toldailytopic: Water baptism: what is it's place today?

Status
Not open for further replies.

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That makes sense. Does it mean then, that even babies who die without baptism of the Holy Spirit are consigned to outer darkness? Is that not incongruent with Jesus call to be like little children? This bothers me a great deal. peace, bybee

That's another subject, but I'll throw in my 2 cents here. Then we can start another thread if you'd like to discuss it more.

The phrase "age of accountability" isn't in the Bible. But the idea certainly is. In Romans 7, Paul says:
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Rom. 7:7-9​

There was a time in his life (or his audience's, or anyone's) when he was innocent and "alive", so to speak. He hasn't been told what's right and wrong. He doesn't understand the concept. But then there comes a time when he's told ("don't covet", for instance) and he understands. At that point, he's accountable to that knowledge. And from that point forward, he'll never be able to live up to the standard of right and wrong perfectly. So, he's effectively dead. Only Christ can set him free.

Based on this passage, I believe that a newly conceived child is "free" and "alive to God", until he reaches a point where he can understand right and wrong. If he dies before that point, he will be with God for eternity. If he reaches that point before death, he must either try to be perfect from then on...or somehow be made perfect. Since he can't do the former, he must trust Christ to do the latter for him.

Thanks!

Randy
 

bybee

New member
Thanks Randy!

Thanks Randy!

That's another subject, but I'll throw in my 2 cents here. Then we can start another thread if you'd like to discuss it more.

The phrase "age of accountability" isn't in the Bible. But the idea certainly is. In Romans 7, Paul says:
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Rom. 7:7-9​

There was a time in his life (or his audience's, or anyone's) when he was innocent and "alive", so to speak. He hasn't been told what's right and wrong. He doesn't understand the concept. But then there comes a time when he's told ("don't covet", for instance) and he understands. At that point, he's accountable to that knowledge. And from that point forward, he'll never be able to live up to the standard of right and wrong perfectly. So, he's effectively dead. Only Christ can set him free.

Based on this passage, I believe that a newly conceived child is "free" and "alive to God", until he reaches a point where he can understand right and wrong. If he dies before that point, he will be with God for eternity. If he reaches that point before death, he must either try to be perfect from then on...or somehow be made perfect. Since he can't do the former, he must trust Christ to do the latter for him.

Thanks!

Randy

Chickenman scores again! Thanks. I see it that way too. You know there is another class of people who don't believe that laws apply to them. They are called sociopaths. But that's another story. I agree with Paul "the Law condemns". We cannot, of our own abilities, conform ourselves to obedience of the Law. In Christ we attain the spirit of the Law. peace, bybee
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Thats a fun question. You know thats not possible. If Jesus changes his mind it means he made a mental mistake which is impossible.
How, exactly, does Him changing His mind mean He made a mistake? In no way does wanting to do something different mean the first thing He wanted to do, or was doing, was wrong or a mistake. It only means He wants to do something different.

To say God changing His mind means He made a mistake is a logical fallacy.

God is not insane. If He does one thing and we screw it up [because we do that quite a lot] it is reasonable that He will move on rather than continue to do the same thing expecting different results.
 

bybee

New member
Agreed

Agreed

How, exactly, does Him changing His mind mean He made a mistake? In no way does wanting to do something different mean the first thing He wanted to do, or was doing, was wrong or a mistake. It only means He wants to do something different.

To say God changing His mind means He made a mistake is a logical fallacy.

God is not insane. If He does one thing and we screw it up [because we do that quite a lot] it is reasonable that He will move on rather than continue to do the same thing expecting different results.

You make good sense to me! peace, bybee
 

The Graphite

New member
I keep hearing that, well, it is "easy."

