Baptism and the existence of a church

[Dr. Walter]

Does that mean that you recant this odious statement?:

Absolutely not! It is not inconsistent with anything that I have said. The doctrine and practice of church constitution of unbaptized believers comes straight out of hell. It is Satan's attempt to confuse and divide Christians and undermine the authority of Scriptures whether he is using the lost or the saved to do it. It is an attack upon the churches of Christ and therefore an attack upon Christ himself and His word. It is the usurpation of the authority of Jesus Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You have written a lot of angry, sacastic words but you haven't shown any evidence from scripture that Matthew was a disciple of John or that Matthew witnessed the baptism of Jesus, or that Matthew had been baptized... and then returned to his job as a tax collector.... and then was later called by Jesus as a disciple....because it isn't there.

You are reading your theology into scripture and when challenged to support your assertions with scripture (which you cannot do because scripture is contrary to your assertions) you attack personally those who ask the questions.

Therefore, I leave you with your sarcastic, contentious spirit and pray for...

peace to youraying:

I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that Matthew must have been baptized with the baptism of John in order to be called a "disicple" much less an "apostle" of Jesus Christ. I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that the baptism of John does not mean that John himself must be the administrator (Lk. 7:29-30; Jn. 4:1-2). I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that Matthew could not possibly be recognized as a "disicple" of Christ if he "rejected the baptism of John" (Lk. 7:30). I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that Matthew could not be called a "disciple" of Christ if he refused to "justify God" by being baptized with the baptism of John (Lk. 7:29). I have given you irrrefutable Biblical evidence that the apostles "HAVE" already been taught to observe all these things by Christ including the observance of baptism as the very wording of the Great Commission demands it- Mt. 28:20. The word "HAVE" is past tense not future.

You have not even attempted to answer one single line of Biblical evidence. I have told you the truth about your arguments and about those who justify such an unbiblical practice. The truth hurts when you don't believe or practice it.

All you have been able to do is get personal and make personal insults. Try answering the arguments instead of throwing insults.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Now, I have discussed things with those who isolate related texts from each other and deny necessary inferences and overall context as you clearly do. This method can tear apart any truth and deny it very effectively and is almost impossible to counter because of the very nature of this kind of approach to scripture.

Apparently my words above were taken by you to be a personal attack upon you. This was not a attack upon your person but a description of your hermeneutical procedures.

You took the case of Matthew and ISOLATED from all other pertinent scriptures and statements that would easily demonstrate he as well as all the apostles submitted to what was called "the baptism of John." For example, passages that demonstrate the standard practice of Christ and His disciples (Jn. 4:1-2). For example, the passages that demonstrate that only those who refused to follow Christ rejected to submit to the baptism of John (Lk. 7:30). For example, the passage that demonstrates that submission to the baptism of John was the prescribed "counsel of God" and you could not "justify" God by refusing to be baptized with the baptism of John (Lk. 7:29-30). For example, the fact that Jesus claims that all the apostles "HAVE" already been taught how to OBSERVE ALL THINGS CHRIST COMMANDED before He gave them this commission and no one can deny that baptism was observed by Christ and by His disciples. For example, the very meaning of "disciple" is to "follow after" and unto Matthew he was bidden to come "follow" Christ. For example, that the very fact that the apostles would not permit anyone to fill the office of Apostle that was not present "from the baptism of John" regardless if you think they acted under divine direction or not.

By ISOLATING an example such as Matthew due only to SILENCE in the immediate context when you have all the above and MUCH MORE evidence I have not presented, is a method that can tear apart many truths in God's word. If I or any other expositor submitted to that kind of hermeneutic it would be impossible to defend obvious truths where there are necessary inferences found throughout the scriptures that would teach otherwise.

So, you took what was not at all any kind of personal attack and made it a personal attack. When you responded with that charge and then made personal accusations I responded in sarcasitic arguments to show how utterly bankrupt your arguments were. However, I never made a single attack on your person just on your arguments and there is a difference.

Why don't we simply drop all this personal rhetoric and deal with the evidence. You may not like my conclusions but that does not mean I am attacking your person.

 

[Eagle]

Absolutely not! It is not inconsistent with anything that I have said. The doctrine and practice of church constitution of unbaptized believers comes straight out of hell. It is Satan's attempt to confuse and divide Christians and undermine the authority of Scriptures whether he is using the lost or the saved to do it. It is an attack upon the churches of Christ and therefore an attack upon Christ himself and His word. It is the usurpation of the authority of Jesus Christ.

