PDA

View Full Version : Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize?


Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:00 AM
What is the meaning of this passage?

Why did Paul say that Christ had not sent him to baptize? In verse 17, Is Paul separating baptism from "the Gospel?" What is your interpretation?

10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 So no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 09:03 AM
I don't know. LOL! But I don't think it means that baptism isn't important or necessary. I think Paul was making some other point. I'm just not sure what it was.

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:05 AM
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"

Is Paul separating baptism from the gospel?

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:12 AM
Were Apollos, Paul, and Cephas baptizing people in their own name?

11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 So no one can say that you were baptized into my name.


Why did Paul neglect baptism?

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:12 AM
Baptism is a proper response to the Gospel. It is not the Gospel.

rgcraig
03-11-2008, 09:12 AM
I think it's pretty easy -he's telling them it's not WHO baptizes you, but who's NAME you are baptized with. So, him saying I didn't come to baptize you in Paul's name, but to preach the gospel is simple.......it's not about him, but - - repent, be baptized in Jesus' name.

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:13 AM
Were Apollos, Paul, and Cephas baptizing people in their own name?

11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 So no one can say that you were baptized into my name.


Why did Paul neglect baptism?

I don't think he neglected baptism. He baptized the jailer the same night he believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ ...

but he did not teach baptismal regeneration nor did the other apostles.

rgcraig
03-11-2008, 09:13 AM
Were Apollos, Paul, and Cephas baptizing people in their own name?




Why did Paul neglect baptism?

No, but the people were saying they were baptized by Paul, Apollos & Cephas.

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:15 AM
Baptism is a proper response to the Gospel. It is not the Gospel.

But other than the house of Stephanas and two other men, he never baptized anyone else...why?

Why didn't Paul baptize?

There were many situations where it was just Paul and a crowd of unbelievers. There weren't any other believers around to help him baptize. Why, after preaching the gospel, were there no baptismal candidates?

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:16 AM
No, but the people were saying they were baptized by Paul, Apollos & Cephas.

That's because in Jewish ritual baptisms one was baptized by the authority of the given teacher they were following ...

Some sectarians were now claiming to be disciples of Paul ... Apollos and Cephas ... Paul was simply reminding them under whose authority and power they had been baptized under.

In baptism we publicly declare to be His disciples.

COOPER
03-11-2008, 09:16 AM
Pretty much self explanatory:

Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 So no one can say that you were baptized into my name.

And he did Baptize:(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)


It sounds like some of the Saints were getting caught up in the Men of God and their Celebrity rather than Jesus.

Paul did not want anyone to Brag about who baptized them and develop clichés

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:17 AM
But other than the house of Stephanas and two other men, he never baptized anyone else...why?

Why didn't Paul baptize?

There were many situations where it was just Paul and a crowd of unbelievers. There weren't any other believers around to help him baptize. Why, after preaching the gospel, were there no baptismal candidates?

We can't assume that they were not baptized ... There were other elders/pastors in the city that he may have deferred to ... as a "traveling evangelist and apostle".

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:17 AM
I don't think he neglected baptism. He baptized the jailer the same night he believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ ...

but he did not teach baptismal regeneration nor did the other apostles.

Apparently he did.

The house of Stephanas and two others.

That's slim pickin's considering the thousands he preached to.

Would Paul be accepted in Apostolic ranks today?

What's up with this?

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:20 AM
We can't assume that they were not baptized ... There were other elders/pastors in the city that he may have deferred to ... as a "traveling evangelist and apostle".

We can't assume anything. We can't assume they were baptized either, right?

You are hypothesizing.

rgcraig
03-11-2008, 09:20 AM
That's because in Jewish ritual baptisms one was baptized by the authority of the given teacher they were following ...
Some sectarians were now claiming to be disciples of Paul ... Apollos and Cephas ... Paul was simply reminding them under whose authority and power they had been baptized under.

In baptism we publicly declare to be His disciples.

Exactly! I believe that's why so much emphasis was given about "the name".

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:20 AM
Apparently he did.

The house of Stephanas and two others.

That's slim pickin's considering the thousands he preached to.

Would Paul be accepted in Apostolic ranks today?

What's up with this?

He chose to do those ... we don't know why ...

However, it's clear he taught and practiced water baptism ...

but as stated before and by Cooper ... He most likely did not want believers to "idolize" him ... or claim they were disciples of Paul ... he believed in th ministry of the entire body ... the priesthood of all saints.

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:21 AM
We can't assume anything. We can't assume they were baptized either, right?

You are hypothesizing.

There is more to infer from his practice and teachings that he believed, preached and practiced it ...

And the passage you provided shows us that he was concerned about celebrity worship.

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:24 AM
Exactly! I believe that's why so much emphasis was given about "the name".

The name always conveyed the whole person and their authority and power.

Some have placed the incantation of the name to be salvific.

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:24 AM
I think it's pretty easy -he's telling them it's not WHO baptizes you, but who's NAME you are baptized with. So, him saying I didn't come to baptize you in Paul's name, but to preach the gospel is simple.......it's not about him, but - - repent, be baptized in Jesus' name.

But if Dan is correct, and Paul only preached the gospel of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.......that would mean Paul was saying God had not called him to tell the lost about repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost.

How can we separate the Gospel and the response?

Why would Paul only retell the story without mentioning how to respond?

Was Paul a "saved at faith" teacher?

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 09:27 AM
He chose to do those ... we don't know why ...

However, it's clear he taught and practiced water baptism ...

but as stated before and by Cooper ... He most likely did not want believers to "idolize" him ... or claim they were disciples of Paul ... he believed in th ministry of the entire body ... the priesthood of all saints.

I agree. I think this is a logical explanation of the passage. He sounds like he's being facetious, trying to make a point, and I certainly can't draw the conclusion that the point he was making is that baptism is unimportant, considering the context of other scriptures.

Paul did teach on baptism:

Colossians 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.

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Romans 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.

Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

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

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:27 AM
Look at what he said again.


"I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 09:31 AM
Apparently he did.

The house of Stephanas and two others.

That's slim pickin's considering the thousands he preached to.

Would Paul be accepted in Apostolic ranks today?

What's up with this?

This is an inaccurate conclusion. He said that he had only baptized "Crispus and Gaius; ...And...the household of Stephanas:", but in verse 14 he said "none of YOU", meaning of the Corinthian church. Obviously he baptized more than that, or else Acts 19 is an inaccurate account. He was in Ephesus when he baptized these disciples, and Apollos was in Corinth. (Acts 19:1)

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:32 AM
But if Dan is correct, and Paul only preached the gospel of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.......that would mean Paul was saying God had not called him to tell the lost about repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost.

How can we separate the Gospel and the response?

Why would Paul only retell the story without mentioning how to respond?

Was Paul a "saved at faith" teacher?

We find various times Paul and Peter in Acts preaching and not once mention water baptism during the initial presentation of the Gospel.

Ex: at the temple ... to the governors, etc.

The taught we are saved by through faith ... the emphasis was alway placing our faith on the work of the Lamb and turning to Him (repentance_ for the remission of our sins.

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:33 AM
This is an inaccurate conclusion. He said that he had only baptized "Crispus and Gaius; ...And...the household of Stephanas:", but in verse 14 he said "none of YOU", meaning of the Corinthian church. Obviously he baptized more than that, or else Acts 19 is an inaccurate account. He was in Ephesus when he baptized these disciples, and Apollos was in Corinth. (Acts 19:1)

??? Are we assuming Apollos never went to Ephesus ... and surely Paul had been to both cities.

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:34 AM
I agree. I think this is a logical explanation of the passage. He sounds like he's being facetious, trying to make a point, and I certainly can't draw the conclusion that the point he was making is that baptism is unimportant, considering the context of other scriptures.

Paul did teach on baptism:

Colossians 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.

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Romans 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.

Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

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

Very good response.

Question though.

We always say that the Pauline Epistles were written to believers. Holy Ghost-filled believers. So can we use any of the references you just mentioned seeing as how they were obviously written to the Church?

Where are the examples of Paul teaching repentance, baptism and HG infilling to the lost?

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 09:35 AM
??? Are we assuming Apollos never went to Corinth ... and surely Paul had been to both cities.

Huh? I just said Apollos was in Corinth, and obviously Paul had been there previously. Acts 18:1

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:36 AM
Very good response.

Question though.

We always say that the Pauline Epistles were written to believers. Holy Ghost-filled believers. So can we use any of the references you just mentioned seeing as how they were obviously written to the Church?

Where are the examples of Paul teaching repentance, baptism and HG infilling to the lost?

There a preaching by Peter also recorded in Acts where it seems Peter forgot the Acts 2:38 message.

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:36 AM
Huh? I just said Apollos was in Corinth, and obviously Paul had been there previously. Acts 18:1

Vice-versa ... indeed ... Do we know Apollos never went to Ephesus?

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:37 AM
This is an inaccurate conclusion. He said that he had only baptized "Crispus and Gaius; ...And...the household of Stephanas:", but in verse 14 he said "none of YOU", meaning of the Corinthian church. Obviously he baptized more than that, or else Acts 19 is an inaccurate account. He was in Ephesus when he baptized these disciples, and Apollos was in Corinth. (Acts 19:1)

But Miss B, Paul deemphasized the importance of his role in baptism. He stated that Christ did not call him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.

The best we can assume is that he had handlers who performed that Christian rite. And that is an assumption, right?

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 09:39 AM
Very good response.

Question though.

We always say that the Pauline Epistles were written to believers. Holy Ghost-filled believers. So can we use any of the references you just mentioned seeing as how they were obviously written to the Church?

Where are the examples of Paul teaching repentance, baptism and HG infilling to the lost?

I don't know about Paul...I know Peter preached quite a powerful message in Acts 2, but I suppose that is overused, and therefore inconsequential to this conversation. ;)

SDG
03-11-2008, 09:41 AM
But Miss B, Paul deemphasized the importance of his role in baptism. He stated that Christ did not call him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.

The best we can assume is that he had handlers who performed that Christian rite. And that is an assumption, right?

I don't find the emphasis on performing a baptism correctly in any of Paul writings ... nor a clothesline message ... nor a salvific tithing message ...

One would think that if he was writing to new Christians ... saved from paganism .... he'd at least be more emphatic on the ESSENTIALS that some have placed on the Apostolic message.

The argument that some OPs use that he was already addressing the saved sounds tinny when one thinks about the wealth of counsel and advice Paul painstakenly took to instruct the churches under his care.

Contrast that today w/ the messages found at Apostolic conferences, rallies and campmeetings directed at the saved and one has to wonder if Paul was indeed APOSTOLIC ENOUGH. He didn't beat their drum ... that's fo sho!!!

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 09:41 AM
Vice-versa ... indeed ... Do we know Apollos never went to Ephesus?