Lots of things are easy. Abstaining from eating camel is easy, and that is commanded in the Bible. What on earth does it being easy have to do with ANYTHING? :confused:

In fact, practicing institutional water baptism in most churches is not as easy as you think. Expending funds to build a baptismal, maintaining it, keeping it clean, then providing the water in a way that isn't freezing cold out of the tap (like my brother Rob experienced)... Yeah, tell Rob that it's "easy." It takes money, time and effort, and even then, it doesn't always go right.
 

greatdivide46

New member
What? This makes no sense. Can you elaborate? Are you saying that the use of the conjunction "AND" demands that it means "both together united as one"? The norm for "grammatical structure" is that when there's a conjunction "AND", it usually denotes two things.
No, I am not saying that the use of the conjunction "and" demands that it means "both together united as one." What I am saying that "water" and "Spirit" as the double object of one prepositional phrase that modifies "birth" indicate that it is one birth. And in that sense it does mean that both water and Spirit are united as one. Obviously this cannot be referring to physical birth since the Spirit is not involved there. Therefore, it has to be referring to spiritual birth where both water and Spirit are involved.
 

greatdivide46

New member
In fact, practicing institutional water baptism in most churches is not as easy as you think. Expending funds to build a baptismal, maintaining it, keeping it clean, then providing the water in a way that isn't freezing cold out of the tap (like my brother Rob experienced)... Yeah, tell Rob that it's "easy." It takes money, time and effort, and even then, it doesn't always go right.
That all may be true, but that's no reason to take a command of Jesus and say it doesn't apply to Christians today.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, I am not saying that the use of the conjunction "and" demands that it means "both together united as one." What I am saying that "water" and "Spirit" as the double object of one prepositional phrase that modifies "birth" indicate that it is one birth. And in that sense it does mean that both water and Spirit are united as one. Obviously this cannot be referring to physical birth since the Spirit is not involved there. Therefore, it has to be referring to spiritual birth where both water and Spirit are involved.

The very next verse clears it up, as does the previous. Bookends, defining it all really nicely.

But that's fine. You're pretty firm on your position. So I won't persist.

Thanks, greatdivide. I hope you have a great day.

Randy
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
A command of Jesus to Israel.

I'm not Jewish.

Which tribe are you?

Give me a break. Are all of Jesus' commands meaningless then? If not, how do you know the difference?


“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”



ALL the nations , or are you going to pretend He actually meant "only the Jewish people in those nations".

From Colossians

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

greatdivide46

New member
A command of Jesus to Israel.

I'm not Jewish.

Which tribe are you?
So when Jesus commanded is disciples to go into all the world and make disciples of all people baptizing them.... He was commanding them to go only to Jews?
 
Last edited:

renegade

New member
Mid Acts Dispensationists of many hues and varieties. bybee

My don't we like to complicate things. Why can't things be simple (like a child can understand).

I guess that which opens the door to confusion, or leads to argument, or creates division, comes from where?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Give me a break. Are all of Jesus' commands meaningless then? If not, how do you know the difference?

Show some discussion-related integrity and answer your own question. Jesus commanded, "Do not murder". Jesus also commanded, "Remember the sabbath and keep it holy". Observing both or either of those does not lead to salvation today, but once upon a time both were required for salvation (or the appropriate sacrifice).

If you agree with that then you show where God de-established the requirements of the law. The Christians you are trying to discredit have given numerous lines of evidence to show very clearly that Paul's gospel dis-established baptism as a legal requirement for salvation. Those Christians use similar lines of evidence to disestablish the entire law as a legal requirement for salvation.

You either:
(a) agree with what you've been shown that none of the law is any longer of effect, or
(b) you provide your own verses showing God's change in standard that show the same thing, but in a better way, or
(c) you admit you think the entire law is still required in order to be saved.

Choose well.
 

The Graphite

New member
A command of Jesus to Israel.

I'm not Jewish.

Which tribe are you?
So when Jesus commanded is disciples to go into all the world and make disciples of all people baptizing them.... He was commanding them to go only to Jews?
'Zactly, to the Jews only.

Let's back up, shall we? Because you are stuck with tradition-colored lenses that are coloring everything you see, courtesy of 2,000 years of human opinion rather than what is actually in scripture. Do you realize that the so-called "great commission" was prophecied in the Old Testament? What do we find there? Let's look, and then go through the progression of history into and through the Old Testament.

Isaiah 66:18-21
18 “For I know their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory. 19 I will set a sign among them; and those among them who escape I will send to the nations: to Tarshish and Pul and Lud, who draw the bow, and Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles. 20 Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the LORD out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem,” says the LORD, “as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. 21 And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites,” says the LORD.​
So, Isaiah says they will give this sign and message to the Gentiles? Oops, no, wait. It says "among" the Gentiles. To whom is this future mission? To the scattered tribes who are living among the Gentiles. To bring those scattered Jews back to Jerusalem to worship the Lord so that they may became a nation of priests.

