Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize?

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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]

Originally Posted by Joelel

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

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



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]

Originally Posted by Joelel

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?