This is spot-on Dr. Walter.

To: kyredneck and any others who may share this question/opinion with him:

So, now what? What have you accomplished here? Once again, where is the benefit of such a discussion as this? How are we now to look upon our our unimmersed, incorrectly water baptised brothers and sisters in the Lord of the non-Baptists denominations?

I offer this link. It is the best I can do to find an online version of this tremendous, accurate, booklet, very much written in a Christ honoring spirit. It is The Church Member's Handbook by Joe T. Odle. I cannot recommend anything higher, than I can this, for the purpose for which it is written. It is an easy read, full of scripture references. It has been printed in the millions and used by SBC churches for decades - tho not so much lately. It was published by Broadman & Holman, and written in the 1940's. It is still available for purchase at Lifeway stores or online, for approx. $1.50.

Odle has included a heading and section to address the very concern stated above:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zb...esnum=8&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is spot-on Dr. Walter.

To: kyredneck and any others who may share this question/opinion with him:



I offer this link. It is the best I can do to find an online version of this tremendous, accurate, booklet, very much written in a Christ honoring spirit. It is The Church Member's Handbook by Joe T. Odle. I cannot recommend anything higher, than I can this, for the purpose for which it is written. It is an easy read, full of scripture references. It has been printed in the millions and used by SBC churches for decades - tho not so much lately. It was published by Broadman & Holman, and written in the 1940's. It is still available for purchase at Lifeway stores or online, for approx. $1.50.

Odle has included a heading and section to address the very concern stated above:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zb...esnum=8&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

I can offer one other book that is online to read that presents the Biblical position in a definitive and expository way in regard to Matthew 28:19-20. You can find it at:

http://s.webstarts.com/victorybaptistchurch/uploads/In_Search_of_New_Testament_Churches2.pdf

 

[kyredneck]

Absolutely not! It is not inconsistent with anything that I have said. The doctrine and practice of church constitution of unbaptized believers comes straight out of hell. It is Satan's attempt to confuse and divide Christians and undermine the authority of Scriptures whether he is using the lost or the saved to do it. It is an attack upon the churches of Christ and therefore an attack upon Christ himself and His word. It is the usurpation of the authority of Jesus Christ.

This is spot-on Dr. Walter....

Thank God they don't stand or fall to you all.

...........and it's not unbaptised believers that you mean Doc. You really mean non-immersed believers and you class them as Satanic. There is something so wrong with that.

I'm done. Carry on with your reveling.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Thank God they don't stand or fall to you all.

...........and it's not unbaptised believers that you mean Doc. You really mean non-immersed believers and you class them as Satanic. There is something so wrong with that.

I'm done. Carry on with your reveling.

You live completely in your imaginary world. I tell you it is the doctrine and practice that is Satanic not the believers and you tell me I don't mean what I say. I tell you unbaptized = non-immersed, non-sprinkled and non-poured and you respond I mean only "non-immersed."

You give NOTHING in response but misrepresentation of what I say and personal insults. When someone is wrong that is the only way they can respond, as the only other choice is accept the truth.

 

[canadyjd]

I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that Matthew must have been baptized with the baptism of John in order to be called a "disicple" much less an "apostle" of Jesus Christ.

Your assertions were that Matthew must have been present at the baptism of Jesus, that he had been a disciple of John, and that he had been baptized into John's baptism.

You have given no "biblical evidence" that supports your theory. You are making assumptions based on Peter's requirement that the replacement for Judas must have been with them from the baptism of Jesus to His ressurection.

That is hardly irrefrutable, and is obviously contrary to the biblical record that shows Matthew at his tax collector's booth, in Capernaum, well into the ministry of Jesus. You have not addressed that contradiction at all, but simply continue to put forth your theory with no scriptural support.

I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that the baptism of John does not mean that John himself must be the administrator (Lk. 7:29-30; Jn. 4:1-2).

John 4:1-2 "Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disicples than John (2) although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disiciples were...."

Please show me where these verses say that the disiciples of Jesus were "baptizing with the baptism of John"? John, himself, clearly makes a distinction between his baptism and the baptism of Jesus.

