Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize?

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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!

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]

Originally Posted by Joelel

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.



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]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

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]

Originally Posted by Joelel

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]

Originally Posted by Joelel

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)

Originally Posted by Joelel

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]

Originally Posted by Joelel

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]

Originally Posted by Bro-Larry

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?

[Bro-Larry]

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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.