Why are you asking? To try to conclude that perhaps Apollos had been there previously and avoided preaching about baptism?

I think if he had, Paul would have said "Apollos" in reference to previous teachings instead of just "John" ('s baptism).

COOPER
03-11-2008, 09:43 AM
Look at what he said again.


"I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"

Yep, it's OK to preach the Gospel and let some one else do the Baptizing. :friend

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:43 AM
I don't know about Paul...I know Peter preached quite a powerful message in Acts 2, but I suppose that is overused, and therefore inconsequential to this conversation. ;)

Not at all.

I totally believe Acts 2:38 is the proper response to the Gospel but I am baffled by Paul's words here. And by the sparse record of his involvement in baptisms in general. Especially considering the thousands upon thousands of souls he preached to.

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 09:44 AM
But Miss B, Paul deemphasized the importance of his role in baptism. He stated that Christ did not call him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.

The best we can assume is that he had handlers who performed that Christian rite. And that is an assumption, right?

Maybe there's a 6th fold of the ministry--baptizers. :D

I don't know why he made the statement, but I don't think he was deemphasizing the importance of baptism. I think he was emphasizing the importance of remembering that our allegiance is to Christ, and not to the person that led us to Christ.

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:45 AM
Yep, it's OK to preach the Gospel and let some one else do the Baptizing. :friend

But Coop, there were times when there was no one around but Paul and his unsaved listeners.

That doesn't wash.

(pardon the pun)

COOPER
03-11-2008, 09:49 AM
But Coop, there were times when there was no one around but Paul and his unsaved listeners.

That doesn't wash.

(pardon the pun)

You've got me there....I do not know. Maybe he had helpers?


Acts 13:13
Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.
Acts 13:12-14 (in Context) Acts 13 (Whole Chapter)

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:51 AM
Maybe there's a 6th fold of the ministry--baptizers. :D

I don't know why he made the statement, but I don't think he was deemphasizing the importance of baptism. I think he was emphasizing the importance of remembering that our allegiance is to Christ, and not to the person that led us to Christ.

Paul before Agrippa. Notice what he does not mention.


Acts 26
1Then Agrippa said to Paul, "You have permission to speak for yourself." So Paul motioned with his hand and began his defense: 2"King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, 3and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently.

4"The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. 5They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 6And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today. 7This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. O king, it is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me. 8Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?

9"I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them.

12"On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,[a] 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

15"Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?'

" 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 16'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

19"So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds. 21That is why the Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. 22But I have had God's help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23that the Christ[b] would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."

24At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane."

25"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. 27King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do."

28Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

29Paul replied, "Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

30The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. 31They left the room, and while talking with one another, they said, "This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment."

32Agrippa said to Festus, "This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar."

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:52 AM
Paul implies repentance and turning to God.

Does he mention baptism?

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 09:54 AM
Not at all.

I totally believe Acts 2:38 is the proper response to the Gospel, but I am baffled by Paul's words here. Also by the sparse record of his involvement in baptisms in general. Especially considering the thousands upon thousands of souls he preached to.

I think what you just said is the answer, actually--Paul was separating the response to the Gospel from the Gospel itself. Maybe he thought it was his job to preach, and everyone else's job to respond? I really don't know, but I can't conclude that the found baptism unimportant, based on other scriptures.

Especially Romans:

Romans 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.

Does this scripture mean that if we aren't baptized, that we can't "walk in newness of life?" It seems to imply that, at least, the way I'm reading it. How can I be a "new woman" until I have buried the old one? I know baptism is symbolic, and the work is Christ's, but does He do the work before we are obedient? Or does He change us through obedience?

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

I Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

COOPER
03-11-2008, 09:54 AM
You've got me there....I do not know. Maybe he had helpers?

Bump for A.E.

Sounds like he always had help.

Acts 15:22
Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Acts 15:21-23 (in Context) Acts 15 (Whole Chapter)

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:55 AM
Someone help us out here.

Is there a record of Paul preaching rpeentance, baptism and HG infilling to an unsaved person?

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 09:56 AM
Paul implies repentance and turning to God.

Does he mention baptism?

No. But to that end, what good would it have done Agrippa to be baptized if he didn't even believe and repent? If one doesn't first have faith, then it seems that obedience is a moot point.

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:56 AM
Bump for A.E.

Sounds like he always had help.

Not always. There were times when he was alone in His preaching.

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 09:57 AM
No. But to that end, what good would it have done Agrippa to be baptized if he didn't even believe and repent? If one doesn't first have faith, then it seems that obedience is a moot point.

But he never even mentioned the word baptism.

At all.

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 10:02 AM
Paul's Mars Hill SermonActs 17:

22Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

32And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

33So Paul departed from among them.

34Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Again, he preached the death, burial and resurrection.

No mention of baptism.

Why?

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 10:05 AM
Not always. There were times when he was alone in His preaching.

Does it say for certain that he was alone? :)

Didn't Jesus instruct his disciples to go out two (or more) at a time?

Mark 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two;

...or maybe that was just the teaching exercise for that semester. :D

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

Can we safely assume that because something isn't recorded that it didn't happen? We can't say that it did, either, but considering other scriptures and overall context, I don't believe that Paul deemphasized any part of salvation.

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 10:06 AM
Paul's Mars Hill SermonActs 17:



Again, he preached the death, burial and resurrection.

No mention of baptism.

Why?

Maybe baptism isn't even relevant until after repentance? I don't know, AE, why don't you share your own conclusion?

"Why no mention of baptism?"

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 10:08 AM
In Pisidian Antioch Acts 13
13From Paphos, Paul and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, where John left them to return to Jerusalem. 14From Perga they went on to Pisidian Antioch. On the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and sat down. 15After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the synagogue rulers sent word to them, saying, "Brothers, if you have a message of encouragement for the people, please speak."
16Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: "Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me! 17The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers; he made the people prosper during their stay in Egypt, with mighty power he led them out of that country, 18he endured their conduct[a] for about forty years in the desert, 19he overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to his people as their inheritance. 20All this took about 450 years.

"After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. 21Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years. 22After removing Saul, he made David their king. He testified concerning him: 'I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.'

23"From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised. 24Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel. 25As John was completing his work, he said: 'Who do you think I am? I am not that one. No, but he is coming after me, whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.'

26"Brothers, children of Abraham, and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. 27The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. 28Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. 30But God raised him from the dead, 31and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.

32"We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers 33he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
" 'You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.[b]'[c] 34The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words:
" 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'[d] 35So it is stated elsewhere:
" 'You will not let your Holy One see decay.'[e]

36"For when David had served God's purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. 37But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. 40Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you:
41" 'Look, you scoffers,
wonder and perish,
for I am going to do something in your days
that you would never believe,
even if someone told you.'[f]"

No mention of baptism.

Jehoram
03-11-2008, 10:10 AM
Does it say for certain that he was alone? :)

Didn't Jesus instruct his disciples to go out two (or more) at a time?

Mark 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two;

...or maybe that was just the teaching exercise for that semester. :D

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

Can we safely assume that because something isn't recorded that it didn't happen? We can't say that it did, either, but considering other scriptures and overall context, I don't believe that Paul deemphasized any part of salvation.

I think you are right. It is odd, however, that Paul never mentions baptism in his sermons. Maybe he waited until there was a declaration of faith before baptism was offered? That is the only thing I can think of.

MissBrattified
03-11-2008, 10:23 AM
I don't know if I'm right or not. LOL. I'm just suppositioning (is that a word?) right along with you.

BrotherEastman
03-11-2008, 10:38 AM
Look at what he said again.


"I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"
So what? Paul didn't say that baptism wasn't necessary, he just said what you stated, not what you're reading into.

SDG
03-11-2008, 10:54 AM
I think you are right. It is odd, however, that Paul never mentions baptism in his sermons. Maybe he waited until there was a declaration of faith before baptism was offered? That is the only thing I can think of.

Some focus on the proper administration of a baptism to cause salvation while the apostles were concerned w/ genuine faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ ... a repentant heart that will result in a believer desiring to obey the mandate of baptism.

This was and is the Apostolic doctrine.

Pressing-On
03-11-2008, 11:16 AM
That's because in Jewish ritual baptisms one was baptized by the authority of the given teacher they were following ...

Some sectarians were now claiming to be disciples of Paul ... Apollos and Cephas ... Paul was simply reminding them under whose authority and power they had been baptized under.

In baptism we publicly declare to be His disciples.

I haven't read all of this thread, thus far, but are you saying Paul is showing a difference and seperation in the law and the NT Covenant per the above boldened statement.?

Pressing-On
03-11-2008, 11:39 AM
What is the meaning of this passage?

Why did Paul say that Christ had not sent him to baptize? In verse 17, Is Paul separating baptism from "the Gospel?" What is your interpretation?

10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 So no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
AE,
Going further up in the scripture you are citing here I'm wondering what Paul means by this portion of scripture.

I Cor 1:5-7 "That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; (6) Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: (7) So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

What was the "testimony of Christ" confirmed in him? It seems like it had to have been something that was visibly seen. In order NOT to come behind in any gift from God, he had to have this testimony.

He says in verse 7 - "....waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Col 2:12 "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

It appears that he can't make heaven if he isn't baptized.

TRFrance
03-11-2008, 12:22 PM
What is the meaning of this passage?

Why did Paul say that Christ had not sent him to baptize? In verse 17, Is Paul separating baptism from "the Gospel?" What is your interpretation?

... I am baffled by Paul's words here. And by the sparse record of his involvement in baptisms in general. Especially considering the thousands upon thousands of souls he preached to.

Emphasis on one does not negate the other. It's more a question of emphasis than anything else. And Paul's emphasis was clearly on preaching. Thus he says he is called to preach, not to baptize. This is not to say that baptism is separate from the gospel. Even in the first utterance of the gospel, baptism was a central part of the gospel message ("repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus".. Acts 2:38)

Also...(he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ... Mark 16:16)/ (Baptism doth also save us ... 1 Pet 3:21)./ (arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord Acts 22:16)

----
Keep in mind, for example... many times when an evangelist comes into town and preaches a revival, perhaps dozens, even hundreds, will end up being baptized, but often it is not the evangelist that does the baptizing. There are often many other deacons, elders, or other church workers who handle the actual baptisms. Just as with Paul, the evangelist's main calling is to preach, not necessarily to conduct the actual baptisms that will take place afterward.

Joelel
03-11-2008, 12:45 PM
What is the meaning of this passage?

Why did Paul say that Christ had not sent him to baptize? In verse 17, Is Paul separating baptism from "the Gospel?" What is your interpretation?

10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 So no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Someone else can do it.In many assemblies the pastor don't do much baptizing.It don't have to be anyone.You can call on the name of the Lord and jump iin the water.The word don't even say someone else has to touch you.