Again, if the baptism of John and Christian baptism are the same, why would Apollos need more instruction when everything he was teaching was fine, except he only knew of the baptism of John?

I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that Matthew could not possibly be recognized as a "disicple" of Christ if he "rejected the baptism of John" (Lk. 7:30).

This is not "irrefrutable evidence" of your beliefs. This passage is a simple acknowledgement of the mission of John and the fulfillment of prophecy. The disciples are not mentioned at all. "all the people" is referring to the crowds that followed Jesus because of His miracles. The poor and underclass accepted John as a true prophet. The Pharisees and the Lawyers did not.

Are you claiming that these people constituted a church? That they were saved? These same crowds will be chanting "crucify, crucify" before it is over.

I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that Matthew could not be called a "disciple" of Christ if he refused to "justify God" by being baptized with the baptism of John (Lk. 7:29).

You are presenting two choices, as if every single person in Judea must have made the choice between John's baptism and rejecting John's baptism. The passage is speaking of those present. "all the people" is referring to the crowds (certainly in the thousands, but no where near every single person in the area; which probably numbered into the hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million people).

And even if Matthew was baptized at some point, that doesn't address your larger problem of Matthew being in the tax collectors booth, in Capernaum, well into the ministry of Jesus.

I have given you irrrefutable Biblical evidence that the apostles "HAVE" already been taught to observe all these things by Christ including the observance of baptism as the very wording of the Great Commission demands it- Mt. 28:20.

Even if I agreed that the Apostles had been baptized at some point during the ministry of Jesus (there is no evidence beyond Andrew and one other), that doesn't address your assertion that all the Apostles were present at the baptism of Jesus or that they had been baptized into John's baptism.

You have not even attempted to answer one single line of Biblical evidence.

I simple disagree with your assumptions based on these passages of scripture. I have given you biblical support for why I believe what I do.

I have told you the truth about your arguments and about those who justify such an unbiblical practice.

I'm not sure what "unbiblical practice" I am suppose to be justifying.

The truth hurts when you don't believe or practice it.

I have made it a point in my life to conform by beliefs to the clear teachings of scripture. What you have given is not clearly taught in scripture, but various assumptions on your part that are clearly contrary to what scripture teaches. You have not answers for the questions, other than to say, "it must be so because of Luke 7, or John 4" when those passages do not directly support your theories.

If you can convince me by scripture, I'll change my mind. You haven't done that.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Mark 10:38 "But Jesus said to them, 'You do not know what you are asking, Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?'"

Jesus is speaking to James and John, two of His disciples, well into His ministry. The question concerning baptism is future.

Mark 10:39 "They said to Him, 'We are able.' And Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.'"

Again, the baptism is future. What baptism is Jesus referring to? He is referring to persecution. He is looking toward His own death, burial and resurrection. Christian baptism symbolizes our dying with Christ and being raised with Christ (Rom. 6). The baptism of John does not posess that symbolism.

If it did, Jesus would have no reason to point His disicples to a future baptism of persecution, and the Christian baptism which symbolized that persecution.

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

No sir! My assertions are not founded only upon the inference that Matthew must have been present at the baptism of Jesus or that he had been a disciple of John. I explicitly stated two times thus far that one did not have to be baptized by John the baptist to have the baptism of John. Both John 4:1-2 and Luke 7:29-30 prove my point and Matthew was called prior to both of these texts.

However, that two disciples of Jesus had been previously discipled by John and one was Andrew who had gone back to his fishing business with Peter before Jesus said to them exactly what he said to Matthew "come follow me." They left their nets just as Matthew left his work. We know Andrew had been previously prepared by John the Baptist to look for and follow Jesus (Jn. 1:37-51)when he came and there is no reason to believe that that Matthew had not also been previously prepared to do the same thing as he just got up and left his business just as Peter and Andrew did. People do not just get up and leave their business without some kind of forethought and mental preparation to do that.

Luke has Matthew following Jesus before Luke 7:29-30 and Luke 7:29-30 sets forth the standard that separates those who opposed "the counsel of God" versus those who "justified God." Your position would have Matthew rejecting the counsel of God but still called a "disciple" and then chosen as an apostle yet unbaptized. Both John 4:1-2 and Luke 7:29-30 present a standard operation in making disciples by Jesus and His disciples. There is no other standard given either by John the Baptist or Jesus in the Gospels. If this was not standard operating procedure than please point out some other way disciples were made by John the Baptist and Jesus????????? Again you have nothing but silence.

