smarter than this. He was only saying that "IF" what you are saying is true then the opposite would also have to be true.
He knows that Rico....he just likes to argue for the sake of having an argument and appearing to be winning a contest of wits...never mind that he is unarmed :slaphappy
He knows that Rico....he just likes to argue for the sake of having an argument and appearing to be winning a contest of wits...never mind that he is unarmed :slaphappy
He does like to exalt himself in that way, does he not? :lol
In that case what do you with Mark 16:16, chunk it out the window?
Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
I wouldn't chuck it out the window ... Rico ... although our friend Praxeas can attest that some theologians contest Mark 16:9-20 as being divinely inspired.
Here is a standard response to the baptismal regenerationist/sacramentalist objection of Mark 16:16
--------------------------
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Mark_16_16.htm
Baptism and Mark 16:16
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
This verse is frequently used by baptismal regenerationists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. It says he who believes and is baptized will be saved. Therefore, they conclude that baptism is a necessary part of becoming saved. But, does this verse prove that baptism is necessary for salvation? Not at all.
Mark 16:16 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm#15%C2%A0) does not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves, not belief and going to church. Likewise, if you believe and read your Bible, you'll be saved. But it isn't reading your Bible that saves you. Rather, belief in Christ, in His sacrifice, is what saves. As I've stated in other papers on this subject, there are numerous verses that clearly demonstrate that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Romans/rom_5.htm#fie); Eph. 2:8 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Eph/eph_2.htm#gr); Phil. 3:9 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Phil/phil_3.htm#And); etc.). Belief in what God has done, not what man can do, is what results in salvation. Baptism is simply a public demonstration of the inner work of regeneration. This is why the rest of the verse says, "...but he who does not to believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm#15%C2%A0) focuses on the issue of belief, not baptism.
A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
What I will share here may not be very popular with some readers. Therefore, I need to say upfront that I believe in the absolute inspiration and authority of the Bible. It is the word of God and what it says is authoritative. However, the simple fact is that there are textual variations within the biblical manuscripts. The originals are what are inspired, not the copies. We have copies of inspired documents. These copies are not perfect, but they are very close to it.
Again, I am not saying the Bible is untrustworthy. It is 98.5% textually pure. The remaining 1.5% of textual variation are almost entirely of insignificant spelling errors and minor word omissions or additions that do not change the meaning of the text. However, Mark 16:9-20 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm#9%C2%A0) is a significant textual variant. Many scholars, Christian scholars, consider the ending of Mark to lack authenticity. Please consider the following evidence.
Manuscript attestation
Mark 16:9-20 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm#9%C2%A0) doesn't appear in many of the oldest ancient manuscripts. "The last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are lacking in the two earliest parchment codices, B and Aleph, in the Old Latin manuscript k,, the Sinaitic Syriac, many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version, and a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; other Church Fathers state that the section is absent from Greek copies of Mark known to them (e.g. Jerome, Epist. cxx. 3, ad hedibiam,)...The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack it (so, for example, MSS. 1, 20,22, &c.), and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary document."1 (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Mark_16_16.htm#1)
There is another ending to Mark.
Another ending is found in L, Psi, 099, 0112, and minuscules 274mg 579, k, Syrh and more is as follows:
"But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."
Apparent, theological error.
Mark 16:12 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm#12%C2%A0) says, "And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country." This verse may be problematic. Jesus rose in the same body that he died in (John 2:19 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/John/john_2.htm#Je)), though it was a glorified body. This is problematic because it suggests "a different form." Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body he rose in. This is a significant problem and seems to support the idea that this section of scripture is spurious, a later addition, or a possible attempt to recount a lost section of the gospel.
Vocabulary usage.
There are 17 non-marcan words used in a non-marcan sense in these verses. In other words, in the last 11 verses under discussion there are 17 "new" words that don't occur in the entire gospel of Mark. It appears that someone wrote the ending of Mark and added it to the gospel because the style is different and the vocabulary is different.