Pressing-On
03-11-2008, 12:52 PM
Someone else can do it.In many assemblies the pastor don't do much baptizing.It don't have to be anyone.You can call on the name of the Lord and jump iin the water.The word don't even say someone else has to touch you.
:ursofunny:ursofunny

Joel!! This guy visited our church and I don't know why they asked him to testify!

He said, "Well, I've been baptized three times. One time in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Second time in Jesus name and the third time I took it upon myself and jumped in the creek."

:ursofunny:ursofunny

Praxeas
03-11-2008, 12:54 PM
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"


Is Paul separating baptism from the gospel?
Not necessarily. He is separating prioties and actions. In Acts the immediate response to hearing the gospel was repentance and baptism and Paul DID indeed baptize people.

How can they be baptized if they have not heard?

berkeley
03-11-2008, 12:55 PM
Not necessarily. He is separating prioties and actions. In Acts the immediate response to hearing the gospel was repentance and baptism and Paul DID indeed baptize people.

How can they be baptized if they have not heard?

Get a job, would ya? :friend

Praxeas
03-11-2008, 12:56 PM
Someone else can do it.In many assemblies the pastor don't do much baptizing.It don't have to be anyone.You can call on the name of the Lord and jump iin the water.The word don't even say someone else has to touch you.
Joel, show us where anyone baptized themselves? In fact if you study the word AND the original greek it demands someone else do the baptizing while you, the one being baptized is a passive action. In other words you are allowing someone to baptize you. Remember the disciples were commanded to go out an baptize others

Pressing-On
03-11-2008, 01:03 PM
Not necessarily. He is separating prioties and actions. In Acts the immediate response to hearing the gospel was repentance and baptism and Paul DID indeed baptize people.

How can they be baptized if they have not heard?
Amen and focusing on I Cor, which AE opens with.

I Cor 6:11 speaks of being washed, sanctified and justified.

Heb 10:22 says our bodies are washed in pure water.

Romans 15:15 says we are sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Romans 3:28 says we are justfied by our faith.

I don't see the message changing or being in question in any of the epistles.

Praxeas
03-11-2008, 01:10 PM
Amen and focusing on I Cor, which AE opens with.

I Cor 6:11 speaks of being washed, sanctified and justified.

Heb 10:22 says our bodies are washed in pure water.

Romans 15:15 says we are sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Romans 3:28 says we are justfied by our faith.

I don't see the message changing or being in question in any of the epistles.
Thank you and that is all very good. I want to say I believe in water baptism. However at this point I have to wonder what is meant by our bodies are washed? Since it's not our bodies that inherit eternal life. I wonder if this is maybe a reference to human nature?

Anyways, thanks

Pressing-On
03-11-2008, 01:14 PM
Thank you and that is all very good. I want to say I believe in water baptism. However at this point I have to wonder what is meant by our bodies are washed? Since it's not our bodies that inherit eternal life. I wonder if this is maybe a reference to human nature?

Anyways, thanks

Sure it is referring to our human nature.

I Peter 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:"

This is obedience of our faith.

Joelel
03-11-2008, 11:22 PM
:ursofunny:ursofunny

Joel!! This guy visited our church and I don't know why they asked him to testify!

He said, "Well, I've been baptized three times. One time in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Second time in Jesus name and the third time I took it upon myself and jumped in the creek."

:ursofunny:ursofunny

I just think it's funny how so many different people think you must get baptized their way.One thinks you got to get baptized in the river,another says you can't hold your nose,another says you got to get baptized by them.The word don't say what should be said except you are to call on the name of the Lord.It don't say someone must put you under the water.What I believe is,they all went to the river and all called on the name of the Lord and jumped in the water.I do believe you must call on the name of the Lord, that most don't do.

Water baptism in Jesus name remits sins or washes your sins away. Acts 22:16:And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,and wash away thy sins,calling on the name of the Lord.

Joelel
03-11-2008, 11:32 PM
Joel, show us where anyone baptized themselves? In fact if you study the word AND the original greek it demands someone else do the baptizing while you, the one being baptized is a passive action. In other words you are allowing someone to baptize you. Remember the disciples were commanded to go out an baptize others

Yes the ministers are involved in baptizing,but I think they went with them to the water and everyone called on the name of the Lord and jumped in the water.I don't think men should be putting their hands on women.

Joelel
03-11-2008, 11:44 PM
Thank you and that is all very good. I want to say I believe in water baptism. However at this point I have to wonder what is meant by our bodies are washed? Since it's not our bodies that inherit eternal life. I wonder if this is maybe a reference to human nature?

Anyways, thanks

When we hear the word of God it gives us faith and washes us from sin.

Eph.5:25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,(SEED)27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Praxeas
03-12-2008, 01:50 AM
Yes the ministers are involved in baptizing,but I think they went with them to the water and everyone called on the name of the Lord and jumped in the water.I don't think men should be putting their hands on women.

The greek word for baptize and the grammar does not allow for someone to dunk themselves. Someone is baptizing someone else. That means someone is dunking someone else into the water.

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 05:52 AM
I just think it's funny how so many different people think you must get baptized their way.One thinks you got to get baptized in the river,another says you can't hold your nose,another says you got to get baptized by them.The word don't say what should be said except you are to call on the name of the Lord.It don't say someone must put you under the water.What I believe is,they all went to the river and all called on the name of the Lord and jumped in the water.I do believe you must call on the name of the Lord, that most don't do.

Water baptism in Jesus name remits sins or washes your sins away. Acts 22:16:And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,and wash away thy sins,calling on the name of the Lord.

Joel, you're a trip!

John 3:16 "John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:"

I'm pretty sure they didn't line up and say, "One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready and four to goooooooo".....jump, splash.....

You're a trip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :killinme

Hoovie
03-12-2008, 06:34 AM
Baptism is a proper response to the Gospel. It is not the Gospel.

Amen.

MissBrattified
03-12-2008, 06:53 AM
Joel, you're a trip!

John 3:16 "John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:"

I'm pretty sure they didn't line up and say, "One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready and four to goooooooo".....jump, splash.....

You're a trip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :killinme

Jesus set the example by having John baptize Him. He didn't go jump in the river. :)

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 06:56 AM
Jesus set the example by having John baptize Him. He didn't go jump in the river. :)
Right. I can't quite see Him hiking up his robe, running with sand spitting out behind Him and then hearing a big - SPLASH! Somehow that can't work for me.
:ursofunny

MissBrattified
03-12-2008, 06:56 AM
Yes the ministers are involved in baptizing,but I think they went with them to the water and everyone called on the name of the Lord and jumped in the water.I don't think men should be putting their hands on women.

Are men allowed to lay their hands on sick women to pray for them?

Jas 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Were only men being filled with the Holy Ghost in this account?

Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Was Jesus acting inappropriately when he allowed Mary to anoint His feet with her tears and dry them with her hair? What about when the woman with the issue of blood touched the hem of His garment?

Luke 8:54 And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 09:19 AM
Someone else can do it.In many assemblies the pastor don't do much baptizing.It don't have to be anyone.You can call on the name of the Lord and jump iin the water.The word don't even say someone else has to touch you.
Totally unscriptural.
Do you have any scriptural examples where anyone did this?

Joel, show us where anyone baptized themselves? In fact if you study the word AND the original greek it demands someone else do the baptizing while you, the one being baptized is a passive action. In other words you are allowing someone to baptize you. Remember the disciples were commanded to go out an baptize others
A common sense answer. Thank you, prax.

I just think it's funny how so many different people think you must get baptized their way.One thinks you got to get baptized in the river,another says you can't hold your nose,another says you got to get baptized by them.The word don't say what should be said except you are to call on the name of the Lord.It don't say someone must put you under the water.What I believe is,they all went to the river and all called on the name of the Lord and jumped in the water.I do believe you must call on the name of the Lord, that most don't do.

That's what you believe... is it based on what you see in the Bible ?, or just how you imagine it in your mind?

Yes the ministers are involved in baptizing,but I think they went with them to the water and everyone called on the name of the Lord and jumped in the water.I don't think men should be putting their hands on women.

Again, you "think" this. But I see it's based on what your trying to insert this into the scripture based on how you imagine it ... certainly not what you see in the Word.

I'm sure you understand that many false doctrines and false churches have started by people saying "I think this is what happened", concerning stuff that the Bible never said.
-----

Jesus laid hands on women to be healed, didnt he?
What about when peter touched Tabitha after raising her from the dead?
Pastors and altar workers regularly lay hands on women in the altar when praying them through to the Holy Ghost.

So what is the issue with a man baptizing a woman?

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 09:23 AM
Its actually a preposterous thought.

Nowhere in scripture do you see anyone say "I baptize myself in Jesus' name!"

Bro-Larry
03-12-2008, 09:35 AM
Paul is just saying that He himself did not do the actual baptizing, except only a few of his converts. He let others of his staff do the baptizing. It was the same with Jesus. (see Jn 4:1-2)

MissBrattified
03-12-2008, 09:41 AM
What is up with this over-sensitivity about touching the opposite sex? Forgive me for being blunt, but if you have an inappropriate reaction because someone of the opposite sex touches your hand or forehead....um....I don't think they're the one with the problem.

Our music department has been praying together before going onto the platform on Sunday mornings, and we always join hands. It's a great feeling of unity, and those men and women are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Of course we have to be appropriate, but holding hands for the purpose of prayer, or laying hands on the forehead or shoulder doesn't cross that line in my opinion.

I remember one time I was standing in the emergency room because my Dad had just had a heart attack, and I was so nervous and upset, and when my pastor walked in, he noticed that I was wringing my hands and rubbing them together (I didn't even realize that I was), and he immediately walked up and took my hands, and said, "Abi, it's going to be alright." That was the most calming thing to me, and that gentle, godly touch stuck with me and meant a lot, even though it was a small thing.

I strongly object to this no-touch rule that some people have! If you can't touch other people without having immoral feelings, then YOU shouldn't touch other people, but that doesn't mean others have the same feelings you do or the same reactions, and you shouldn't project your own inner struggles onto others and expect them to abide by the same rule.

Jehoram
03-12-2008, 09:42 AM
Paul is just saying that He himself did not do the actual baptizing, except only a few of his converts. He let others of his staff do the baptizing. It was the same with Jesus. (see Jn 4:1-2)

That's fine.

But what about the absence of baptism from any of Paul's messages to the unconverted?

Jehoram
03-12-2008, 09:44 AM
What is up with this over-sensitivity about touching the opposite sex? Forgive me for being blunt, but if you have an inappropriate reaction because someone of the opposite sex touches your hand or forehead....um....I don't think they're the one with the problem.

Our music department has been praying together before going onto the platform on Sunday mornings, and we always join hands. It's a great feeling of unity, and those men and women are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Of course we have to be appropriate, but holding hands for the purpose of prayer, or laying hands on the forehead or shoulder doesn't cross that line in my opinion.

