What will Liberal's/Baptist's do when

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Baptism as a testimony to our belief?

I'm still waitng for someone to show me the scripture that says baptism is "a testimony to our belief" or "an outward sign of an inward change", etc.

I DO know the scriputure verses that refer to baptism being for "remission of sins" (Acts 2:38) and for "washing away of sins" (Acts 22:16). But the verses that speak of baptism's purpose being for "an outard sign" or "an outward testmony", etc... I've never seen those --- anywhere.

Sam, Jermyn, anyone... Help me here.

OK, TRFrance,
there is no chapter and verse that uses the words "a testimony to our belief" or "an outward sign of an inward change." Those are, at least in my case, our theological interpretations of the ritual of baptism.

Baptism or mikveh developed among the Jews a couple of centuries before the birth of Jesus. It is still practiced by some Jews. It was a ritual cleansing. It is now (and was then as far as we know) a three-time self immersion in "living" or running water. From what I understand, the word "mikveh" means "gathering" (of waters) and since the word occurs three times the three-time self immersion is used. Some devout men participate in the mikveh/baptism every week in preparation for the sabbath. Ladies self immerse a prescribed time after their monthly period for a ritual cleansing and as a burial for that new life that did not happen. Gentile converts to Judaism at the time of John the Baptist would undergo circumcision, offer an animal sacrifice, and then perform the mikveh ritual. That was nothing new for folks back then. When John came practicing the mikveh as preparation for the coming King and Kingdom it was as if he were telling people they had to be converted just like Gentiles to participate in this coming kingdom. That may be why he warned them not to think they were OK just because they had Abraham as their (physical) father because this was some thing spiritual. Actually, after a Gentile performed the self-immersion and the other requirements he was referred to as being "born of water" since he could not claim actual physical birth as a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel.

In my opinion, baptism is a symbolic cleansing, but not an "actual" cleansing from sin. In my opinion this is what Peter means when he uses words about baptism as:
--a figure (picture) of salvation
--not an actual washing or removal of filth
--the response (answer) of a good conscience toward God.

You can see, however, that the Jewish belief in the ritual cleansing of baptism and the term "born of water" could result in a current belief that water baptism actually washes away sin and can be considered "born of water." you can see where the three time (or trine) immersion would lend itself to using a three fold formula i.e. the FS&HG wording used by most churches.

In the Didache, there is a passage about Christian baptism. Didache means Teaching and the book is called The Didache (Teaching) of the Apostles. We don't know when it was written. Guesstimates range from around 50 AD to about 250 AD. It is included in Acts chapter 15 in the AESV (Aramaic English Standard Version) of the Bible. It is called the Limuda and is considered by some to be part of the letter written after the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15 which probably happened in the winter of AD 49/50. Here is what Acts 15 in the AESV says about water baptism:
"And concerning baptism, you shall baptise in this manner:
Having first taught all these things, baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
But if you have no living water, baptise in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm.
But if you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

[Sam]

Do we have any place in the New Testament prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, that anyone (including Jesus) who was baptized by John was rebaptized when they left John and began to follow Jesus?

I had a pastor who used John 3:22-24 to show that John the Baptist and his disciples came to Jesus to get rebaptized.

Also, it is my understanding that some teach that the 12 apostles and the rest of the 120 who received the Holy Ghost Baptism in Acts chapter 2 were among the 3000 who were water baptized that day.

[Sam]

TR France,
I didn't finish my answer to your question concerning remission/forgiveness/washing away sin in water baptism based on Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16.

In my opinion, Acts 22:16 refers to a figurative washing away of sins and not an actual cleansing from sin. In the CJB this verse is translated "...get up, immerse yourself, and have your sins washed away as you call upon his name." As you know, I consider myself a one-stepper. In my opinion, Saul was saved or justified or born again when he saw and heard the resurrected Christ and therefore "believed in his heart" and "confessed with his mouth" that Jesus is Lord. In my opinion, he received the Holy Ghost Baptism three days later when Ananias laid hands on him and then was either baptized by someone or self-immersed in Jesus' name.

As far as Acts 2:38 being "for" the remisssion/forgiveness of sins, well, that has been discussed a lot here. I do believe remission and forgiveness are the same thing since they are used interchangeably in our Greek NT. I believe a person is justified and born again when he turns to God in faith and repentance. I believe that at that moment, all sins are forgiven, remitted, washed away, etc. As far as the word "for" there it can be interpreted a couple of ways and we've seen Greek experts quoted here that support a couple of interpretations. We've also seen Acts 2:38 broken down based on the Greek text in our manuscripts as saying something like:
Y'all repent so y'all's sins can be forgiven,
and let each one of you get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,
and the promise of the Holy Ghost is given to y'all.
I can't read and translate Greek so I don't know if that is accurate or not but those who break it down that way state that based on the way the plural and singular pronouns are used in the original, the remission/forgiveness is tied to the verb repent and then the command to be be baptized is separate.

