Baptism and the existence of a church

[HankD]

It is not recorded that John the baptist used the Trintarian formula in his baptism.

Jesus Christ is the author of the Trinitarian baptism in water by immersion.

If folks want to rely on the works of dead men, fine.

How many lost were added to the rolls of membership of local churches by men (some of whom perhaps lost themselves) using the Trinitarian formula by mode of immersion?

How many of those whom Christ baptized in the Spirit were saved?

Admittedly, biblical local churches need to obey this element of the Great Commission. But IMO (from scripture), it is an act of obedience, a public witness to and an identification with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, nothing more.

It is not a sacrament and has no sanctifying grace or power over sin whatsoever.

Membership in the Church of the Firstborn is determined by the administrator of the the New Covenant in blood, not powerless water.


HankD

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There are no "new areas" at all. There is no new gospel, no new baptism and no new commandments but only those things they "have" been already discipled in and that is clear from Acts 2:41-42.

The pattern is laid down again in Acts 2:41-42 and so to assume as you have done that these 3,000 were not discipled into this pattern is presumption contrary to what is clearly stated in Acts 2:41-42. Again, to presume they went back home and function apart from or contrary to this pattern assumes disobedience to the Great Commission by both the church at Jerusalem and these newly baptized disciples.

If we are going to assume anything we should assume that both the church and these disciples acted in accordance with this pattern not contrary to it. For example notice the words "added unto" in Acts 2:41 where the same Great Commission threefold pattern is spelled out. In Acts 2:47 the words "added unto" does not mean the Lord added DIFFERENTLY than what is spelled out in Acts 2:41-42 but it is a summary expression for that same pattern. To assume anything differently is to presume obedience turned into disobedience by the church and God Himself led in disobeying His own commission.

The pattern we see laid down and observed consistently by the Church at Jerusalem in Acts 1-8 is the same pattern we see followed by the church at Antioch in Acts 13-18 through their missionaries Paul and Barnabas and Paul and Silas.

Why would you assume the Lord's churches disobeyed this Great Commission pattern??????

First because of the make up of the crowd.

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

Which btw wasn't every nation under heaven bible lingo for every nation known about. And certain nations were spelled out.

Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?"

Note also what Peter mentions here

39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off

Now this does not dismiss the fact that

42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

So that those who had the time left would seek and be taught by the apostles the faith and the practices there of but How long the passage doesn't say and we have this further thing to consider The confusion by those who didn't know the fulness of teaching at Ephasus. And Paul had to educated them properly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

First because of the make up of the crowd. Which btw wasn't every nation under heaven bible lingo for every nation known about. And certain nations were spelled out. Note also what Peter mentions here Now this does not dismiss the fact that So that those who had the time left would seek and be taught by the apostles the faith and the practices there of but How long the passage doesn't say and we have this further thing to consider The confusion by those who didn't know the fulness of teaching at Ephasus. And Paul had to educated them properly.

Whether they are Jews or Gentiles they have the SAME nature with the SAME problem that is solved by the SAME gospel.

The text explicitly says that the 3000 "CONTINUED STEDFASTLY IN" these things. Hence, they were there sufficiently for this to be said of them.

Paul did return visits in each missionary tour (Acts 14:22-23; 15:36; 18:22)

The summary statement of Acts 2:41-42 which is also imbedded in this same passage "added unto" is used consistently until Acts 6 where the numbers became so great that Luke changed from addition to multiplication. But the same Great Commission process was implemented in those multiple converts being brought into the church membership in Jerusalem.

Interestingly, a new phrase is used in Acts 6 for this process in verse 7:

And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

I believe "the faith" is a synonym of the contents of the Great Commission and the giving of this Great Commission is what Jude refers to when he said "contend of the faith ONCE DELIVERED." These Preists had been part of and Administrators of another SYSTEM OF DISCIPLESHIP surrounding the Temple and its ordinances. They believed the gospel, were baptized and added unto the church and continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine. In other words, they were converted to another SYSTEM OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

From Acts 6:7 the phrase "the faith" is used in contexts referring to the doctrine and practice passed on to the churches by the apostles (Acts 14:22; 16:5; 1 Tim. 4:1; etc.). Other synonyms all with the definite article are used to describe it ("the tradition" - 2 Thes. 2:15; 3:6) and "the doctrine" (Rom. 16:17) and "the truth" (I Tim. 3;15) etc.