I remember one time I was standing in the emergency room because my Dad had just had a heart attack, and I was so nervous and upset, and when my pastor walked in, he noticed that I was wringing my hands and rubbing them together (I didn't even realize that I was), and he immediately walked up and took my hands, and said, "Abi, it's going to be alright." That was the most calming thing to me, and that gentle, godly touch stuck with me and meant a lot, even though it was a small thing.

I strongly object to this no-touch rule that some people have! If you can't touch other people without having immoral feelings, then YOU shouldn't touch other people, but that doesn't mean others have the same feelings you do or the same reactions, and you shouldn't project your own inner struggles onto others and expect them to abide by the same rule.

People are just weird, Abi.

MissBrattified
03-12-2008, 09:48 AM
People are just weird, Abi.

I guess. :shocked:

Sorry for the thread hijack--but I didn't start it, just so you know. :D (At least...I don't think I did. *goes back to check* )

Bro-Larry
03-12-2008, 09:50 AM
That's fine.

But what about the absence of baptism from any of Paul's messages to the unconverted?

What about (Acts 19:1-7)? The twelve Ephesian Baptists?

The Philippian jailer was baptized and all his house the same hour of the night.(Acts 16:31-34) They were baptized in response to the gospel which Paul preached to them, "and they spake unto him the word of the Lord,..." (v 32) They must have said something about baptism.

"Oh Yes My Brethren, Let us speak only where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent". (TIC)

Bro-Larry
03-12-2008, 10:05 AM
Right. I can't quite see Him hiking up his robe, running with sand spitting out behind Him and then hearing a big - SPLASH! Somehow that can't work for me.
:ursofunny

PO don't cha' know nuttin'? Robes is a women's garment. LOL (YKIJK)

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 10:06 AM
PO don't cha' know nuttin'? Robes is a women's garment. LOL (YKIJK)
OOps, my bad!!

:ursofunny:ursofunny

Jehoram
03-12-2008, 10:07 AM
What about (Acts 19:1-7)? The twelve Ephesian Baptists?

The Philippian jailer was baptized and all his house the same hour of the night.(Acts 16:31-34) They were baptized in response to the gospel which Paul preached to them, "and they spake unto him the word of the Lord,..." (v 32) They must have said something about baptism.

"Oh Yes My Brethren, Let us speak only where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent". (TIC)

Serious question.

Did Paul baptize those Baptists?

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 11:10 AM
That's fine.

But what about the absence of baptism from any of Paul's messages to the unconverted?

What "absence of baptism"..? We know of at least 2 cases where he obviously must have taught the importance of baptism:
In Acts 16 he baptized the Phillipian jailer and his family.
In Acts 19 he baptized he former disciples of John the baptist.
And we don't have the transcripts of what Paul said to others when he preached salvation messages to them, so how do you determine that there was an absence of baptism from his messages?

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 11:11 AM
Serious question.

Did Paul baptize those Baptists?

Your answer is in Acts 19:1-6

Joelel
03-12-2008, 12:02 PM
The greek word for baptize and the grammar does not allow for someone to dunk themselves. Someone is baptizing someone else. That means someone is dunking someone else into the water.

The word baptize has no meaning about how a person gets fully wet.

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
bap-tid‘-zo
From a derivative of 911 to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

Joelel
03-12-2008, 12:14 PM
Joel, you're a trip!

John 3:16 "John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:"

I'm pretty sure they didn't line up and say, "One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready and four to goooooooo".....jump, splash.....

You're a trip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :killinme

He baptized with water by leading them to the water.You really think it's ok for men to touch womens waist when baptizing ? I don't think so.Preachers who put their hands on womens waists is the real trip.

Jehoram
03-12-2008, 12:16 PM
Your answer is in Acts 19:1-6


Where does it say Paul baptized them?

Is there any record of Paul preaching baptism to the unconverted?

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 12:20 PM
He baptized with water by leading them to the water.You really think it's ok for men to touch womens waist when baptizing ? I don't think so.Preachers who put their hands on womens waists is the real trip.
Joel,
You know, I remember reading somewhere they had women that baptized the women.

Maybe someone can post that information or comment on that.

Joelel
03-12-2008, 12:21 PM
Jesus set the example by having John baptize Him. He didn't go jump in the river. :)

If someone was to lead you to the water and call on the name of the Lord with you and then you went under the water,that wouldn't be them baptizing you ? Did anyone here even call on the name of the Lord as the scripture teaches ?

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 12:28 PM
The greek word for baptize and the grammar does not allow for someone to dunk themselves. Someone is baptizing someone else. That means someone is dunking someone else into the water.
The word baptize has no meaning about how a person gets fully wet.

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
bap-tid‘-zo
From a derivative of 911 to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

Joelel, if youre going to appeal to the original Greek, you really should at least become armed with the facts when debating a topic like this. Praxeas is not referring simply to the word itself but to the grammar also.

The form of the word indicates its meaning in context. In greek each verb is either in the passive voice, active voice, or middle voice.

In the cases where baptism is spoken of, it is always in the active voice (such as "baptize them") , or passive voice (such as "be baptized ")

It is [B]NEVER in the middle voice , (such as "I baptize myself"). From examining the original Greek , its clear that none of the NT writers spoke this concept you're insisting on... that people can/should baptize themselves.

Please buddy, get your facts straight.

Joelel
03-12-2008, 12:31 PM
Are men allowed to lay their hands on sick women to pray for them?

Jas 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Were only men being filled with the Holy Ghost in this account?

Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Was Jesus acting inappropriately when he allowed Mary to anoint His feet with her tears and dry them with her hair? What about when the woman with the issue of blood touched the hem of His garment?

Luke 8:54 And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.

When the apostles prayed for people they didn't put their hands on womens waists.Matter a fact they didn't even put their hands on their heads.Read the scripture,they took them by the hand.

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Where does it say Paul baptized them?

Is there any record of Paul preaching baptism to the unconverted?
Ok.

Well you tell me, who baptized them, if not Paul? I'm not sure what point youre trying to prove... But just let the text speak for itself. Then you tell me who baptized them.

1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples

2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied.


4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus
.
6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2019&version=31#fen-NIV-27579c)] and prophesied.
The only people mentioned in the text are Paul and the former disciples of John. So who baptized them, if not Paul?


Is there any record of Paul preaching baptism to the unconverted?

How would the Philippian jailer (Acts 16) have gotten baptized if he didn't hear it from Paul?

Joelel
03-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Totally unscriptural.
Do you have any scriptural examples where anyone did this?


A common sense answer. Thank you, prax.


That's what you believe... is it based on what you see in the Bible ?, or just how you imagine it in your mind?



Again, you "think" this. But I see it's based on what your trying to insert this into the scripture based on how you imagine it ... certainly not what you see in the Word.

I'm sure you understand that many false doctrines and false churches have started by people saying "I think this is what happened", concerning stuff that the Bible never said.
-----

Jesus laid hands on women to be healed, didnt he?
What about when peter touched Tabitha after raising her from the dead?
Pastors and altar workers regularly lay hands on women in the altar when praying them through to the Holy Ghost.

So what is the issue with a man baptizing a woman?

That's right,I think thoughts of the teaching of the Holy Ghost as most do not.Suppose you show me in the scripture where the apostles put one hand on womens waist and the other on their sholder or face or where ever ?

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 12:40 PM
When the apostles prayed for people they didn't put their hands on womens waists.Matter a fact they didn't even put their hands on their heads.Read the scripture,they took them by the hand.

1...Would it be a sin to put their hands on their heads?

2...And who is even encouraging putting your hands on somebody's waists? I dont see anyone advocating that.

3... Why is this issue so important to you?

Joelel
03-12-2008, 12:41 PM
Its actually a preposterous thought.

Nowhere in scripture do you see anyone say "I baptize myself in Jesus' name!"

No and it don't say the apostles said I baptize you in Jesus name.It says they called on the name of the Lord,(Jesus)

Joelel
03-12-2008, 12:44 PM
What is up with this over-sensitivity about touching the opposite sex? Forgive me for being blunt, but if you have an inappropriate reaction because someone of the opposite sex touches your hand or forehead....um....I don't think they're the one with the problem.

Our music department has been praying together before going onto the platform on Sunday mornings, and we always join hands. It's a great feeling of unity, and those men and women are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Of course we have to be appropriate, but holding hands for the purpose of prayer, or laying hands on the forehead or shoulder doesn't cross that line in my opinion.

I remember one time I was standing in the emergency room because my Dad had just had a heart attack, and I was so nervous and upset, and when my pastor walked in, he noticed that I was wringing my hands and rubbing them together (I didn't even realize that I was), and he immediately walked up and took my hands, and said, "Abi, it's going to be alright." That was the most calming thing to me, and that gentle, godly touch stuck with me and meant a lot, even though it was a small thing.

I strongly object to this no-touch rule that some people have! If you can't touch other people without having immoral feelings, then YOU shouldn't touch other people, but that doesn't mean others have the same feelings you do or the same reactions, and you shouldn't project your own inner struggles onto others and expect them to abide by the same rule.

Hands yes but not waists.

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 12:44 PM
That's right,I think thoughts of the teaching of the Holy Ghost as most do not.Suppose you show me in the scripture where the apostles put one hand on womens waist and the other on their sholder or face or where ever ?

OK.. lemme see if I got this right....

1.. You're plugged in to the Holy Ghost and we're not?

2... Nobody here is making an issue of putting their hands on women's waists but you are, for some reason...

2... Even though there is no specific scripture that prohibits a man touching a woman's shoulder or face (such as, while praying for/with her at the altar)then it must me a sin? is that right?

Joelel
03-12-2008, 12:48 PM
People are just weird, Abi.

Yelp,maybe you should go to the charismatic churches where the men and women kiss each other,then who knows what's next.

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 12:51 PM
Hands yes but not waists.
Not the waist. Yes, we get it.
Who here is encouraging men to touch women's waists? Did i miss something?

Anyone with an ounce of wisdom knows that he should be careful when praying with/for a woman. Therefore touching the waist (or anything below the shoulders probably) would be inadvisable.

There are probably few among us who would agree with that. So what's your next point?
---

Of course you take it to the next level ,as if to say that even touching her forehead or shoulder is wrong. And what do you base that on?... the fact that you dont see in the scriptures where the apostles touched a woman's shoulder or forehead? If thats the case, then thats not "rightly dividing the word" at all.

MissBrattified
03-12-2008, 12:52 PM
Yelp,maybe you should go to the charismatic churches where the men and women kiss each other,then who knows what's next.

Lol, Joelel, I've NEVER been to a church like that. Have you?