This information about the ending of Mark is not intended to cast doubt upon God's word. But the fact is that the ending is under a large cloud of doubt as to its authenticity. I would not use it as a defense for baptismal regeneration.
It appears that the ending of Mark may have been lost and someone rewrote it and attached it to a copy at sometime. It is possible that the ending under question was never there to begin with.
I wouldn't chuck it out the window ... Rico ... although our friend Praxeas can attest that some theologians contest Mark 16:9-20 as being divinely inspired.
Here is a standard response to the baptismal regenerationist/sacramentalist objection of Mark 16:16
--------------------------
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Mark_16_16.htm
Baptism and Mark 16:16
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
This verse is frequently used by baptismal regenerationists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. It says he who believes and is baptized will be saved. Therefore, they conclude that baptism is a necessary part of becoming saved. But, does this verse prove that baptism is necessary for salvation? Not at all.
Mark 16:16 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm#15%C2%A0) does not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves, not belief and going to church. Likewise, if you believe and read your Bible, you'll be saved. But it isn't reading your Bible that saves you. Rather, belief in Christ, in His sacrifice, is what saves. As I've stated in other papers on this subject, there are numerous verses that clearly demonstrate that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Romans/rom_5.htm#fie); Eph. 2:8 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Eph/eph_2.htm#gr); Phil. 3:9 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Phil/phil_3.htm#And); etc.). Belief in what God has done, not what man can do, is what results in salvation. Baptism is simply a public demonstration of the inner work of regeneration. This is why the rest of the verse says, "...but he who does not to believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm#15%C2%A0) focuses on the issue of belief, not baptism.
A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20
What I will share here may not be very popular with some readers. Therefore, I need to say upfront that I believe in the absolute inspiration and authority of the Bible. It is the word of God and what it says is authoritative. However, the simple fact is that there are textual variations within the biblical manuscripts. The originals are what are inspired, not the copies. We have copies of inspired documents. These copies are not perfect, but they are very close to it.
Again, I am not saying the Bible is untrustworthy. It is 98.5% textually pure. The remaining 1.5% of textual variation are almost entirely of insignificant spelling errors and minor word omissions or additions that do not change the meaning of the text. However, Mark 16:9-20 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm#9%C2%A0) is a significant textual variant. Many scholars, Christian scholars, consider the ending of Mark to lack authenticity. Please consider the following evidence.
Manuscript attestation
Mark 16:9-20 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm#9%C2%A0) doesn't appear in many of the oldest ancient manuscripts. "The last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are lacking in the two earliest parchment codices, B and Aleph, in the Old Latin manuscript k,, the Sinaitic Syriac, many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version, and a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; other Church Fathers state that the section is absent from Greek copies of Mark known to them (e.g. Jerome, Epist. cxx. 3, ad hedibiam,)...The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack it (so, for example, MSS. 1, 20,22, &c.), and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary document."1 (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Mark_16_16.htm#1)
There is another ending to Mark.
Another ending is found in L, Psi, 099, 0112, and minuscules 274mg 579, k, Syrh and more is as follows:
"But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."
Apparent, theological error.
Mark 16:12 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm#12%C2%A0) says, "And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country." This verse may be problematic. Jesus rose in the same body that he died in (John 2:19 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/John/john_2.htm#Je)), though it was a glorified body. This is problematic because it suggests "a different form." Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body he rose in. This is a significant problem and seems to support the idea that this section of scripture is spurious, a later addition, or a possible attempt to recount a lost section of the gospel.
Vocabulary usage.
There are 17 non-marcan words used in a non-marcan sense in these verses. In other words, in the last 11 verses under discussion there are 17 "new" words that don't occur in the entire gospel of Mark. It appears that someone wrote the ending of Mark and added it to the gospel because the style is different and the vocabulary is different.
This information about the ending of Mark is not intended to cast doubt upon God's word. But the fact is that the ending is under a large cloud of doubt as to its authenticity. I would not use it as a defense for baptismal regeneration.