 

[RAdam]

I haven't denied that or abandoned it. I just think it ought not be something that we flaunt, especially to outsiders. That's no different than the attitude those Pharisees had. There's really no benefit in it. I know from experience that it's a turn off to many.

[edit] I'm referring to the straight lineage back to Christ thing. There's many who make a big deal of that.

I'm not flaunting it. I'm saying that it is important.

I don't care if something is a turn off to many if the bible says it is important. Church lineage is important, because if we aren't the true church we need to find it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is not recorded that John the baptist used the Trintarian formula in his baptism.

Jesus Christ is the author of the Trinitarian baptism in water by immersion.

If folks want to rely on the works of dead men, fine.

How many lost were added to the rolls of membership of local churches by men (some of whom perhaps lost themselves) using the Trinitarian formula by mode of immersion?

How many of those whom Christ baptized in the Spirit were saved?

Admittedly, biblical local churches need to obey this element of the Great Commission. But IMO (from scripture), it is an act of obedience, a public witness to and an identification with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, nothing more.

It is not a sacrament and has no sanctifying grace or power over sin whatsoever.

Membership in the Church of the Firstborn is determined by the administrator of the the New Covenant in blood, not powerless water.


HankD

It is not recorded that Christ, Peter or Paul used the phrase in Matthew 28:19 as a verbal baptismal formula either!!!!!! Luke never records it used as a verbal formula in the book of Acts.

To baptize in somebodies "name" can mean to do so by their authority (Acts 3:7) and John the Baptist baptized by the Authority of the Triune God because it was the "counsel" of the Triune God and the only God John believed in and acted under the authority of was the Triune God.

ALL that were baptized in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost were ALREADY SAVED BELIEVERS IN CHRIST.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The text explicitly says that the 3000 "CONTINUED STEDFASTLY IN" these things. Hence, they were there sufficiently for this to be said of them.

in the things they were taught over the time period they were taught. And it didn't matter what part of the empire they came from they were all Jews.

 

[Dr. Walter]

in the things they were taught over the time period they were taught. And it didn't matter what part of the empire they came from they were all Jews.

The order of Scripture is to the Jews FIRST and then to the Gentiles. Paul followed this order throughout the book of Acts. Jesus followed this order in the gospel. He was sent first to the Jews although later he ministered to gentiles (Samaritan, Roman centurian, Greeks, etc.).

 

[HankD]

It is not recorded that Christ, Peter or Paul used the phrase in Matthew 28:19 as a verbal baptismal formula either!!!!!! Luke never records it used as a verbal formula in the book of Acts.

To baptize in somebodies "name" can mean to do so by their authority (Acts 3:7) and John the Baptist baptized by the Authority of the Triune God because it was the "counsel" of the Triune God and the only God John believed in and acted under the authority of was the Triune God.

ALL that were baptized in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost were ALREADY SAVED BELIEVERS IN CHRIST.

Granted, the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus, that is by His authority as recorded in Matthew 28:19.

But if John baptized in the name of the Trinity then why did his disciples not know what Paul was asking about concerning this matter?

KJV Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.​

HankD

 

[Dr. Walter]

Granted, the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus, that is by His authority as recorded in Matthew 28:19.

But if John baptized in the name of the Trinity then why did his disciples not know what Paul was asking about concerning this matter?

KJV Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.​

HankD

Your question is a good question. First, ask yourselves why Paul would even start asking questions of these professed disciples? What about them caused Paul to ask these specific questions?

I believe Paul asked these specific questions because there was something VISIBLY missing from their lives that Paul noticed. At this point I will not provide the evidence for what I am about to say that missing visible ingredient was but will just tell you - SIGN GIFTS that accompanied the baptism in the Spirit of the New Testament Church through the laying on of the apostolic hands (Acts 8:14-17) and is the conclusion of this story in Acts 19:6. If you want me to prove this is the case I will later but look at Acts 19:6 in comparison with the very first question Paul asked "have you received the holy Spirit since you believed?"

If John had baptized them they would have heard of the coming baptism in the Spirit but they denied they even knew whether the Spirit had even been given. This is proof number two they did not have the baptism of John as John preached about the Holy Spirit to all He baptized (Mt. 3:11).

The second question "what were you baptized unto" or what did your baptism identify you with or what was the object for being baptized? They answere they were baptized "unto John's baptism." This is proof number three they had not been baptized by John or had the baptism of John because the object of John's baptize was never to identify with himself as Paul immediately corrects them by saying:

Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

The object of John's baptism was to identify the sinner with repentance toward God and faith toward Christ Jesus (Jn. 1:29; 3:36).