I have been known to occasionally greet my closest girlfriends with a hug and light cheek or forehead kiss, or an air kiss. It's just affectionate. Did you never get hugs growing up? You should come to one of the family reunions on my mother's side of the family--every single person hugs and kisses everyone else just because we're family, and whether you want it or not! :D

I have NEVER seen any Christian, charismatic or otherwise, greet another Christian, male or female, with a romantic, sensual or sexual kiss. Uh...well, unless they were married, or someone had just said, "You may kiss the bride."

SDG
03-12-2008, 12:54 PM
No and it don't say the apostles said I baptize you in Jesus name.It says they called on the name of the Lord,(Jesus)

Very true. Calling on the name of the Lord has always been done by the believer throughout Scripture ... not a third-party.

Joelel
03-12-2008, 12:57 PM
PO don't cha' know nuttin'? Robes is a women's garment. LOL (YKIJK)

The good thing about robes you don't have to look at peoples body parts shake when they walk or move.

Joelel
03-12-2008, 01:04 PM
Joel,
You know, I remember reading somewhere they had women that baptized the women.

Maybe someone can post that information or comment on that.

I don't remember that one,if so it should be the same today if a person must be touched.

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 01:08 PM
Its actually a preposterous thought.

Nowhere in scripture do you see anyone say "I baptize myself in Jesus' name!"
No and it don't say the apostles said I baptize you in Jesus name.It says they called on the name of the Lord,(Jesus)

Well that's a separate issue.
But how about if we stick to you original contention here, before we jump all over the place?

You stated your belief that a person can jump in the water and baptize himself in Jesus name. You still haven't shown us any scriptural examples of that. We're still waiting.

But then again, maybe you already know there aren't any such examples.

SDG
03-12-2008, 01:12 PM
Well that's a separate issue.
But how about if we stick to you original contention here, before we jump all over the place?

You stated your belief that a person can jump in the water and baptize himself in Jesus name. You still haven't shown us any scriptural examples of that. We're still waiting.

But then again, maybe you already know there aren't any such examples.


One is baptized in Jesus name by the authority and power he gave when he commissioned his apostles in Matthew given to Him by the Father.

There is no evidence that the verbalization of a proper name by a third party or the believer validates or nullifies the baptism.

You cannot provide any examples of a baptism that was performed in this way either ... Yet it's the cornerstone to your salvational doctrine.

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 01:30 PM
One is baptized in Jesus name by the authority and power he gave when he commissioned his apostles in Matthew given to Him by the Father.

There is no evidence that the verbalization of a proper name by a third party or the believer validates or nullifies the baptism.

You cannot provide any examples of a baptism that was performed in this way either ... Yet it's the cornerstone to your salvational doctrine.

Welcome to the party, DA.

Hmmm... baptizing into "the name" doesn't imlply invoking the actual "name"; it refers to "the authority"... blah,blah, blah. Yeah, heard that one before.
I'm not going to run down that rabbit trail with you Daniel, but nice try anyway.

Now sticking to the matter at hand...the issue in question was simply can a person [properly and scripturally] baptize himself by calling Jesus' name and jumping into the water, as Joelel is trying to say.

The answer is simply no.
Or to put another way...These are the 5 examples of people baptizing themselves in the New Testament:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Since that's a fairly simple matter which really can't be refuted, I think I'll just move along.

Joelel
03-12-2008, 01:31 PM
Joelel, if youre going to appeal to the original Greek, you really should at least become armed with the facts when debating a topic like this. Praxeas is not referring simply to the word itself but to the grammar also.

The form of the word indicates its meaning in context. In greek each verb is either in the passive voice, active voice, or middle voice.

In the cases where baptism is spoken of, it is always in the active voice (such as "baptize them") , or passive voice (such as "be baptized ")

It is [B]NEVER in the middle voice , (such as "I baptize myself"). From examining the original Greek , its clear that none of the NT writers spoke this concept you're insisting on... that people can/should baptize themselves.

Please buddy, get your facts straight.

I said in an other post also,if you took them to the water and called on the name of the Lord as we are suppose to do with them and they jumped in the water,you would be baptizing them.What makes people think you must hold them or touch them ?

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 01:31 PM
Welcome to the party, DA.

Hmmm... baptizing into "the name" doesn't imlply invoking the actual "name"; it refers to "the authority"... blah,blah, blah. Yeah, heard that one before.
I'm not going to run down that rabbit trail with you Daniel, but nice try anyway.

Now sticking to the matter at hand...the issue in question was simply can a person [properly and scripturally] baptize himself by calling Jesus' name and jumping into the water, as Joelel is trying to say.

The answer is simply no.
Or to put another way...These are the 5 examples of people baptizing themselves in the New Testament:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Since that's a fairly simple matter which really can't be refuted, I think I'll just move along.

:ursofunny:ursofunny

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 01:33 PM
Joel,
You know, I remember reading somewhere they had women that baptized the women.

Maybe someone can post that information or comment on that.

Does anyone remember reading this somewhere? I can't remember where I ran across this info. TIA!

Joelel
03-12-2008, 01:37 PM
1...Would it be a sin to put their hands on their heads?

2...And who is even encouraging putting your hands on somebody's waists? I dont see anyone advocating that.

3... Why is this issue so important to you?

What's the problem with just touching their hands as the apostles did ?

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 01:37 PM
Does anyone remember reading this somewhere? I can't remember where I ran across this info. TIA!
you mean in scripture or outside it?

In scripture there is no such reference.

SDG
03-12-2008, 01:38 PM
I don't remember that one,if so it should be the same today if a person must be touched.

In the days of Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc... converts 'baptized' themselves (baptism was called "mikvah", and was the Hebrews' custom of ritual purification stemming back all the way to Sinai). No one touched them. The 'baptizer' was only there to make sure they got completely under the water. For the most part, with a few exceptions when deep enough water was too far out to see everything happen, the baptizer didn't even get in the water with the convert.

Furthermore, I don't believe the apostles changed the the traditional Jewish method of baptism during their lives ... the Protestants here are working backwards based on our modern practices of performing the rite of baptism. Too suggest otherwise is preposterous, IMO ... that somehow these men changed the laws and traditions regarding baptism.

Many, including OPs, have allowed our modern forms of baptism to replace what these men understood and had learned as baptism to be and mean. they had always observed, and later officiated in witnessing the baptisms, in the Jewish Tradition ... not in the Evangelical Protestant tradition.

1. According to Jewish law the immersion had to have a required witness. Many theologians will tell you that the biblical phrase "in the name of" was an indication of the required witness. In several New Testament references such as I Corinthians 1:13, 15; Matthew 21:25; Acts 1:22; and Acts 19:3 we see early baptism mentioned in conjunction with the name of individuals such as John and Paul. Further information on this can be found in Jewish literature concerning proselyte baptism where it indicates his baptism required attestation by witnesses in whose name he was immersed.

John the Baptist no doubt performed mikvahs in the river in the Jewish tradition. His father was a priest ... and as part of his lineage and training he would have baptized in this manner. Meaning although he was called the Baptizer ... or Baptist ... he simply officiated in the manner PREVIOUSLY described.

Also being that one was baptized required attestation by witnesses in whose name one is immersed ... this brings to light why Jesus tells his disciples in Matthew 28 ... 1. all authority had been given to Him 2. to go and baptize in the authority of His name.

2. The immersion candidate was not initially touched by the baptizer in Yeshu's (Jesus') day. Because Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water," ....

What does this mean ....??? It's a stretch to think that Jewish Christians somehow changed how biblical baptisms were practiced for centuries by baptizing in the modern day fashion ... with the baptizer doing the immersing.

Lastly ... because some related baptism to discipleship ... and there apparently was some sectarianism going on between "disciples" or "converts" of Paul and Apollos ... Paul exhorts these believers to remember that they were baptized into Christ ... and baptized under his authority.

Now do we now have re-baptize everyone baptized in the modern immersion tradition of course ... not ...

Do we have to ensure that the baptism is properly administered w/ the right verbiage for salvation to happen ... no.

All of that would be, again, a mischaracterization as to the significance and role of baptism in the life of the believer.

Does this mean I will have believers in my church baptize themselves?

No ... I wouldn't want to scandalize the traditionalists among us .... it would be a more authentic form .... but
I'll do it the "old" fashioned new way.

But the question begs to be asked if the baptismal regenerationists who are so obsessed w/ baptismal ritual, who may baptize and verbiage would be willing to even accept that their way is not exactly the NT 1st century way.

Can they ensure if the "blood is applied" if they've been doing it wrong this whole time.

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 01:39 PM
What's the problem with just touching their hands as the apostles did ?
Feel free to answer my questions first before asking me other questions, Joelel.

SDG
03-12-2008, 01:46 PM
Historical, cultural and scriptural data fly in the face of those who would impose their formula and method of a properly administered baptism to cause salvation. TR ... you have no data to prove that baptisms are performed as you do today ... let alone causing the New Birth.

If you can possibly get past those prattling gad flies you may notice some gems in their discourse. For example, the importance of the mikveh in understanding early Christian baptisms. These were steeply stepped cisterns into which usually only a single person could descend at a time. No one would have been able to dunk anyone else around the Temple area in the first century. You did it yourself.

Here's an example of one that wasn't so deep (http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/Mikveh_below_Triple_Gate_tb_n102300.jpg).

http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/Mikveh_below_Triple_Gate_tb_n102300.jpg

It's believed that the 3,000 baptized on the day of Pentecost used these tanks for their baptism while the apostles witnessed/officiated over the ceremonial rites declaring their confession of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ ... and under the authority given to them to baptize in His name.

MissBrattified
03-12-2008, 01:47 PM
One is baptized in Jesus name by the authority and power he gave when he commissioned his apostles in Matthew given to Him by the Father.

There is no evidence that the verbalization of a proper name by a third party or the believer validates or nullifies the baptism.

You cannot provide any examples of a baptism that was performed in this way either ... Yet it's the cornerstone to your salvational doctrine.

I just find it odd that there are no verses stating that _______ baptized himself, or where any apostle that I know of instructed unbelievers to "baptize themselves."

It always says they "were baptized." If I wash my face, it would sound weird for someone to say "she was washed" or "her face was washed" rather than "she washed her face." The grammar used does imply a third party at least assisting. Furthermore, why did John baptize Jesus, rather than Jesus setting an example and baptizing Himself?

And what about the eunuch? The Bible says, "...he baptized him."

Acts 8:38 "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

I Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.


I'm surprised that you seem to be agreeing with Joelel, at least about the third party, because it is obvious that John the Baptist and the apostles baptized people. Or are you just agreeing with the part about not needing someone else to call on the Lord for you?

Also, I looked up "calling" [on the name of the Lord], and here is what Strong's says:

epikaleomai
ep-ee-kal-eh'-om-ahee
Middle voice from G1909 and G2564; to entitle; by implication to invoke (for aid, worship, testimony, decision, etc.): - appeal (unto), call (on, upon), surname.