It appears that the ending of Mark may have been lost and someone rewrote it and attached it to a copy at sometime. It is possible that the ending under question was never there to begin with.
Brother, there is entirely too much evidence in the Bible concerning the role baptism plays in salvation for me to be convinced it's anything other than a requirement.
Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
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.
1pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 1pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 03:41 PM
Believing baptism plays a role in salvation is not regeneration or sacrament.
Baptismal regeneration sees that baptism happens AT baptism by means OF Baptism and that a person receives the Holy Spirit AT baptism and by means OF water baptism. The Church of Christ believes that and so does the RCC.
Believing baptism plays a role in salvation is not regeneration or sacrament.
Baptismal regeneration sees that baptism happens AT baptism by means OF Baptism and that a person receives the Holy Spirit AT baptism and by means OF water baptism. The Church of Christ believes that and so does the RCC.
I see. Apostolics don't believe that; at least not any that I know. Then again, you never can tell around here.
Not! Baptismal regeneration can also be the belief that there is no New Birth, or regeneration, unless one is dunked in water .... ie the W&S doctrine
Nice try.
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 03:52 PM
It's kinda strange to see someone claiming to be Apostolic quoting Matt Slick....wow.
Anyways he claims baptism is a public confession of an inward work....I've yet to see any scripture on that.
He questions the validity of the text because it says Jesus appeared in another form?!?! Are you in agreement with that Dan?
And he says there are 17 new words not used by Mark previously...that's evidence that it could not have been written by Mark? That's assumption.
Interestingly I expected this verse to be removed from my NET bible and a commentary explanation for why it's not inspired, but that is not the case
Scofield says
The passage from verse 9 (Mar_16:9) to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.
-----------------
This is another topic though, Dan are you wanting to argue that Mark 16:9- the end are NOT inspired?
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 03:54 PM
Not! Baptismal regeneration can also be the belief that their is no New Birth, or regeneration, unless one is dunked in water .... ie W&S
Nice try.
That is false. Regeneration is a word that means salvation BY the Spirit..a person is regenerated. And no OP teaches that occurs by means of or AT water baptism.
Now some might believe justification occurs at that moment. Some might say forgiveness of sins occurs at that moment, but that does not make them regenerationalists or sacramentalists
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 03:55 PM
Not! Baptismal regeneration can also be the belief that their is no New Birth, or regeneration, unless one is dunked in water .... ie W&S
Nice try.
See what I mean Rico? He sees this more as a contest than a discussion
See what I mean Rico? He sees this more as a contest than a discussion
Prax, that's his style; his way of doing things. Ignore that part and keep doing what it is you do. People like me don't have all the knowhow to keep up with his arguments post by post, and people like you do. Stay after it, Bro. We need you.
That is false. Regeneration is a word that means salvation BY the Spirit..a person is regenerated. And no OP teaches that occurs by means of or AT water baptism.
Now some might believe justification occurs at that moment. Some might say forgiveness of sins occurs at that moment, but that does not make them regenerationalists or sacramentalists
Talk about deceptive ... salvation by the spirit ... most theologians will tell you that it comes from being born from above as stated in the Greek in John 3 ... or as KJV translates it born again ...
Regeneration as understood by Christians is the New Birth ... HELLO!!!
-------------------------------------
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=361
Regeneration
The word “regeneration” appears only twice in the English Bible. Both appearances are in the New Testament. It was used once by our Lord in Matthew 19:28 and once by the Apostle Paul in Titus 3:5.
The Meaning of Regeneration
The English word “regeneration” is the translation of palingenesia, from palin (again) and genesis (birth). It means simply a new birth, a new beginning, a new order.
When our Lord used the word, He said to His disciples, “Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28). Here the Lord used the word in a wider sense when referring to His coming kingdom on earth. It is the time of the earth’s regeneration, the new order about which the prophets wrote, when Jehovah will set His King upon His holy hill of Zion (Psalm 2:6), “And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3). The coming kingdom of Christ on earth is the day of the earth’s regeneration, “the times of restitution (restoration R.V.) of all things” (Acts 3:21).