They were baptized by an administrator who had no authority to carry on the baptism of John and the evidence for that is the ignorance of his disciples demonstrates the ignorance in the administrator.

It is when they heard what the proper object for the baptism of John was ("unto what") they submitted to baptism from an authorized administrator of the baptism of John committed to the church and confirmed by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and confirmed by the laying on of the hands of the apostle conveying the sign gifts of the Spirit baptized new house of God where authorized resided to administer the ordinances:

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

"The gift" was not the Holy Spirit but the sign gifts that had drawn them to hear Peter and which Peter had quoted Joel concerning their children prophesying and performing sign gifts (Acts 2:16-18)

The disciples baptized "in the name of Jesus" in John 4:1-2 as much as Paul did in Acts 19:5.

 

[RAdam]

Granted, the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus, that is by His authority as recorded in Matthew 28:19.

But if John baptized in the name of the Trinity then why did his disciples not know what Paul was asking about concerning this matter?

KJV Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.​

HankD

That text didn't say they were baptized by John, but with the baptism of John.

 

[Dr. Walter]

That text didn't say they were baptized by John, but with the baptism of John.

No sir! It does not say "with" it says "unto what." Big difference! He does not ask them IF they were baptized but "unto what" they were baptized or what was the purpose for being baptized. Their purpose was to identify with John but that was not the purpose John baptized anyone as verse 4 explains.

The fact they were completly ignorant of the Holy Spirit proves they were not baptized by John as John preached about the coming baptism in the Spirit to all he baptized and discipled.

You have to remember that Acts 19:1 occurs anywhere between 11 to 25 years after John the Baptist died. Moreover, there is not a single solitary record that the apostles, all those baptized by John and the disicples of Jesus ever were re-baptized. This repudiates your bottom line interpretation of this text. Most importantly you are accusing Christ of having no "CHRIST-ian" baptism. Hence, we cannot follow Christ in baptism according to your theory.

Those in John 4:1-2 baptized in the name (under the authority) of Christ just as Paul did in Acts 19:5

 

[kyredneck]

I'm not flaunting it. I'm saying that it is important.

I don't care if something is a turn off to many if the bible says it is important. Church lineage is important, because if we aren't the true church we need to find it.

It's as I said. I never joined the Old Baptists due to their lineage. It was never part of the deal with me.

It's odd. I became aquainted with the Primitive Baptists through a non-denominational Bible class many years ago that Christians from several denominations were attending. It was some of the things in the discussions after class with them that rang true in my heart that brought me to the Old Baptists. And it certainly was not Baptist successionism or Church lineage that was discussed.

 

[HankD]

No sir! It does not say "with" it says "unto what." Big difference! He does not ask them IF they were baptized but "unto what" they were baptized or what was the purpose for being baptized. Their purpose was to identify with John but that was not the purpose John baptized anyone as verse 4 explains.

The fact they were completly ignorant of the Holy Spirit proves they were not baptized by John as John preached about the coming baptism in the Spirit to all he baptized and discipled.

You have to remember that Acts 19:1 occurs anywhere between 11 to 25 years after John the Baptist died. Moreover, there is not a single solitary record that the apostles, all those baptized by John and the disicples of Jesus ever were re-baptized. This repudiates your bottom line interpretation of this text. Most importantly you are accusing Christ of having no "CHRIST-ian" baptism. Hence, we cannot follow Christ in baptism according to your theory.

Those in John 4:1-2 baptized in the name (under the authority) of Christ just as Paul did in Acts 19:5

the word for unto is eis (often translated into or in).

In Romans 6 We are baptised into (eis) His death, we are buried with Him into (eis) His death. The picture portrayed by Christ's baptism is the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which is not what the Baptism of John which was unto (eis) repentance of which Christ had no need.

Future tense means it has not yet happened and indeed John admitted to that.

John Himself said that we would be baptised by Christ in the Spirit not in water itself which is a symbol or picture. And in fact we are told that Jesus did not baptise anyone in water. He left that to His apostles.

Similarly we do not eat the actual body and drink the actual blood of Jesus Christ at the Lord's table as claim Roman, Greek, Russian and some anglo-catholic churches in the act of transubstantiation.