Jesus clearly states that all the apostles including Matthew "HAVE" already been taught how to observe ALL THINGS he had commanded and nobody can say that Jesus did not submit as well as defend the baptism of John as the "counsel of God" and in addition claim that all who refused to be baptized with the baptism of John refused to justify God and were in rebellion against the "counsel of God." However, you have Jesus not merely claiming Matthew as his "disciple" but choosing him as an "apostle" yet in open rebellion against the "counsel of God."

You have no evidence to prove that Peter did not set down inspired credentials to fill the apostolic office in Acts 1:22-23. He claimed to have scripture as the source of his actions and quoted it from the Old Testament. You may not agree that he did, but you cannot possible argue that in the mind of the apostes present (which included Matthew) that this was what they regarded as necessary to qualify for that office. You cannot logically demand qualifications for others what you do not meet yourself if it is the same office you hold. Your position simply rejects any common sense interpretation of those qualifications regardless if they are inspired or not.

Again, the meaning of "disciple" is one who follows after another and learns their doctrine and practice. Baptism is always inseparable linked with making disciples in the gospel in regard to John's ministry and the ministry of Jesus. Discipleship begins with embracing the gospel and publicly confessing it in baptism. Even Jesus relates the two as inseperably linked with each other (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15) when he commands them to "make disiciples."

There is no Biblical evidence that any of the apostles were ever baptized after the giving of the Great commission. It cannot be refuted that an unbaptized believer, much less an "apostle" is living in open violation of God's command.

You may try to pick apart one of these arguments but together they make an irrefutable case that Matthew had been baptized before he was called a "disciple" and before he was appointed to the office of apostle.

If you will just honestly evalute your own argument it is easy to see that your argument is based purely and only on silence and refusal to objectively regard scriptures that are not silent and provide necessary inference that he was baptized. If you will just honestly evaluate my arguments they are not based upon silence but on the overall context of scriptures and necessary inferences by scripture. Luke 7:29-30 is a necessary inference as it divides all people into one of two camps. You are unbaptized and have therefore not "justified God" by submitting to the baptism of John and therefore "rejected the counsel of God against" yourself or you have submitted to the baptism of John. There is no other option provided.

Your assertions were that Matthew must have been present at the baptism of Jesus, that he had been a disciple of John, and that he had been baptized into John's baptism.

You have given no "biblical evidence" that supports your theory. You are making assumptions based on Peter's requirement that the replacement for Judas must have been with them from the baptism of Jesus to His ressurection.

That is hardly irrefrutable, and is obviously contrary to the biblical record that shows Matthew at his tax collector's booth, in Capernaum, well into the ministry of Jesus. You have not addressed that contradiction at all, but simply continue to put forth your theory with no scriptural support.John 4:1-2 "Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disicples than John (2) although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disiciples were...."

Please show me where these verses say that the disiciples of Jesus were "baptizing with the baptism of John"? John, himself, clearly makes a distinction between his baptism and the baptism of Jesus.

Again, if the baptism of John and Christian baptism are the same, why would Apollos need more instruction when everything he was teaching was fine, except he only knew of the baptism of John?This is not "irrefrutable evidence" of your beliefs. This passage is a simple acknowledgement of the mission of John and the fulfillment of prophecy. The disciples are not mentioned at all. "all the people" is referring to the crowds that followed Jesus because of His miracles. The poor and underclass accepted John as a true prophet. The Pharisees and the Lawyers did not.

Are you claiming that these people constituted a church? That they were saved? These same crowds will be chanting "crucify, crucify" before it is over.You are presenting two choices, as if every single person in Judea must have made the choice between John's baptism and rejecting John's baptism. The passage is speaking of those present. "all the people" is referring to the crowds (certainly in the thousands, but no where near every single person in the area; which probably numbered into the hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million people).