I also looked up the other two words referenced in the definition, and they are:

epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

and,

kaleō
kal-eh'-o
Akin to the base of G2753; to “call” (properly aloud, but used in a variety of applications, directly or otherwise): - bid, call (forth), (whose, whose sur-) name (was [called]).


It certainly appears that, taken in context and all related definitions that it means "invoked over aloud."

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 01:56 PM
Ms Bratt...
Daniel has his own agenda here.

The original post dealt with why Paul said he was called to preach, not to baptize.
Joelel then got into this [unbiblical] idea that a person can baptize himself.

Daniel wants to take it in still another direction. He's not even addressing the issue under discussion. Dan never seems to miss an opportunity to attack so-called "3-steppers/baptismal-regenerationalist" doctrine.

You can let him hijack the thread if you want to, but I already know his M.O.

As for me, the whole baptism as "part of salvation" debate on this forum is getting real old. Same people... same arguments. Personally, I try not to let myself get sucked in.

SDG
03-12-2008, 01:57 PM
I just find it odd that there are no verses stating that _______ baptized himself, or where any apostle that I know of instructed unbelievers to "baptize themselves."

It always says they "were baptized." If I wash my face, it would sound weird for someone to say "she was washed" or "her face was washed" rather than "she washed her face." The grammar used does imply a third party at least assisting. Furthermore, why did John baptize Jesus, rather than Jesus setting an example and baptizing Himself?

And what about the eunuch? The Bible says, "...he baptized him."

Acts 8:38 "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

I Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.


I'm surprised that you seem to be agreeing with Joelel, at least about the third party, because it is obvious that John the Baptist and the apostles baptized people. Or are you just agreeing with the part about not needing someone else to call on the Lord for you?

Also, I looked up "calling" [on the name of the Lord], and here is what Strong's says:

epikaleomai
ep-ee-kal-eh'-om-ahee
Middle voice from G1909 and G2564; to entitle; by implication to invoke (for aid, worship, testimony, decision, etc.): - appeal (unto), call (on, upon), surname.

I also looked up the other two words referenced in the definition, and they are:

epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

and,

kaleō
kal-eh'-o
Akin to the base of G2753; to “call” (properly aloud, but used in a variety of applications, directly or otherwise): - bid, call (forth), (whose, whose sur-) name (was [called]).


It certainly appears that, taken in context and all related definitions that it means "invoked over aloud."

Using Greek terms to explain biblical principles from the Hebraic minds who were writing in their second language can be a tricky thing if you work backwards as you have ...

Calling on the name of the Lord is not a NEW TESTAMENT THING .... MISS B.

in the Jewish tradition .... the baptizee did the confession of faith ... some have confused what being baptize into the name, or authority of Jesus Christ w/ the biblical principle of CALLING UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD .... which was more that the incantation of a name. You won't see this practice in scripture that salvation or a covenant somehow hangs on a third party officiator getting it right.

Calling upon the name of the Lord in the OT and NT have a distinct meaning to what many of my OP brethren have twisted it to mean w/ their Water and Spirit rose colored glasses on.

One of the gravest errors we make in rightly dividing the word is our failure to understand idiomatic expressions of the Hebraic language.

In the OT ... to call upon the name of the Lord, the word upon is the particle preposition b or beth. There is no Strong's number that corresponds. Only the use of this Hebrew preposition separates to call the LORD or to call to the LORD from to call upon the LORD or to call upon the name of the LORD.

Almost every use of to call on the name of the LORD involves the construction of an altar and the offering of a sacrifice (Genesis 12:8, 13:4, 21:33--implied, 26:25; 1 Kings 18:24).

All of the Old Testament sacrifices were only as effective as the believing of the one offering them.All of these sacrifices entailed acknowledging God's lamb who would be revealed in the future. To call “upon the name of the LORD” was to formally enter into a covenant by coming into His presence.

Notice that it was between the believer and God ... not the officiator of a baptismal ceremony invoking it on someone else.

CrazyHomie once stated:

If we are going to be called "Apostolic" and a "new testament church", obviously one would think we would want to be biblically based in our baptism. Baptism was a ritual cleansing incorportated into the mosaic law. If a woman was on her monthly, she would go and "cleanse" herself. If you were healed of leprosy, etc. one would obey the law and cleanse themselves. These baptism pools were all over the holy land and were called "Mikvahs". When Peter preached in Acts 2, he told them to go wash according to the "new covenant" which was Christ. They were no longer to cleanse themselves according to the "old covenant" which was the law. Also, it was a public confession as to their new found faith in this messiah called Jesus Christ. In those days to public confess ones faith away from the law to follow Jesus, was inviting persecution if not death from the religious community. Three thousand obeyed Peter and went and washed themselves. I am not saying an individual is not saved by invocation, rather biblically speaking, it is always up to the believer to call on Christ for salvation.

Entering this new covenant is through our confession of faith in the Lamb ... my friend and brother ... as it was for Abraham, Jacob, Moses (See Hebrews 11)

SDG
03-12-2008, 01:58 PM
Paul in Romans 10 is echoing a biblical truth and a promise from OT scripture ...

These too are the words of the prophet Joel and Peter ... and others also ... there is witness in Scripture .... and calling upon the name has alway fell upon the believer as it relates to salvation ... not the utterances of third party ... i.e. baptizer.

The name is undoubtedly attached to the person and His authority and his entire nature as Savior and God.

A sinner, Jew or Gentile, who has sincerely believed and calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ....

John says

And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us

I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

As does Joel:

Quote:
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

As does the Psalmist:

Quote:
Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH] ; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul."

As does Paul:

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

As does Ananias, in Acts:

Quote:
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

As does Peter, in the book of Acts on the day of Pentecost:

Quote:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Joelel
03-12-2008, 04:28 PM
Lol, Joelel, I've NEVER been to a church like that. Have you?

I have been known to occasionally greet my closest girlfriends with a hug and light cheek or forehead kiss, or an air kiss. It's just affectionate. Did you never get hugs growing up? You should come to one of the family reunions on my mother's side of the family--every single person hugs and kisses everyone else just because we're family, and whether you want it or not! :D

I have NEVER seen any Christian, charismatic or otherwise, greet another Christian, male or female, with a romantic, sensual or sexual kiss. Uh...well, unless they were married, or someone had just said, "You may kiss the bride."

I been to a couple charismatic churches the women just walked around greeting the men with a kiss and the men the same.I didn't even know them and they walked up and tried to kiss me.

Encryptus
03-12-2008, 04:58 PM
Yelp,maybe you should go to the charismatic churches where the men and women kiss each other,then who knows what's next.

Joelel this is from another thread explaining the theology behind the kissing.

:happydance:happydance:happydance

Greet the Brethren


(A Brief Historical/Theological Treatise)

Some time after the first century following the final canonization of scripture, came a movement to insure that every Pauline edict made to the New Testament church was followed to the letter. The reasons for being so restrictive were numerous. While the Old Testament might be relevant to such mundane things as the history of Israel, typology of Christ and the like, they simply were not germane to modern church governance and post-salvation conduct. Similarly, the four gospels should be relegated to secondary status because they served no purpose beyond leading the “sinner” to Christ. Since those involved in such research were obviously “saved” (having once duly repented, been water baptized, and spirit filled) what mattered most was to study the writings of Paul concerning church hierarchy and personal holiness.

In this spirit all the words written by Paul in the imperative (command) form of Greek where categorized and studied at length and in detail to make sure that church law, especially post-salvation truths, were followed to the letter. One scholar on the project was shocked to discover Paul had thus “commanded” saints to greet the brethren with a kiss no less than four times (and even Peter had commanded it once). It was, therefore, maintained that the kissing should start immediately in keeping with the Apostle’s command. A few scholars pointed out that while this form of greeting was common in Paul’s time, there were relatively few modern countries (mostly European, and Middle Eastern) where this was still common practice. Some even suggested this teaching of Paul was instead culturally relative and furthermore, since it was post-salvation, perhaps these type issues could be, to a degree, open to interpretation. The majority met in council and decided there was only one Christian way to handle such matters. The heretics were crucified.

Theologians and church leaders then, through a series of councils, subsequently concluded that a kiss in most countries currently was defined as full lip contact. The doctrine was then refined on such fine points as duration of the kiss, whether or not a hug was mandatory and such like. This task of refining post-salvation doctrine, of course, involved the best and brightest minds for centuries until there was a basic canonical understanding of what constituted the correct form of apostolic greeting. The final edict was then reduced to a mere three-page document.

However in the early 1600s a monk doing independent research through ancient historic writings found what he believed to be irrefutable proof that in the areas of the world and contemporaneous to the writings of Paul the normative greeting was not a full lip one at all, but rather more like a peck on the cheek.

After much soul searching he documented and published his research knowing full well the rift it would cause. Christendom instantly erupted into chaos and pandemonium. Camps were quickly formed and divided into the “lip locks” and the “cheek pecks”. Lip Locks issued position pieces that Sola Scriptura was the hermeneutical standard. The Cheek Pecks responded they were not adding to scripture but merely using historical texts to better place it in context with its historical meaning and, therefore, application. Of course the fight escalated, and the ensuing mayhem has been well documented elsewhere. Millions of lives lost to both battle and torture, incalculable property damage, and resources expended over the next centuries. (See also Inquisition, Reformation, and Counter-reformation). Eventually an uneasy peace accord was reached and in most areas of the world the LLs and the CPs learned to co-exist. While there is of course no fellowship, at least, the bloodshed has stopped for now.

A more recent but very fascinating phenomenon has been noted among the CPs. Apparently schisms have formed on whether or not the Apostles used one cheek peck or three. Both sides of course still agree on the plan of salvation (the reader will note once again this is a post-salvation treatise), and that a peck on the cheek is how Paul had commanded the brethren to be greeted. While most non-Christians have trouble grasping these nuances, the positions are basically as follows: the OP (one peck) camp believes the legal obligation to be completed with a single kiss thereby fulfilled the spirit of Paul’s edict, the TP (three peck) camp maintains that without all three individual pecks the kissing requirement has not been met and therefore the greeting falls short of Paul’s mandate. Some within the TP camp even maintain that perhaps since the OPs are unwilling to literally fulfill Paul’s commandments that perhaps their very salvation should be brought into question. Obviously, these two schisms within the CP movement no longer fellowship but at least, as of yet, there does not appear to be any bloodshed. This development is being watched with great interest by theologians and non-Christians alike. Who knows what other future discoveries and additions to the plan of salvation may be found? We truly live in exciting times.

Bro-Larry
03-12-2008, 04:58 PM
Serious question.

Did Paul baptize those Baptists?

Kaint tell, Luke ain't a'sayen jes which aaron done da baptizzen. Ain't skeert tho.