Bringing the scattered Jewish brethren out of the Gentile nations, bringing them back to Israel.

What does Ezekiel have to say about this?

Ezekiel 36:19-28
19 So I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed throughout the countries; I judged them according to their ways and their deeds. 20 When they came to the nations, wherever they went, they profaned My holy name—when they said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, and yet they have gone out of His land.’ 21 But I had concern for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations wherever they went.
22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD,” says the Lord GOD, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.​

So, they will go out and preach to the Gentiles and make disciples of the Gentiles? Nope. They will go find their lost and scattered Jewish brethren -- the lost sheep of the house of Israel -- and bring them back to Israel. The Lord will purify them with water (water baptism) and in doing so cleanse them of their filthiness, give them a new heart and a new spirit, and they will live in a covenant of not only faith but works of the law, living under the law. And they will inherit the land of Israel.

How about Zechariah? Does he have anything to add? Sure enough, he comments on one of the side effects of the above-mentioned future missions to the lost Israelites...

Zechariah 8:7-8, 23
7 “Thus says the LORD of hosts:
‘ Behold, I will save My people from the land of the east
And from the land of the west;
8 I will bring them back,
And they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem
.
They shall be My people
And I will be their God,
In truth and righteousness.’

23 “Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘In those days ten men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”’”​

So, they will go bring back their lost Jewish brethren, and in the process, many Gentiles will hear this good news preached and decide to hop on the bandwagon. There would be several Gentiles hanging on the hem of every Jew, saying "Take me with you."

Is that what we see happening in the New Testament once Paul comes on the scene? Absolutely not. Is that what we see in church history since then? Not a bit. Today? Heck no. This prophecy is as-yet unfulfilled. But, now we see three different Old Testament prophets explain the future "great commission." Now, let's go to the gospels. What does Jesus have to say to the disciples?

Matthew 10:5-7
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’​
The mission is to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and NOT to the Gentiles. Does Jesus ever abrogate this? I'd love to see you point out where He does. In fact, He does not. So, what is the so-called Great Commission?

Matthew 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.​
So, it says they should make disciples of the Gentiles? Oops, no, it doesn't. It says to make disciples of all the nations. These disciples would be from many nations. Are they Gentiles? It doesn't say they are Gentiles. What have we already seen, repeated again and again? Bring back the Jewish brethren from all of the nations, sprinkle them with water for purification of their sin. Not Gentiles. But, disciples from all of the nations.

On top of it all, Jesus says they must continue to "observe all things that I have commanded you." All things, like "Do not go unto the way of the Gentiles!"

So, what do we see after the gospel accounts?

Acts 2 is totally Jewish, fulfills a Jewish feast from the law of Moses. Who is present? 1) Jews and 2) Gentile proselytes to Judaism, all of whom are there to worship for the (oh yeah) Jewish feast festival, the Feast of Weeks.

After that? Their ministry is not to Gentiles. The only exception is when Paul comes on the scene, and at the same time Peter is sent a sign from God that He will now call clean what had been unclean. Peter says very appropriately that it is "unlawful" for him to go to the Gentiles! Why? Because this is what Jesus taught him, and what Jesus commanded him! He is following orders, and now this new message contradicts what the prophets said, what Jesus said during His earthly ministry, and what was stated in the "great commission!" This is totally new to Peter! Even after he faithfully accepts this mission, he goes to Cornelius and what's the first thing out of his mouth? He tells Cornelius that it is wrong for him (Peter) to be there, but God told him to do it, and he trusts God, so that's why he's doing it. Is Peter an amnesiac? No, he is fully aware of what he has been repeatedly taught and commanded -- do not go unto the way of the Gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel!

After that, Peter reports back to the Jerusalem church, and explains what happened. At first they're shocked, but after some thought, they realize that now a change has occurred:

Acts 11:18
When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”​
And then what? The Twelve and the members of the Jerusalem church went out and preached to the Gentiles... right? Wrong-o.