This re-birth of the earth in the coming Millennial Age will also fulfill God’s covenant with Abraham concerning his descendants, for Israel too will experience a re-birth at that time (See Ezekiel 37).
The kingdom of Christ on earth will be a time of world-wide subjection to the authority of Christ, when sin, sorrow, sickness, suffering and strife will not touch earth’s inhabitants. In that day God shall renew His creation. “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them” (Isaiah 11:6), and “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9).
In summing up “the regeneration of the earth,” it is that time still future when Christ shall rule on the throne of David (II Samuel 7; Luke 1:32, 33; 2:11), Satan will be incarcerated (Revelation 20:2), Israel will be spiritually re-born (Isaiah 66:8; Ezekiel 37; Matthew 24:8; Romans 11:1, 2, 26), peace, prosperity, social justice and equality will prevail (Isaiah 42:1-4; Micah 4:1-7). This is the golden age, the utopia for which man has sought in vain. It is God’s coming great society, the Theocracy in the earth.
When the Apostle Paul used the word “regeneration,” he wrote, “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” (Titus 3:5). The difference between our Lord’s use of the word and Paul’s use of it is obvious. Our Lord used it in its widest sense, of the restoration of all things, at His Second Advent to the earth. Paul used it in referring to the regeneration of the individual man, his being born again into God’s new order. This new order is the Church, the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22, 23), not an organization, but a spiritual organism. No effort on man’s part can bring him into God’s order, for it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done” (Titus 3:5), “Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:9).
Regeneration then, may be defined as an act of God whereby He bestows upon the believing sinner new life. This life is God’s own life, the imparting of His own nature. God Himself is the Source and Bestower of His life, so that believers are said to be “partakers of the Divine nature” (II Peter 1:4), “created in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:10), “born of God” (John 1:13), “born again” (John 3:3, 7), “a new creation” (II Corinthians 5:17).
The Mistakes About Regeneration
Some sincere students of religion have made wrong deductions from the Bible passages which speak of regeneration. Let us examine three erroneous views and then attempt a correct biblical interpretation.
First, the mistake that water baptism is regeneration. Our Lord’s words to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), have been given widely different interpretations. Perhaps the most dangerous of these has been, and still is, “baptismal regeneration,” the idea that the text is teaching that water baptism is necessary to salvation. But to insist that the new birth occurs as the result of water baptism makes regeneration a matter of external ritualism. Whatever Christ meant by being “born of water,” He most certainly was not referring to an outward ritual.
If in His word to Nicodemus our Lord was referring to baptism by water, then it follows that all who have died and were not baptized are lost. This mistaken view would mean, then, that the penitent thief on the cross was not saved, notwithstanding the fact that Jesus said he was. If we accept the erroneous idea that baptism is a means of regeneration, then it would follow that all baptized persons are regenerated. But are they?
Simon Magus was baptized, but he was not regenerated. The Scripture does say that “Simon himself believed” (Acts 8:13); however, there is a belief which is followed by regeneration, and there is a belief which might not be followed by regeneration. “The devils (demons) also believe, and tremble” (James 2:19), but such mere belief cannot save one. A person can have an intellectual concept and give mental assent to a truth or doctrine, yet never become born again. When great numbers of Samaritans heard
Philip and believed and were baptized, Simon also accepted the facts and came forward to be baptized. But was he ever truly saved? It appears from Acts 8:18, 19 that Simon never did enter experientially into the truth of the Gospel. He lacked the real power of God, so he thought to purchase it with money. “But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:21-23). I interpret Peter’s scathing rebuke to mean that there was a man who, though he was baptized, was never regenerated.
The “baptismal regeneration” theory is not merely erroneous but dangerous, because it holds that baptized babies of believing parents are saved, and unbaptized babies who die as such, are lost forever. This is an evil without any authority in the Bible. It is nowhere taught by Christ nor expressed in the writings of the Apostles that infant baptism was believed by them. There is no trace of infant baptism in the New Testament.