Bro-Larry
03-12-2008, 05:03 PM
He baptized with water by leading them to the water.You really think it's ok for men to touch womens waist when baptizing ? I don't think so.Preachers who put their hands on womens waists is the real trip.

I baptized lots o'bigguns and lots o'liddleuns, but I ain't nevver yet had to put no hans on no woman's midparts. Whar's Bro OGatt?

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 05:07 PM
What makes people think you must hold them or touch them ?
To answer your question with another question ...
What makes you think we should not touch them or hold them? Do you have scripture that says we should not touch or hold the person being baptized?
(Thats just a rhetorical question though. No answer needed)
I said in an other post also,if you took them to the water and called on the name of the Lord as we are suppose to do with them and they jumped in the water,you would be baptizing them.What makes people think you must hold them or touch them ?

1..Because your idea is speculative and not supported by scripture, thats why.
You have no biblical examples of anyone every doing it the way you're describing. Not one.

2.. Since A... the Greek word baptizo means to dip, or immerse, and
B... Since Acts 2:38 and other similar NT scriptures have the Greek word in the passive voice, which means the act is performed by someone else (as I explained previously in post #92 ) ....then obviously it refers to someone else doing the dipping/immersing of the baptized person.

The concept here is fairly simple: If you took them to the water and they jumped in they would still be baptizing themselves.

I cant explain it any clearer. If you want to get into speculative ideas about people jumping into water to baptize themselves, then feel free.

Bro-Larry
03-12-2008, 05:15 PM
When we hear the word of God it gives us faith and washes us from sin.


Bro Joelel: Your statement is not universally true. Faith only comes when one hears the word of Christos. The elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, must be involved, in order for faith and justification to be engendered.

For example: The Ten Commandments is the word of God. When one hears the Ten Commandments, faith does not come, neither does it wash us from sin. Hearing the law brings comdemnation and death.

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 05:16 PM
I baptized lots o'bigguns and lots o'liddleuns, but I ain't nevver yet had to put no hans on no woman's midparts. Whar's Bro OGatt?
:ursofunny:ursofunny:ursofunny

Bro-Larry
03-12-2008, 05:35 PM
This is just a point of interest, doesn't prove or disprove anything being discussed here. This thread brought it to my memory.

At POA Easter Pageant they have a line of people walking into the baptistry on one end, and there is someone standing outside the baptistry witnessing each baptizee as they dip themselves down into the water. Undertand this is a part of the play.

freeatlast
03-12-2008, 08:24 PM
In the days of Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc... converts 'baptized' themselves (baptism was called "mikvah", and was the Hebrews' custom of ritual purification stemming back all the way to Sinai). No one touched them. The 'baptizer' was only there to make sure they got completely under the water. For the most part, with a few exceptions when deep enough water was too far out to see everything happen, the baptizer didn't even get in the water with the convert.

Furthermore, I don't believe the apostles changed the the traditional Jewish method of baptism during their lives ... the Protestants here are working backwards based on our modern practices of performing the rite of baptism. Too suggest otherwise is preposterous, IMO ... that somehow these men changed the laws and traditions regarding baptism.

Many, including OPs, have allowed our modern forms of baptism to replace what these men understood and had learned as baptism to be and mean. they had always observed, and later officiated in witnessing the baptisms, in the Jewish Tradition ... not in the Evangelical Protestant tradition.

1. According to Jewish law the immersion had to have a required witness. Many theologians will tell you that the biblical phrase "in the name of" was an indication of the required witness. In several New Testament references such as I Corinthians 1:13, 15; Matthew 21:25; Acts 1:22; and Acts 19:3 we see early baptism mentioned in conjunction with the name of individuals such as John and Paul. Further information on this can be found in Jewish literature concerning proselyte baptism where it indicates his baptism required attestation by witnesses in whose name he was immersed.

John the Baptist no doubt performed mikvahs in the river in the Jewish tradition. His father was a priest ... and as part of his lineage and training he would have baptized in this manner. Meaning although he was called the Baptizer ... or Baptist ... he simply officiated in the manner PREVIOUSLY described.

Also being that one was baptized required attestation by witnesses in whose name one is immersed ... this brings to light why Jesus tells his disciples in Matthew 28 ... 1. all authority had been given to Him 2. to go and baptize in the authority of His name.

2. The immersion candidate was not initially touched by the baptizer in Yeshu's (Jesus') day. Because Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water," ....

What does this mean ....??? It's a stretch to think that Jewish Christians somehow changed how biblical baptisms were practiced for centuries by baptizing in the modern day fashion ... with the baptizer doing the immersing.

Lastly ... because some related baptism to discipleship ... and there apparently was some sectarianism going on between "disciples" or "converts" of Paul and Apollos ... Paul exhorts these believers to remember that they were baptized into Christ ... and baptized under his authority.

Now do we now have re-baptize everyone baptized in the modern immersion tradition of course ... not ...

Do we have to ensure that the baptism is properly administered w/ the right verbiage for salvation to happen ... no.

All of that would be, again, a mischaracterization as to the significance and role of baptism in the life of the believer.

Does this mean I will have believers in my church baptize themselves?

No ... I wouldn't want to scandalize the traditionalists among us .... it would be a more authentic form .... but
I'll do it the "old" fashioned new way.

But the question begs to be asked if the baptismal regenerationists who are so obsessed w/ baptismal ritual, who may baptize and verbiage would be willing to even accept that their way is not exactly the NT 1st century way.

Can they ensure if the "blood is applied" if they've been doing it wrong this whole time.

Absolutley 100 per cent dead on correct Daniel.

I've argued much the same here before much to the chagrin of some who can't believe the apostles did things different than we do today.

Great post !!

Joelel
03-13-2008, 11:44 AM
OK.. lemme see if I got this right....

1.. You're plugged in to the Holy Ghost and we're not?

2... Nobody here is making an issue of putting their hands on women's waists but you are, for some reason...

2... Even though there is no specific scripture that prohibits a man touching a woman's shoulder or face (such as, while praying for/with her at the altar)then it must me a sin? is that right?

It's all about the right way to do things,it's all about being decent.1Cor.14
[40] Let all things be done decently and in order.

Joelel
03-13-2008, 11:52 AM
Not the waist. Yes, we get it.
Who here is encouraging men to touch women's waists? Did i miss something?

Anyone with an ounce of wisdom knows that he should be careful when praying with/for a woman. Therefore touching the waist (or anything below the shoulders probably) would be inadvisable.

There are probably few among us who would agree with that. So what's your next point?
---

Of course you take it to the next level ,as if to say that even touching her forehead or shoulder is wrong. And what do you base that on?... the fact that you dont see in the scriptures where the apostles touched a woman's shoulder or forehead? If thats the case, then thats not "rightly dividing the word" at all.

The way most people baptize people is they put one hand on the waist back and the other on the persons arm on their neck or upper chest.One hand to push them down and the other to bring them up.

Joelel
03-13-2008, 11:57 AM
Well that's a separate issue.
But how about if we stick to you original contention here, before we jump all over the place?

You stated your belief that a person can jump in the water and baptize himself in Jesus name. You still haven't shown us any scriptural examples of that. We're still waiting.

But then again, maybe you already know there aren't any such examples.

No one can give scripture where the apostles put their hands on people to baptize either.

Joelel
03-13-2008, 12:07 PM
Welcome to the party, DA.

Hmmm... baptizing into "the name" doesn't imlply invoking the actual "name"; it refers to "the authority"... blah,blah, blah. Yeah, heard that one before.
I'm not going to run down that rabbit trail with you Daniel, but nice try anyway.

Now sticking to the matter at hand...the issue in question was simply can a person [properly and scripturally] baptize himself by calling Jesus' name and jumping into the water, as Joelel is trying to say.

The answer is simply no.
Or to put another way...These are the 5 examples of people baptizing themselves in the New Testament:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Since that's a fairly simple matter which really can't be refuted, I think I'll just move along.

They were taken to the water by the apostles and they called on the name of the Lord and went under the water.What makes you think they had to hold or touch the person to baptize them ? Calling on the name of the Lord is what does the work.The apostles baptized them by telling them what to do.You think the apostles have some kind of power to remitt sins because the touch them ?

SDG
03-13-2008, 12:07 PM
No one can give scripture where the apostles put their hands on people to baptize either.

Of course ... he can't ... ask an Jewish rabbi how baptisms have been performed since the OT. This discussion about a Greek word's voice ... etymology ... is silliness ... when we examine the historical, cultural and scriptural reality.

John the Baptist ... a son of a high priest ... would have followed the law on this ... Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness ... nor did he change the law.

The disciples would've have relied on their traditions in officiating/witnessing baptisms ... also.

SDG
03-13-2008, 12:15 PM
SACRAMENTALISM GONE WILD!!!!

There are some who have sacramentalized and mysticized baptism to the point that the Cross is not enough .... take the Oneness Pentecostal group originating in China called the True Jesus Church.

This is from their articles of faith:

Water baptism is the sacrament for the remission of sins for regeneration. The baptism must take place in natural living water, such as the river, sea, or spring. The Baptist, who already has had received baptism of water and the Holy Spirit, conducts the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the person receiving the baptism must be completely immersed in water with head bowed and face downward.

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration unfortunately has adulterated scripture in such a way that you have man-made organizations adding to the Word .... and adding to the significance of baptism.

Joelel
03-13-2008, 12:16 PM
In the days of Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc... converts 'baptized' themselves (baptism was called "mikvah", and was the Hebrews' custom of ritual purification stemming back all the way to Sinai). No one touched them. The 'baptizer' was only there to make sure they got completely under the water. For the most part, with a few exceptions when deep enough water was too far out to see everything happen, the baptizer didn't even get in the water with the convert.

Furthermore, I don't believe the apostles changed the the traditional Jewish method of baptism during their lives ... the Protestants here are working backwards based on our modern practices of performing the rite of baptism. Too suggest otherwise is preposterous, IMO ... that somehow these men changed the laws and traditions regarding baptism.

Many, including OPs, have allowed our modern forms of baptism to replace what these men understood and had learned as baptism to be and mean. they had always observed, and later officiated in witnessing the baptisms, in the Jewish Tradition ... not in the Evangelical Protestant tradition.

1. According to Jewish law the immersion had to have a required witness. Many theologians will tell you that the biblical phrase "in the name of" was an indication of the required witness. In several New Testament references such as I Corinthians 1:13, 15; Matthew 21:25; Acts 1:22; and Acts 19:3 we see early baptism mentioned in conjunction with the name of individuals such as John and Paul. Further information on this can be found in Jewish literature concerning proselyte baptism where it indicates his baptism required attestation by witnesses in whose name he was immersed.

John the Baptist no doubt performed mikvahs in the river in the Jewish tradition. His father was a priest ... and as part of his lineage and training he would have baptized in this manner. Meaning although he was called the Baptizer ... or Baptist ... he simply officiated in the manner PREVIOUSLY described.