Acts 11:19-20
19 Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. 20 But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists [ie. "hellenized" or Greek-speaking Jews], preaching the Lord Jesus.​

Paul confirms that the Twelve agreed that he, Paul, would go to the Gentiles, and they would not interfere with that but would go only to the Jews.

Galatians 2:6-9
6 But from those who seemed to be something [The Twelve] — whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man — for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision had been committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.​
The Twelve would go to the circumsized and preach the gospel of the circumcision, and Paul would go to the Gentiles, and preach the gospel of the uncircumcision.

Paul never, ever commands water baptism. His only reference in his epistles is early in his ministry, in which he explains that he did not come to water baptize, but to preach the gospel. In contrast to the Twelve, who were commanded to preach the gospel, which included water baptism (Matt. 28, Acts 2:38).

Israel has many baptisms. Ash water, repentance, fire, water, spirit.... During the Exodus, the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" when they were spared the water of the Red Sea. They weren't trusting God, but they trusted Moses, and Moses trusted God, and so God decided that Moses would cover them for the time being. And also, Jesus promised that He would baptize them in the Holy Spirit.

All of these baptisms for Israel! In contrast, what does Paul say to us, the Body of Christ?

Ephesians 4:
4 There is one body
and one Spirit, just as you were called in
one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord,
one faith,
one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.​
For us, there is only one baptism. What is that baptism?

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.​
Now, since Acts 7-9, Israel's covenant has been set aside, they have been blinded for a time, temporarily (Romans 11), and we exist in this parenthetical and unprophecied age of grace, in the Body of Christ. Water baptism, which is a very Jewish ceremonial commandment going all the way back to the law of Moses, is not applicable to the Body of Christ, today.

The Holy Spirit baptized (ie. immersed) me into Christ. When He did that, He did not dunk me in water. He dunked me into Jesus. No water involved. I am in Christ. And so His death becomes my death, and His resurrection becomes my resurrection from that death. Praise God! By one Spirit, I am baptized into one body, the Body of Christ!
 

Selaphiel

Well-known member
Mark disagrees with you. The Greek in Mark 16 is clear, it means ALL men, not Jews among gentiles.

Mark 16:15

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει.

eis ton kosmon apanta = To all the world
pase te ktisei = All of the created beings

And what should the disciples tell ALL the created beings in ALL of the world?

Mark 16:16

ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται.

Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved.

Mark predates Matthew. This is the original verse. That is the problem with MAD, they do not consider ANY historical knowledge or knowledge in general we have about the texts in the scripture. The result is that they make absurd connections, which have no historical validity, between texts.
A theology who seemingly does not recognize differences of theology and opinion between the different biblical texts are not really worthy of attention. Ignoring 200 years of academic knowledge of the Bible is hardly the way to go if you want any sort of accurate information.
 
Last edited:

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Great synopsis, TG. :up:

Selaphiel,
You said, "Ignoring 200 years of academic knowledge of the Bible is hardly the way to go if you want any sort of accurate information." Whose academic knowledge should we not ignore? Considering the many different and opposing scholarly doctrinal positions that have been taken during the last 200 years (and certainly beyond), then whose are we to ignore and whose are we to not ignore? Do we accept the scholar's "academic knowledge" that agrees with you, and reject the scholars' "academic knowledge" that disagrees with you?

Please clarify what you meant by that.

Thanks,
Randy
 

bybee

New member
Exactly!

Exactly!

Great synopsis, TG. :up:

Selaphiel,
You said, "Ignoring 200 years of academic knowledge of the Bible is hardly the way to go if you want any sort of accurate information." Whose academic knowledge should we not ignore? Considering the many different and opposing scholarly doctrinal positions that have been taken during the last 200 years (and certainly beyond), then whose are we to ignore and whose are we to not ignore? Do we accept the scholar's "academic knowledge" that agrees with you, and reject the scholars' "academic knowledge" that disagrees with you?

Please clarify what you meant by that.

Thanks,
Randy

I believe it is important to educate oneself on "Things Theologic" and differing views of "Foundation Truthes". I need to hear the viewpoints of others so that my faith may be deepened and enriched. But, I must choose my own pathway. And that is the pathway which the grace of God has illumined for me. Academic knowledge alone will not save us. Sometimes, my mind informs me of things my heart has known all along! peace, bybee
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top