And even if Matthew was baptized at some point, that doesn't address your larger problem of Matthew being in the tax collectors booth, in Capernaum, well into the ministry of Jesus. Even if I agreed that the Apostles had been baptized at some point during the ministry of Jesus (there is no evidence beyond Andrew and one other), that doesn't address your assertion that all the Apostles were present at the baptism of Jesus or that they had been baptized into John's baptism.I simple disagree with your assumptions based on these passages of scripture. I have given you biblical support for why I believe what I do.I'm not sure what "unbiblical practice" I am suppose to be justifying.I have made it a point in my life to conform by beliefs to the clear teachings of scripture. What you have given is not clearly taught in scripture, but various assumptions on your part that are clearly contrary to what scripture teaches. You have not answers for the questions, other than to say, "it must be so because of Luke 7, or John 4" when those passages do not directly support your theories.

If you can convince me by scripture, I'll change my mind. You haven't done that.

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Most expositors from all denominational perspectives understand this as a metaphor for being immersed into suffering to the extent of death for righteousness. You admit that the subject of suffering is in view and especially the depth of suffering Christ knew he would suffer. Even you admit that some among them were already baptized in water and therefore he cannot possibly refer to water baptism.

It is merely your assumption that the baptism of John was not designed by God to "fulfill all righteousness." As I said before the gospel are given as a biography of Christ not a theological textbook. Where you draw this truth about baptism is from those books in the bible designed by God to be a theological textbook (Romans especially).

Mark 10:38 "But Jesus said to them, 'You do not know what you are asking, Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?'"

Jesus is speaking to James and John, two of His disciples, well into His ministry. The question concerning baptism is future.

Mark 10:39 "They said to Him, 'We are able.' And Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.'"

Again, the baptism is future. What baptism is Jesus referring to? He is referring to persecution. He is looking toward His own death, burial and resurrection. Christian baptism symbolizes our dying with Christ and being raised with Christ (Rom. 6). The baptism of John does not posess that symbolism.

If it did, Jesus would have no reason to point His disicples to a future baptism of persecution, and the Christian baptism which symbolized that persecution.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

No sir! My assertions are not founded only upon the inference .... Both John 4:1-2 and Luke 7:29-30 prove my point and Matthew was called prior to both of these texts.

They "prove" no such thing. Matthew is not mentioned in John:1-2. The disciples are not mentioned in any passage of scripture as having been present at the baptism of Jesus, with the possible exception of Andrew.

You are assuming they must have been, not based on scripture but based on your theology. You read into the passages in an attempt to support your view.

Luke has Matthew following Jesus before Luke 7:29-30 and Luke 7:29-30 sets forth the standard that separates those who opposed "the counsel of God" versus those who "justified God." .... Luke 7:29-30 is a necessary inference as it divides all people into one of two camps. You are unbaptized and have therefore not "justified God" by submitting to the baptism of John and therefore "rejected the counsel of God against" yourself or you have submitted to the baptism of John. There is no other option provided.

There is no indication from Luke 7:29-30 that the passage applies to "all people" as you claim. It is speaking of those Jews who had heard of John and accepted his baptism (the poor, generally) and those Jews who rejected John's baptism (the religious leaders).

Certainly there were hundreds of thousands of Jews that had never heard of John the Baptist.

Let me try again. If John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism, why did Apollos need further instruction? Scripture says Apollos was "mighty in the Scriptures" and that he was "instructed in the way of the Lord", and that he was "speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus"...

The only thing lacking was that he was "only acquainted with the baptism of John".

If Apollos was "speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus"... with the exception of being only aquainted with John's baptism... then if follows that John's baptism was not one of the "things" concerning Jesus.

I know you won't accept it, but it is very clear from the passage that Christian baptism and John's baptism are not the same baptism.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

.....Even you admit that some among them were already baptized in water and therefore he cannot possibly refer to water baptism......As I said before the gospel are given as a biography of Christ not a theological textbook. Where you draw this truth about baptism is from those books in the bible designed by God to be a theological textbook (Romans especially).

They are teaching God's truth. They are contrary to your theories.

I'll stick with believing God's Word over your theories.

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think anyone reading our debate realizes that you are not only arguing from pure silence but your arguments in response to the evidences I have given are simply unreasonable and empty. My arguments are not built upon silence but specific statements and necessary inferences from scripture.

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Peter said "with us" and Peter included Matthew because Matthew is listed in verse 13.

Now it makes no difference whether Peter acted under inspiration or not, what you have to prove is that Peter LIED because he included Matthew in the words "with us" who had "companied..ALL THE TIME.. From the baptism of John."

Not only do you have to prove Peter LIED but you have to prove the rest of the audience including Matthew are stupid enough to apply to Matthais and Joseph qualifications that were not true of all the rest of the apostles.