I thought I'd post some more of this article about regeneration and justification.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=361
The Miracle of Regeneration
Human birth is a complex miracle, but the New Birth is a far more complex miracle. The word “miracle” is used in the New Testament to refer to a work of supernatural origin and character such as could not be produced by natural agents and means. The word is sometimes translated “sign,” denoting a miracle or wonder of Divine origin and authority. When Christ was on earth He performed many miracles. His first recorded act that could not be produced instanteously by natural means was the turning of water into wine (John 2:1-10). Of this miracle John wrote, “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His glory; and His disciples believed on Him” (John 2:11).
These miracles, or signs, or wonders, were performed by our Lord as an evidence of His Deity, and they were done by Him so that sinners would believe in Him and be saved. “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in His name, when they saw the miracles which He did” (John 2:23). “And many other signs (wonders, miracles) truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name” (John 20:30, 31).
In Christ’s day miracles were a substantial aid to one’s faith. In our day of scientific advance, miracles are to some an obstacle to faith. A religion that has none of the miraculous or supernaturalism is easier to accept than one that demands supernaturalism. Men refuse to accept historic Christianity because it claims for itself a supernatural revelation and demands of every man a supernatural Regeneration. A regenerated man makes no attempt to explain the miracles recorded in the Bible, the Miracle-Book. He accepts them. Put God into a miracle and doubt gives way to faith. Once a man has experienced the miracle of the New Birth, he will have no problem with accepting the miracles recorded in God’s Word.
To be born again is to be “born of God” (John 1:13). Therefore, it is enough to say that God, a supernatural Being, has revealed Himself in His supernatural Son and in His supernatural Book, and He will, by the power of that Word and His supernatural Spirit, impart supernaturally His own life to any person who will receive it by faith. My own regeneration is to me the miracle of miracles. It happened in December 1927, and it has been blessedly real.
The manifestations of Regeneration
The New Birth produces some glorious effects in the believer’s life. These should be examined carefully because the new life needs to develop. Where life begins it should mature. The effects of Regeneration are nothing short of miraculous because there is no power within man that can produce them. They are the spiritual birthmarks of the born again ones.
The New Birth results in a new life. “Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (II Corinthians 5:17). The regenerated person can testify that things are different now. With our New Birth we received a new power and pattern for living. The regenerated man is a “new creation,” the “new” meaning a difference in kind. He now possesses a different kind of life. The words in the text mean more than a mere outward reformation, for it is more than the improvement of the old life. A complete change has come. We have here a new creation as against the old creation. The source of the old creation was Adam, and from him we inherited sin and death. The Fountainhead of the new creation is Christ, so that a profound and radical change has taken place in the believer. The New Birth brought with it new life, and the new life has brought an entirely new set of desires, appetites, ideals and goals. Now the New Birth does not eradicate the old nature, but it does give new life to control it. And make certain that you are clear on one point, namely, the new creation begins with Christ.
The New Birth results in a new fellowship. “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren” (I John 3:14). When one is born again he instinctively is drawn to those persons of like precious faith. All regenerated persons are one in Christ, and love is their badge. Christ said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35). It is not a fellowship of the rich, the elite, or of one denomination as against another. All born again persons have God as their Father; therefore they are one in Christ, sharing a mutual love. No person who hates has Christ’s new life in him. “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him” (I John 3:15). It is not possible to love God if we do not love our fellow-man. “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” (I John 4:20). The fellowship of those born again is the most satisfying and productive among all fellowships. And again the point should be made that this fellowship is a spiritual one, having its roots in Jesus Christ (I John 1:3). “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God; and every one that loveth Him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of Him” (I John 5:1).