In fact we dont even eat the flesh or drink the blood of an animal at the Lord's Table but bread and wine (or grape juice) as memorials of what He did in the Blood Atonement.

Both of these ordinances speak of His death burial and resurrection.
Again water baptism by immersion is a believer's identification with the death burial and resurrection of Christ.

According to Dabney's theory it would seem that we would have to be baptised everytime we identified with a new local church.

Also, what if the mortal man (pastor) who baptised us in the proper manner turns out to be a tare or a
worker of iniquity as those in Matthew 7:21-22

What then? Is the church he pastored a legitimate local church?

What of cultists such as Mormons and others who baptise by immersion using the Trinitarian formula? According to Dabney they would be a legitimate church.

In addition many pado-baptist local churches allow for baptism by immersion in the name of the Trinity at the request of the believer.
Does one properly baptised believer make the entire pado-baptising local church a legitimate church?

A local church is comprised of all of the born of the Spirit believers in that "local church" whether baptised in water in a proper manner or not.

Admittedly, proper water baptism it is the way (humanly speaking) along with a profession of abiding faith that we determine church membership.

But I personally disagree with Dabney and do not see water baptism as the "initiatory rite" (Dabney) into the "local church".

The new birth being membership determination into the church of Matthew 16:18, the church of the firstborn.

Neither do I see John's baptism in water unto repentance as Christian baptism. John was a prophet under the law preaching repentance not an apostle sent to proclaim the gospel of grace.

I don't like protracting these kinds of debates and wish to leave it here and let the readers decide.

Again, I will cede to the point that it is the best way undershephards have in determining local church membership as water baptism is, after all, the first step of obedience for the believer though he is a blood-bought child of God and a member of the church of the firstborn with his name written in heaven.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.​

However there are difficulties (as recounted above) when one makes water baptism the "initiatory rite" into the church local or otherwise (which brings in another debate as to the actuality of the so-called "invisible" or "universal" church).

Thank you for your patience with me Dr. Walter.

HankD

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is "eis tis oun" and properly translated "unto what therefore" and this not the structure used by John the Baptist. Neither is the same langauge used in Romans 6:4.

John was not asking Christ to be baptized in the Spirit but was referring to the very thing Christ was requesting from him.

You cannot find any precept or example in the New Testament of a church of unbaptized beleivers. The reason you cannot find it is because both Christ and the apostles predicated membership in a church upon both gospel conversion and baptism (Mt. 28:19 before 28:20 and "were baptized" before "added unto them" in Acts 2:41).

The validity of the baptism does not rest in the personal criteria of the person administrating the baptism but in the authority of the church by which it is administered. The "keys of the kingdom" are ultimately given to the church (Mt. 18:17-18; 28:19-20). The church administers the ordinances through its ordained ministers and so the validity rests in whether the church is New Testament in nature rather than in any personal individual qualifications or lack thereof in the person administering it in behalf of or by the authority of the church.

the word for unto is eis (often translated into or in).

In Romans 6 We are baptised into (eis) His death, we are buried with Him into (eis) His death. The picture portrayed by Christ's baptism is the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which is not what the Baptism of John which was unto (eis) repentance of which Christ had no need.

Future tense means it has not yet happened and indeed John admitted to that.

John Himself said that we would be baptised by Christ in the Spirit not in water itself which is a symbol or picture. And in fact we are told that Jesus did not baptise anyone in water. He left that to His apostles.

Similarly we do not eat the actual body and drink the actual blood of Jesus Christ at the Lord's table as claim Roman, Greek, Russian and some anglo-catholic churches in the act of transubstantiation.

In fact we dont even eat the flesh or drink the blood of an animal at the Lord's Table but bread and wine (or grape juice) as memorials of what He did in the Blood Atonement.

Both of these ordinances speak of His death burial and resurrection.
Again water baptism by immersion is a believer's identification with the death burial and resurrection of Christ.

According to Dabney's theory it would seem that we would have to be baptised everytime we identified with a new local church.

Also, what if the mortal man (pastor) who baptised us in the proper manner turns out to be a tare or a
worker of iniquity as those in Matthew 7:21-22

What then? Is the church he pastored a legitimate local church?

What of cultists such as Mormons and others who baptise by immersion using the Trinitarian formula? According to Dabney they would be a legitimate church.

In addition many pado-baptist local churches allow for baptism by immersion in the name of the Trinity at the request of the believer.
Does one properly baptised believer make the entire pado-baptising local church a legitimate church?