Finally, you have to prove that Peter DECEIVED all 120 including Matthew as he quotes scripture directing them to fill that office:

Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.......For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Paul was called to be an apostle to THE GENTILES (Gal. 2:9) not to the Jews and Jesus told the twelve they would sit on the twelve thrones and rule over the tribes of Israel:

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Luke records Acts 1:15-26 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit with NOT ONE WORD OF REBUKE.

Last, I provided you evidence that Andrew went back to his business after being baptized by John the Baptist and Jesus came by and said the exact same words to Andrew and Peter that he said to Matthew and all three of them responded in the same exact way - they immediately got up and followed.

Chronologically you are in error. Matthew was already an "apostle" and with Christ with the rest of the apostles BEFORE the event of Luke 7:29-30 occurred as Matthew was called out from among the rest of the disciples in Luke 6:15 to apostleship. John the Baptist was still alive but in prison at this time and so Luke 7:29-30 refers to the ministry of Christ administering the baptism of John and John 4:1-2 says that he administered it through his disciples and therefore his disciples were present in Luke 7:29-30.

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly opposed to your argument of silence. The explicit statements of scripture overwhelming oppose your argument from silence. All you have been able to do is nit pick at my arguments but not a single one of your objections is sustantial to overthrow any argument I have given you that Matthew was baptized with the baptism of John before he was called to be an apostle.

Acts 1:21-22 is absolute explicit eye witness evidence that Matthew companined "with us" ALL THE TIME "from the baptism of John.

They "prove" no such thing. Matthew is not mentioned in John:1-2. The disciples are not mentioned in any passage of scripture as having been present at the baptism of Jesus, with the possible exception of Andrew.

You are assuming they must have been, not based on scripture but based on your theology. You read into the passages in an attempt to support your view.There is no indication from Luke 7:29-30 that the passage applies to "all people" as you claim. It is speaking of those Jews who had heard of John and accepted his baptism (the poor, generally) and those Jews who rejected John's baptism (the religious leaders).

Certainly there were hundreds of thousands of Jews that had never heard of John the Baptist.

Let me try again. If John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism, why did Apollos need further instruction? Scripture says Apollos was "mighty in the Scriptures" and that he was "instructed in the way of the Lord", and that he was "speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus"...

The only thing lacking was that he was "only acquainted with the baptism of John".

If Apollos was "speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus"... with the exception of being only aquainted with John's baptism... then if follows that John's baptism was not one of the "things" concerning Jesus.

I know you won't accept it, but it is very clear from the passage that Christian baptism and John's baptism are not the same baptism.

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Let me try again. If John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism, why did Apollos need further instruction? Scripture says Apollos was "mighty in the Scriptures" and that he was "instructed in the way of the Lord", and that he was "speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus"...

The only thing lacking was that he was "only acquainted with the baptism of John".

If Apollos was "speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus"... with the exception of being only aquainted with John's baptism... then if follows that John's baptism was not one of the "things" concerning Jesus.

I know you won't accept it, but it is very clear from the passage that Christian baptism and John's baptism are not the same baptism.

peace to youraying:

This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

The KJV does not use the term "Jesus" in the above verse for good reason. One of the things that Apollos was ignorant about was that Jesus was the "Christ" he preached. Apollos was still preaching the unfulfilled version of the Old Testament gospel of Christ (see Acts 10:43). How do we know this? Because after Apollos was corrected one conclusion of the correction is:

For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

A second thing he was corrected about in regard to "the baptism of John" was not that it was an invalid baptism because there is no record of Apollos being rebaptized, but that the church assumed the role as the proper administrator of the ordinances as the Spirit baptized house of God. How do we know this? Because prior to this correction he was a free lance ministry unafilliated with the churches of Christ but after this correction he worked through the churches of Christ:

And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
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,

If he continued in his free lance ministry why would the brethren at Ephesus need to write the brethren at Corinth to receive him? We know a church of Christ existed at both places and I Corinthians 1:13 lists Apollos as coming there to the church.

Apollos had no authority from God to admnister the baptism of John as that had been given to the Great Commission "ye" or the Spirit baptized church of Christ. He knew only the baptism of John but he did not know the baptism of the church in the Spirit that John had foretold had actually come to pass. He was out trying to carry on the ministry of John but WITHOUT AUTHORITY. Hence, he ceased his independent unafilliated ministry and worked through the church of Christ from that point forward.