The New Birth results in a new standard of righteousness.“. . . Ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him” (I John 2:29). Righteousness is that character or quality of being right or just in the sight of God. Men have varying standards of righteousness, and they are sometimes sincerely zealous, “but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Romans 10:2, 3). They refuse to believe that “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6), and until we are born again, “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:12). But after we are born again, Christ becomes our righteousness (I Corinthians 1:30). This righteousness is imputed to the believer by God on the faith principle apart from human works (Romans 4:5, 6). It is God’s gift to every regenerated man (Romans 5:17). Having become partakers of the Divine Nature we now see sin as God sees it. Our standards of what is right and just we now find in God’s Word. The word “again” as used by our Lord in John 3:3, 7, where He spoke of being “born again,” is the translation of another, which means from above. He did not use it with reference to repeated action, but rather in contrast to our physical birth which is from beneath, or earthly. Thus having been born from above, we are to “seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth” (Colossians 3:1, 2).
In summing up our study of the doctrine of Regeneration, we may conclude that the regenerated person has been given the power to obey God and to grow in grace. The act of regeneration itself is instantaneous. Spiritually speaking, you are either born or unborn. If you have not experienced the new birth, trust Christ now, and the Holy Spirit will give you new life.
Justification
All the doctrines of the Bible are important, but none is more vital to the peace and rest of the child of God than the Bible truth of Justification. The believer does not ascend to the peak of Christian joy until he appreciates and appropriates this aspect of the grace of God. Forgiveness is wonderful; pardon is wonderful; cleansing is wonderful; but Justification is more wonderful. In Paul’s day, and later in the days of the Protestant Reformation, and in our own day, it would be difficult to find a truth more cardinal to our historic Christian faith than the doctrine of Justification.
In the preceding lesson we discussed the doctrine of Regeneration. Now there is a difference between Regeneration and Justification.
Regeneration is God working in us; Justification is God working for us.
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 04:20 PM
Unfortunately, various innovations and heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be baptized to be saved-- indeed, that baptism itself saves the soul even when administered to infants. These heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Most Protestants holding these beliefs today are not aware that they originated with the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.
The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated that while Christ "merited for us justification by His most holy passion ... the instrumental cause [of justification/regeneration] is the sacrament of baptism .... If anyone says that baptism is ... not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." (1) Vatican ll (1962-65) reconfirms all of Trent (2) and reiterates the necessity of baptism for salvation,(3) as does the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993. "Baptism is necessary for salvation ... the Church does not know of any [other] means ... that assures entry into eternal beatitude .... "(4)
Trent anathematizes all who deny that "the merit of Jesus Christ is applied ... to infants by the sacrament of baptism" or who deny that by baptism "the guilt of original sin is remitted,,." (5) Today's Code of Canon Law (Canon 849) declares that those baptized are thereby "freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God and .,. incorporated in the Church. " Canon 204 states: "The Christian faithful are those who .. . have been incorporated in Christ through baptism" and are thereby members of the one, true Catholic Church(6)
http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/baptismal_regeneration.htm
Additionally Dan, being born again is being born OF the Spirit and as I said, baptismal regeneration refers to the doctrine of the RCC that teaches baptism itself is the means of salvation by which a person receives the Spirit AT baptism and is regenerated or born again.
Unfortunately, various innovations and heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be baptized to be saved-- indeed, that baptism itself saves the soul even when administered to infants. These heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Most Protestants holding these beliefs today are not aware that they originated with the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.
The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated that while Christ "merited for us justification by His most holy passion ... the instrumental cause [of justification/regeneration] is the sacrament of baptism .... If anyone says that baptism is ... not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." (1) Vatican ll (1962-65) reconfirms all of Trent (2) and reiterates the necessity of baptism for salvation,(3) as does the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993. "Baptism is necessary for salvation ... the Church does not know of any [other] means ... that assures entry into eternal beatitude .... "(4)
Trent anathematizes all who deny that "the merit of Jesus Christ is applied ... to infants by the sacrament of baptism" or who deny that by baptism "the guilt of original sin is remitted,,." (5) Today's Code of Canon Law (Canon 849) declares that those baptized are thereby "freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God and .,. incorporated in the Church. " Canon 204 states: "The Christian faithful are those who .. . have been incorporated in Christ through baptism" and are thereby members of the one, true Catholic Church(6)
http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/baptismal_regeneration.htm
Additionally Dan, being born again is being born OF the Spirit and as I said, baptismal regeneration refers to the doctrine of the RCC that teaches baptism itself is the means of salvation by which a person receives the Spirit AT baptism and is regenerated or born again.
