Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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]

Originally Posted by Joelel

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]

Originally Posted by Joelel

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]

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.



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]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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]

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]

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."

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]

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.