Now you won't accept the above obvious evidence because of your theological mind set but it does not change the truth of it at all.

 

[HankD]

Originally Posted by Dr. Walters

Even you admit that some among them were already baptized in water and therefore he cannot possibly refer to water baptism......As I said before the gospel are given as a biography of Christ not a theological textbook. Where you draw this truth about baptism is from those books in the bible designed by God to be a theological textbook (Romans especially).

Just for the record (if it has not previously pointed out):

Number of times “baptism” is mentioned in the Book to the Romans: 3.
Number of times “water” is mentioned in the Book to the Romans: 0.

HankD

 

[Dr. Walter]

Originally Posted by Dr. Walters


Just for the record (if it has not previously pointed out):

Number of times “baptism” is mentioned in the Book to the Romans: 3.
Number of times “water” is mentioned in the Book to the Romans: 0.

HankD

Just for the record number of baptisms for Christians listed in Ephesians 4:5 is "one" and it is water baptism as no other baptism is promised to be administered "until the end of the world" - Mt. 28:19-20.

 

[HankD]

Just for the record number of baptisms for Christians listed in Ephesians 4:5 is "one" and it is water baptism as no other baptism is promised to be administered "until the end of the world" - Mt. 28:19-20.

"Water" is not mentioned in either of these passages as well.

Just for the record of course.

HankD

 

[Dr. Walter]

"Water" is not mentioned in either of these passages as well.

Just for the record of course.

HankD

My friend your argument is absurdly rediculous. If there is but "one" baptism for Christians as Paul says in Ephesians 4:5 and the only baptism that Jesus promises to be administered "until the end of the world" is water baptism (as that is the only baptism in existence when he uttered those words) then obviously that "one" baptism must be water baptism.

All scriptures concerning the baptism in the Spirit found in the gospels point forward until Acts 1:5 places a time definition on its occurrence "not many days hence." All references after Acts 2:1 in the book of Acts, the history of the churches, looks backward to Pentecost (Acts 11:15-16).

If the baptism in the Spirit were individually applied to all believers the nearest reference point by Peter would not have been "AT the beginning" but rather "SINCE the beginning." This demonstrates it was a historical institutional baptism/accreditation of the church as the new house of God thus completed.

Neither does I Corinthians 12:13 if interpreted by its immediate and overall context of the book of I Corinthians support another baptism than water. Since, I know this last statement will be challenged I will stop at this point and wait to meet that challenge.

 

[HankD]

My friend your argument is absurdly rediculous. If there is but "one" baptism for Christians as Paul says in Ephesians 4:5 and the only baptism that Jesus promises to be administered "until the end of the world" is water baptism (as that is the only baptism in existence when he uttered those words) then obviously that "one" baptism must be water baptism.

All scriptures concerning the baptism in the Spirit found in the gospels point forward until Acts 1:5 places a time definition on its occurrence "not many days hence." All references after Acts 2:1 in the book of Acts, the history of the churches, looks backward to Pentecost (Acts 11:15-16).

If the baptism in the Spirit were individually applied to all believers the nearest reference point by Peter would not have been "AT the beginning" but rather "SINCE the beginning." This demonstrates it was a historical institutional baptism/accreditation of the church as the new house of God thus completed.

Neither does I Corinthians 12:13 if interpreted by its immediate and overall context of the book of I Corinthians support another baptism than water. Since, I know this last statement will be challenged I will stop at this point and wait to meet that challenge.

Dr. Walter, all I said is that "water" (hudor) is not mentioned in these Scriptures that you cited and said "just for the record". This is a true statement and not "absurdly ridiculous, "water" is not mention in these passages or in the Book of Romans.

But personally, I don't believe that the "one" baptism of Ephesians 4:5 or the 1 Corinthians 12 13 passages refer to water baptism but the fulfilment of the promise given in Luke 3:16 else we would be sharing in the water baptism of phonies, cultists, etc who practise non-pado immersion in water using the Trinitarian formula.

Not so when Jesus baptizes, He knows His own. Human pastors down through the ages have no doubt unwittingly baptized children of the devil in the proper manner in water saying the correct words.

ASV Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

HankD