Also being that one was baptized required attestation by witnesses in whose name one is immersed ... this brings to light why Jesus tells his disciples in Matthew 28 ... 1. all authority had been given to Him 2. to go and baptize in the authority of His name.

2. The immersion candidate was not initially touched by the baptizer in Yeshu's (Jesus') day. Because Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water," ....

What does this mean ....??? It's a stretch to think that Jewish Christians somehow changed how biblical baptisms were practiced for centuries by baptizing in the modern day fashion ... with the baptizer doing the immersing.

Lastly ... because some related baptism to discipleship ... and there apparently was some sectarianism going on between "disciples" or "converts" of Paul and Apollos ... Paul exhorts these believers to remember that they were baptized into Christ ... and baptized under his authority.

Now do we now have re-baptize everyone baptized in the modern immersion tradition of course ... not ...

Do we have to ensure that the baptism is properly administered w/ the right verbiage for salvation to happen ... no.

All of that would be, again, a mischaracterization as to the significance and role of baptism in the life of the believer.

Does this mean I will have believers in my church baptize themselves?

No ... I wouldn't want to scandalize the traditionalists among us .... it would be a more authentic form .... but
I'll do it the "old" fashioned new way.

But the question begs to be asked if the baptismal regenerationists who are so obsessed w/ baptismal ritual, who may baptize and verbiage would be willing to even accept that their way is not exactly the NT 1st century way.

Can they ensure if the "blood is applied" if they've been doing it wrong this whole time.

I didn't know this was history,Thank the Holy Ghost he has taught me truth once again.The Holy Ghost has confirmed truth.A person must call on the name of the Lord though. Amen

Joelel
03-13-2008, 12:59 PM
I just find it odd that there are no verses stating that _______ baptized himself, or where any apostle that I know of instructed unbelievers to "baptize themselves."

It always says they "were baptized." If I wash my face, it would sound weird for someone to say "she was washed" or "her face was washed" rather than "she washed her face." The grammar used does imply a third party at least assisting. Furthermore, why did John baptize Jesus, rather than Jesus setting an example and baptizing Himself?

And what about the eunuch? The Bible says, "...he baptized him."

Acts 8:38 "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

I Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.


I'm surprised that you seem to be agreeing with Joelel, at least about the third party, because it is obvious that John the Baptist and the apostles baptized people. Or are you just agreeing with the part about not needing someone else to call on the Lord for you?

Also, I looked up "calling" [on the name of the Lord], and here is what Strong's says:

epikaleomai
ep-ee-kal-eh'-om-ahee
Middle voice from G1909 and G2564; to entitle; by implication to invoke (for aid, worship, testimony, decision, etc.): - appeal (unto), call (on, upon), surname.

I also looked up the other two words referenced in the definition, and they are:

epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

and,

kaleō
kal-eh'-o
Akin to the base of G2753; to “call” (properly aloud, but used in a variety of applications, directly or otherwise): - bid, call (forth), (whose, whose sur-) name (was [called]).


It certainly appears that, taken in context and all related definitions that it means "invoked over aloud."

They both went down into the water or to the water ? Philip got baptized again too ? It don't say he was holding him.That would be something,one holding the other and both go under the water.

This is the script word for word.

38 kai <2532> {AND} ekeleusen <2753> (5656) {HE COMMANDED} sthnai <2476> (5629) {TO STAND STILL} to <3588> {THE} arma <716> {CHARIOT.} kai <2532> {AND} katebhsan <2597> (5627) {THEY WENT DOWN} amfoteroi <297> {BOTH} eiV <1519> {TO} to <3588> {THE} udwr <5204> o <3588> te <5037> {WATER,} filippoV <5376> {BOTH PHILIP} kai <2532> {AND} o <3588> {THE} eunoucoV <2135> {EUNUCH,} kai <2532> {AND} ebaptisen <907> (5656) {HE BAPTIZED} auton <846> {HIM.}

Joelel
03-13-2008, 01:28 PM
Paul in Romans 10 is echoing a biblical truth and a promise from OT scripture ...

These too are the words of the prophet Joel and Peter ... and others also ... there is witness in Scripture .... and calling upon the name has alway fell upon the believer as it relates to salvation ... not the utterances of third party ... i.e. baptizer.

The name is undoubtedly attached to the person and His authority and his entire nature as Savior and God.

A sinner, Jew or Gentile, who has sincerely believed and calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ....

John says

And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us

I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

As does Joel:

Quote:
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

As does the Psalmist:

Quote:
Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH] ; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul."

As does Paul:

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

As does Ananias, in Acts:

Quote:
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

As does Peter, in the book of Acts on the day of Pentecost:

Quote:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Your saying the person being baptized is to call on the name,not the one doing the baptizing,right ? All though,I don't see myself taking someone to be baptized and not calling on the name of the Lord with them.

Joelel
03-13-2008, 01:33 PM
Joelel this is from another thread explaining the theology behind the kissing.

:happydance:happydance:happydance

Greet the Brethren


(A Brief Historical/Theological Treatise)

Some time after the first century following the final canonization of scripture, came a movement to insure that every Pauline edict made to the New Testament church was followed to the letter. The reasons for being so restrictive were numerous. While the Old Testament might be relevant to such mundane things as the history of Israel, typology of Christ and the like, they simply were not germane to modern church governance and post-salvation conduct. Similarly, the four gospels should be relegated to secondary status because they served no purpose beyond leading the “sinner” to Christ. Since those involved in such research were obviously “saved” (having once duly repented, been water baptized, and spirit filled) what mattered most was to study the writings of Paul concerning church hierarchy and personal holiness.

In this spirit all the words written by Paul in the imperative (command) form of Greek where categorized and studied at length and in detail to make sure that church law, especially post-salvation truths, were followed to the letter. One scholar on the project was shocked to discover Paul had thus “commanded” saints to greet the brethren with a kiss no less than four times (and even Peter had commanded it once). It was, therefore, maintained that the kissing should start immediately in keeping with the Apostle’s command. A few scholars pointed out that while this form of greeting was common in Paul’s time, there were relatively few modern countries (mostly European, and Middle Eastern) where this was still common practice. Some even suggested this teaching of Paul was instead culturally relative and furthermore, since it was post-salvation, perhaps these type issues could be, to a degree, open to interpretation. The majority met in council and decided there was only one Christian way to handle such matters. The heretics were crucified.

Theologians and church leaders then, through a series of councils, subsequently concluded that a kiss in most countries currently was defined as full lip contact. The doctrine was then refined on such fine points as duration of the kiss, whether or not a hug was mandatory and such like. This task of refining post-salvation doctrine, of course, involved the best and brightest minds for centuries until there was a basic canonical understanding of what constituted the correct form of apostolic greeting. The final edict was then reduced to a mere three-page document.

However in the early 1600s a monk doing independent research through ancient historic writings found what he believed to be irrefutable proof that in the areas of the world and contemporaneous to the writings of Paul the normative greeting was not a full lip one at all, but rather more like a peck on the cheek.

After much soul searching he documented and published his research knowing full well the rift it would cause. Christendom instantly erupted into chaos and pandemonium. Camps were quickly formed and divided into the “lip locks” and the “cheek pecks”. Lip Locks issued position pieces that Sola Scriptura was the hermeneutical standard. The Cheek Pecks responded they were not adding to scripture but merely using historical texts to better place it in context with its historical meaning and, therefore, application. Of course the fight escalated, and the ensuing mayhem has been well documented elsewhere. Millions of lives lost to both battle and torture, incalculable property damage, and resources expended over the next centuries. (See also Inquisition, Reformation, and Counter-reformation). Eventually an uneasy peace accord was reached and in most areas of the world the LLs and the CPs learned to co-exist. While there is of course no fellowship, at least, the bloodshed has stopped for now.

A more recent but very fascinating phenomenon has been noted among the CPs. Apparently schisms have formed on whether or not the Apostles used one cheek peck or three. Both sides of course still agree on the plan of salvation (the reader will note once again this is a post-salvation treatise), and that a peck on the cheek is how Paul had commanded the brethren to be greeted. While most non-Christians have trouble grasping these nuances, the positions are basically as follows: the OP (one peck) camp believes the legal obligation to be completed with a single kiss thereby fulfilled the spirit of Paul’s edict, the TP (three peck) camp maintains that without all three individual pecks the kissing requirement has not been met and therefore the greeting falls short of Paul’s mandate. Some within the TP camp even maintain that perhaps since the OPs are unwilling to literally fulfill Paul’s commandments that perhaps their very salvation should be brought into question. Obviously, these two schisms within the CP movement no longer fellowship but at least, as of yet, there does not appear to be any bloodshed. This development is being watched with great interest by theologians and non-Christians alike. Who knows what other future discoveries and additions to the plan of salvation may be found? We truly live in exciting times.

I think if we lived in an other country where the custom was for men to greet men with a kiss instead of a hand shake then it would be ok,but we have in the charismatic churches here the women greeting the men with a kiss.

Michael Phelps
03-13-2008, 01:35 PM
I think if we lived in an other country where the custom was for men to greet men with a kiss instead of a hand shake then it would be ok,but we have in the charismatic churches here the women greeting the men with a kiss.

??? Which church?

Joelel
03-13-2008, 01:36 PM
I baptized lots o'bigguns and lots o'liddleuns, but I ain't nevver yet had to put no hans on no woman's midparts. Whar's Bro OGatt?

I don't know where it says you got to touch them at all in baptism.

Joelel
03-13-2008, 01:41 PM
To answer your question with another question ...
What makes you think we should not touch them or hold them? Do you have scripture that says we should not touch or hold the person being baptized?
(Thats just a rhetorical question though. No answer needed)


1..Because your idea is speculative and not supported by scripture, thats why.
You have no biblical examples of anyone every doing it the way you're describing. Not one.

2.. Since A... the Greek word baptizo means to dip, or immerse, and
B... Since Acts 2:38 and other similar NT scriptures have the Greek word in the passive voice, which means the act is performed by someone else (as I explained previously in post #92 ) ....then obviously it refers to someone else doing the dipping/immersing of the baptized person.

The concept here is fairly simple: If you took them to the water and they jumped in they would still be baptizing themselves.

I cant explain it any clearer. If you want to get into speculative ideas about people jumping into water to baptize themselves, then feel free.

Why can't they dip themselves without your help.Does your touching them do something ?

Joelel
03-13-2008, 01:45 PM
Bro Joelel: Your statement is not universally true. Faith only comes when one hears the word of Christos. The elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, must be involved, in order for faith and justification to be engendered.

For example: The Ten Commandments is the word of God. When one hears the Ten Commandments, faith does not come, neither does it wash us from sin. Hearing the law brings comdemnation and death.

Jesus is the word,we hear the word it washes us,gives us faith.