In my opinion, Acts 2:38 is ambiguous as to whether water baptism does or does not wash away/forgive/remit/remove sin and other verses do not say that forgiveness of sin happens at water baptism.

It is my opinion, that a person is justified/saved/regenerated at faith and repentance and is ready for Heaven at that time. I do, however, believe that water baptism and Spirit baptism are important parts of being a disciple or servant of God and that both should be part of our Christian experience. I do not believe that anyone who has not been baptized in Jesus' name and has not received the Holy Ghost baptism is lost, is a child of the devil, and is going to Hell.

Water and Spirit baptism are important in my opinion and as we read the Book of Acts these experiences often accompanied/followed conversion/salvation experiences. At that time they did not wait until the first Sunday of the month or the next Easter service to hold a baptismal service. Water baptism came the same day or night.

I'm not a debater and not very articulate. These are my beliefs that I personally hold. I'm sure someone sharper than I could out talk me or present a more cogent summary of their beliefs and leave me stuttering and speechless without an answer.

I do believe in Acts 2:38. I just see justification/salvation/regeneration happening at a different point in the process than some. If we follow the spirit of the fundamental doctrine statement (even though we're not all UPC) we will respect one another and one another's opinions and go on from there. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that we see so much sarcasm, acrimony, patronizing, and outright condemnation on this forum. I've been guilty of it also. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

[TRFrance]

You know I love you Sam, but ...really, you've got my head spinning with some of this stuff:

Originally Posted by Sam

there is no chapter and verse that uses the words "a testimony to our belief" or "an outward sign of an inward change." Those are, at least in my case, our theological interpretations of the ritual of baptism.

No scripture for that belief. OK.
I definitely agree with you there.

Originally Posted by Sam

Baptism or mikveh developed among the Jews a couple of centuries before the birth of Jesus. It is still practiced by some Jews. It was a ritual cleansing. It is now (and was then as far as we know) a three-time self immersion in "living" or running water. From what I understand, the word "mikveh" means "gathering" (of waters) and since the word occurs three times the three-time self immersion is used. Some devout men participate in the mikveh/baptism every week in preparation for the sabbath. Ladies self immerse a prescribed time after their monthly period for a ritual cleansing and as a burial for that new life that did not happen. Gentile converts to Judaism at the time of John the Baptist would undergo circumcision, offer an animal sacrifice, and then perform the mikveh ritual. That was nothing new for folks back then. When John came practicing the mikveh as preparation for the coming King and Kingdom it was as if he were telling people they had to be converted just like Gentiles to participate in this coming kingdom. That may be why he warned them not to think they were OK just because they had Abraham as their (physical) father because this was some thing spiritual. Actually, after a Gentile performed the self-immersion and the other requirements he was referred to as being "born of water" since he could not claim actual physical birth as a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel.

OK. Jewish history. Interesting information...
But for those of us who prefer scriptural references to history... it's not quite enough.

Originally Posted by Sam

In my opinion, baptism is a symbolic cleansing, but not an "actual" cleansing from sin. In my opinion this is what Peter means when he uses words about baptism as:
--a figure (picture) of salvation
--not an actual washing or removal of filth
--the response (answer) of a good conscience toward God.

Two points on this:

1)

I see that many who say that baptismal has no salvational value will refer to this scripture verse. But why is it that so often they dont quote the part of that verse (1 Pet 3:21) that says ... baptism doth also save us.... (?)

21The 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: (KJV)

21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[a] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NIV)

People can always parse throught the verse, and end up diluting it's meaning. But if baptism had no salvational value, Peter would not have said it also SAVES US.

2)

Futhermore, it doesnt say baptism saves us "in a figure" or "figuratively". It is saying the waters were a figure of baptism ---which also saves us. The figure Peter is referring to (vs 20-21) is not that baptism represents a figure (picture) of salvation, but that the waters that saved Noah were a prefiguration (prototype) of baptism, which now also saves us.