Restating your position ... means zilch ... RCs, Mormons, JWs and PAJCers ARE BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONISTS ... if they believe that water baptism is necessary for the New Birth
Praxeas
07-22-2007, 04:26 PM
Restating your position ... means zilch ... RCs, Mormons, JWs and PAJCer ARE BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONISTS ...
Restating YOUR position and using labels means ziltch
I see VERY little difference in the Catholic approach to BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AND THE PAJC VIEW OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AS ESPOUSED BY MIZPEH and many others, below:
Unfortunately, various innovations and heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be baptized to be saved-- indeed, that baptism itself saves the soul even when administered to infants. These heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Most Protestants holding these beliefs today are not aware that they originated with the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.
The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated that while Christ "merited for us justification by His most holy passion ... the instrumental cause [of justification/regeneration] is the sacrament of baptism .... If anyone says that baptism is ... not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." (1) Vatican ll (1962-65) reconfirms all of Trent (2) and reiterates the necessity of baptism for salvation,(3) as does the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993. "Baptism is necessary for salvation ... the Church does not know of any [other] means ... that assures entry into eternal beatitude .... "(4)
Trent anathematizes all who deny that "the merit of Jesus Christ is applied ... to infants by the sacrament of baptism" or who deny that by baptism "the guilt of original sin is remitted,,." (5) Today's Code of Canon Law (Canon 849) declares that those baptized are thereby "freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God and .,. incorporated in the Church. " Canon 204 states: "The Christian faithful are those who .. . have been incorporated in Christ through baptism" and are thereby members of the one, true Catholic Church(6)
http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/baptismal_regeneration.htm
Additionally Dan, being born again is being born OF the Spirit and as I said, baptismal regeneration refers to the doctrine of the RCC that teaches baptism itself is the means of salvation by which a person receives the Spirit AT baptism and is regenerated or born again.
Restating YOUR position and using labels means ziltch
Eph 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Bro Strange,
I've always thought of 'one baptism' as water baptism although I agree it takes the water and the Spirit baptisms to become part of the body of Christ.
Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Heb 6:2
There is one teaching on the baptisms. Two baptisms but they go together into one teaching. When we are baptized into Christ it is by water baptism in Jesus name.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Romans 6:3
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Galatians 3:27
We are baptized by one Spirit into one body and this is done in water baptism by the Spirit of God who performs a type of circumcision of the heart in removing the body of sin.
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.Romans 2:28-29
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead Col 2:11-12
We know we are in the body of Christ when we have been baptized in his name and when we have been received his Spirit which we have all been made to drink of. Without the Spirit of Christ we are none of his.
both claim the Spirit peforms part or all of the regeneration and/or remission at the act of baptism
Steve Epley
07-22-2007, 07:52 PM
NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ATTE NTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
According to Dan's "logic" the Apostles belonged to the PAJC.
They taught baptism
puts us into Christ
saves us
remits sins
washes sins away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Elder you didn't think I was going to let you off the hook ... there's too much here .... so ...
You said:
2. The ceremonial washing is YOUR words NOT the words of scripture. Baptism fulfils righteousness Jesus said Mt. 3:15. John's baptism was NOT a ceremonial washing.1. No ... these are not my words ... the topic of baptism came into play when John's disciples were conversing w/ a certain Jewish man about ceremonial washing...
24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&version=31#fen-NIV-26136i)] over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."
2. Now ... what is your understanding of Jesus' words that he should be baptized as it would "fulfill all righteousness" ... you are not suggesting this act made him more righteous are you?
3. John's baptism was not ceremonial? ... did it effectuate remission of sins?
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.