A local church is comprised of all of the born of the Spirit believers in that "local church" whether baptised in water in a proper manner or not.

Admittedly, proper water baptism it is the way (humanly speaking) along with a profession of abiding faith that we determine church membership.

But I personally disagree with Dabney and do not see water baptism as the "initiatory rite" (Dabney) into the "local church".

The new birth being membership determination into the church of Matthew 16:18, the church of the firstborn.

Neither do I see John's baptism in water unto repentance as Christian baptism. John was a prophet under the law preaching repentance not an apostle sent to proclaim the gospel of grace.

I don't like protracting these kinds of debates and wish to leave it here and let the readers decide.

Again, I will cede to the point that it is the best way undershephards have in determining local church membership as water baptism is, after all, the first step of obedience for the believer though he is a blood-bought child of God and a member of the church of the firstborn with his name written in heaven.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.​

However there are difficulties (as recounted above) when one makes water baptism the "initiatory rite" into the church local or otherwise (which brings in another debate as to the actuality of the so-called "invisible" or "universal" church).

Thank you for your patience with me Dr. Walter.

HankD

 

[HankD]

BTW Dr. Walter, you seem to have left out a very powerful Scripture for the Baptism of John as Trinitarian:

All three members of the Trinity were visibly/audibly present at Jesus baptism:

Matthew 3

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

However, this IMO does not prove that John spoke the words:
"I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

Thanks again for a good debate.

HankD​

 

[canadyjd]

Dr. Walter

Thanks for the discussion. Perhaps you could clear up a couple of things for me.

You claim no one can be part of a church, or perform any ministries of the church, if they have not been baptized by immersion.

Could you show me from scripture where John the Baptist was baptized in water? Is not John the Baptist part of God's church?

Could you show me from scripture where the 12 Apostles (not counting Paul, of course) were baptized in water? I understand that two of John's disciples left John to follow Jesus, and that you might assume they had been baptized by John (though that is an argument from silence), but where does scripture specifically say that any of the 12 Apostles were baptized in water?

If the people in Acts 19 were not authentic Christians, why does Luke record them as "disciples"?

If you can't demonstrate these were not true disciples (though they were called disciples) then why did Paul baptize the "disciples" again if John's baptism was the same as Jesus's baptism of Matt. 28?

I understand your argument that they didn't understand the nature of John's baptism (as pointing to Jesus), but doesn't that disprove your assertion that a person cannot be a part of the true church if they haven't been properly baptized?

peace to youraying:

 

[kyredneck]

.....If any group is without scriptural baptism it cannot be a true church of Christ and therefore its origin is not with Christ and that leaves only one other spiritual source for its origin.....

The above statement crystallizes why the absolute revulsion that I have towards Landmarkism.

It was not the priest nor the Levite who stopped to help him who had fell among the robbers, no, they passed on by, but it was one of the Samaritans, with whom the Jews had no dealings, that was moved with compassion to help the man.

Thank God those of the other 'spiritual source' don't stand or fall to religionists like you Dr. Walter. It's to their own master that they'll stand or fall to.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The above statement crystallizes why the absolute revulsion that I have towards Landmarkism.

It was not the priest nor the Levite who stopped to help him who had fell among the robbers, no, they passed on by, but it was one of the Samaritans, with whom the Jews had no dealings, that was moved with compassion to help the man.

Thank God those of the other 'spiritual source' don't stand or fall to religionists like you Dr. Walter. It's to their own master that they'll stand or fall to.

Apart from the landmarkist stance on the pamphet Trail of Blood are you also saying they are elitist? I find the historical fabrication of history from the Landmarkist as odoius as the communist attempt to re-write history. Now to find that they are elitist sends them down further on my list.

 

[kyredneck]

Apart from the landmarkist stance on the pamphet Trail of Blood are you also saying they are elitist? I find the historical fabrication of history from the Landmarkist as odoius as the communist attempt to re-write history. Now to find that they are elitist sends them down further on my list.

TS, I don't know what you mean by elistist. I call them religionists. They revel in their 'correctness' and consider everyone else of no account.

There was no other religionist of the day that had any more authentic credentials than Paul, and he considered it all as dung.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

TS, I don't know what you mean by elistist. I call them religionists. They revel in their 'correctness' and consider everyone else of no account.

There was no other religionist of the day that had any more authentic credentials than Paul, and he considered it all as dung.

Yes, your term religionist and my elitist in this case seems to be the same thing.