Originally Posted by Sam

In the Didache, there is a passage about Christian baptism. Didache means Teaching and the book is called The Didache (Teaching) of the Apostles. We don't know when it was written. Guesstimates range from around 50 AD to about 250 AD. It is included in Acts chapter 15 in the AESV (Aramaic English Standard Version) of the Bible. It is called the Limuda and is considered by some to be part of the letter written after the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15 which probably happened in the winter of AD 49/50. Here is what Acts 15 in the AESV says about water baptism:
"And concerning baptism, you shall baptise in this manner:
Having first taught all these things, baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
But if you have no living water, baptise in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm.
But if you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Appealing to the Didache, Sam?
The Didache?
A book widely considered a fraud by many theologians, both liberal and conservative?

1/ The Didache is obviously not scripture, and is widely recognized to not be inspired by God -- for a lot of reasons.
2/ It purports to be the teaching of the 1st century apostles, but it has many teachings that do not represent Apostolic teaching. For example it contains many spurious teachings, such as its instructions

a/ to baptize in running (living) water,
b/ that the baptizee should fast 1-2 days before the baptism takes place
c/ to pour 3 time on the person's head in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit

etc, etc...

The Didache is a document that cant be taken seriously. Using the Didache to supplement your argument really doesnt strengthen your agrument at all.

So I'll reiterate my position once again, then:

There is clear scripure that tells us baptism is for "remission of sins" or "washing away of sins". This belief can then be drawn strictly from scripture, without any need for historical references or extra-biblical documents.
However, there is no such scripture that tells us that baptism is for "a testimony of our belief" or "an outward sign of an inward change".

Until someone shows me otherwise directly from the Word of God, I'll continue to believe this more firmly than ever.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It's a BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE for/in order to remit sins.

Sad even when one reads it before our very eyes ... how you can state John's baptism of repentance was done in order to remit sins ... remssion in your paradigm implying washing of sins .... making the sacrifice of Jesus Christ unnecessary.

Bibilical witness throughout Scripture not being enough ... for some

... a first hand account by historian Josephus ... who heard John preach apparently recognizes this was NEVER JOHN's message ....

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late.

Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/john.html

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Sad even when one reads it before our very eyes ... how you can state John's baptism of repentance was done in order to remit sins ... remssion in your paradigm implying washing of sins .... making the sacrifice of Jesus Christ unnecessary.

Bibilical witness throughout Scripture not being enough ... for some

... a first hand account by historian Josephus ... who heard John preach apparently recognizes this was NEVER JOHN's message ....




http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/john.html

So you are say'n water baptism is completely unnecessary? Seems I read that Jesus was baptized in water by John to "fulfill all righteousness", so wouldn't that make it a necessary part of Salvation's recipe? Or can we be "saved" with partial rightousness?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Sad even when one reads it before our very eyes ... how you can state John's baptism of repentance was done in order to remit sins ... remssion in your paradigm implying washing of sins .... making the sacrifice of Jesus Christ unnecessary.

Bibilical witness throughout Scripture not being enough ... for some

... a first hand account by historian Josephus ... who heard John preach apparently recognizes this was NEVER JOHN's message ....




http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/john.html

Dan, I'd love to get into discussing this with almost anyone but not you.

Perhaps Pelathais will give you what you want.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

So you are say'n water baptism is completely unnecessary? Seems I read that Jesus was baptized in water by John to "fulfill all righteousness", so wouldn't that make it a necessary part of Salvation's recipe? Or can we be "saved" with partial rightousness?

Where does it say that folks were saved under John's baptism? or that they were justified under John's baptism? To fulfill all righteousness may not mean to make righteous esp in Jesus' case, since Jesus was without sin.

Paul's distinction was always between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ when it came to righteousness.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

So you are say'n water baptism is completely unnecessary? Seems I read that Jesus was baptized in water by John to "fulfill all righteousness", so wouldn't that make it a necessary part of Salvation's recipe? Or can we be "saved" with partial rightousness?

Not being to serious here but are you saying that Jesus needed to be baptized in order to be saved? Also, I don't really think that Jesus was baptized in Jesus name. One of the fundamentals of Three-step theology is that baptism is only valid if in Jesus Name.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

Not being to serious here but are you saying that Jesus needed to be baptized in order to be saved? Also, I don't really think that Jesus was baptized in Jesus name. One of the fundamentals of Three-step theology is that baptism is only valid if in Jesus Name.

Do we have any idea of what John said when he baptized people?

Do we have any idea what Jesus said when He baptized people?

Do we have any idea what the disciples of Jesus said when they baptized people prior to the cross?

Do we have any idea if the people who were baptized by John were subsequently baptized by Jesus and His disciples prior to the cross?