Baptism and the existence of a church

[Dr. Walter]

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

It was the obvious implied inference behind your "just for the record" that you now spell out that I call absurdly rediculous.

Either you do not believe in water baptism at all OR you believe in more than "one" baptism for Christians which contradicts Ephesians 4:5 AND/OR you deny the great commission age long administration of WATER baptism as spirit baptism cannot be administered by the "YE" of the Great Commission.

I dealt with the promised baptism in the Spirit in Luke 3:16/Mt. 3:11/Acts 1:5 and gave the Biblical time line perspective that demonstrates it is a fulfilled historical event that the Biblical writers look back on it as an historical event that is not repeatable with individuals ("AT the beginning" - Acts 11:15).

 

[HankD]

It was the obvious implied inference behind your "just for the record" that you now spell out that I call absurdly rediculous.

Either you do not believe in water baptism at all OR you believe in more than "one" baptism for Christians which contradicts Ephesians 4:5 AND/OR you deny the great commission age long administration of WATER baptism as spirit baptism cannot be administered by the "YE" of the Great Commission.

I dealt with the promised baptism in the Spirit in Luke 3:16/Mt. 3:11/Acts 1:5 and gave the Biblical time line perspective that demonstrates it is a fulfilled historical event that the Biblical writers look back on it as an historical event that is not repeatable with individuals ("AT the beginning" - Acts 11:15).

Very simply Dr Walter, as you endorse BOTH water baptism and Spirit Baptism (regardless of the surrounding and historical circumstances), so do I without violating the Scripture that there is "one" baptism we have all entered into, However, I believe it speaks of the one baptism not made with hands, whether a fulfilled historical event or not, a baptism made by out timeless and eternal great God and Savior Jesus Christ. A baptism in which we all participate.

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

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:​

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.​

Dr. Walter please do not tell me what I believe AND/OR do not believe.
You are not me. You may have the opinion that I am inconsistent in my interpretation but you can not tell me what I do or do not believe.

I do accept "believers" baptism in water and have been baptized in this manner myself as a public act of obedience to the Great Commission.

I prefer to identify the "one" baptism in Ephesians 4:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 as the fulfilment of Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16, and John 1:33.

Therefore I am no more inconsistent than anyone else who endorses both water baptism and Spirit baptism.

HankD​

 

[kyredneck]

It was the obvious implied inference behind your "just for the record" that you now spell out that I call absurdly rediculous.

Either you do not believe in water baptism at all OR you believe in more than "one" baptism for Christians which contradicts Ephesians 4:5 AND/OR you deny the great commission age long administration of WATER baptism as spirit baptism cannot be administered by the "YE" of the Great Commission.

I dealt with the promised baptism in the Spirit in Luke 3:16/Mt. 3:11/Acts 1:5 and gave the Biblical time line perspective that demonstrates it is a fulfilled historical event that the Biblical writers look back on it as an historical event that is not repeatable with individuals ("AT the beginning" - Acts 11:15).

Ah Doc, the more you post the more we see of you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ah Doc, the more you post the more we see of you.

My friend, he spelled out exactly in his second post what I believed his initial statement inferred and thus proved me right.

You cannot believe there is but "one" baptism for Christians (Eph. 4:5) and assert it is "spirit" baptism without denying water baptism as they are not one and the same. Yet, the Great Commission promises age long administration of water baptism, as no other kind of baptism can be administered by men ("ye"). Therefore the age long administration of baptism in the Commission must be WATER baptism. In addition it cannot possibly be any other kind of baptism because it is AFTER the commission was given that Jesus predicts Spirit baptism is still future (Acts 1:5).

Acts 11:15-16 is a problem for both Pentecostalism and Universal Invisible Churchism as well as those who define regeneration as spiritual baptism. All of these interpretations of Spirit baptism demand individual application and therefore repetition since the day of Pentecost to individuals. However, if that were the case, the nearest reference point for Peter to identify what occurred at the house of Corneilus to the Jewish members (Acts 11:1-2) would not be "AT the beginning" but since the last time an individual was saved and added to the church at Jerusalem.

The baptism in the Spirit is the common variety of divine accreditation of every new house of God at the beginning in its dedication service (Ex.40; 2 Chron. 8; Acts 2:1). The temple was a three part complex (outer court, holy place and holy of holiest) and the Jewish aspect (Acts 11:1) of the Jerusalem church was baptized in the Spirit on Pentecost. The half Jew half Gentile was baptized in the Spirit in Acts 8:17-19 and the Gentile aspect was baptized in the Spirit in Acts 10. Thus it is completely fulfilled and never mentioned again but in the past tense as a completed action.

 

[HankD]

My friend, he spelled out exactly in his second post what I believed his initial statement inferred and thus proved me right.

You cannot believe there is but "one" baptism for Christians (Eph. 4:5) and assert it is "spirit" baptism without denying water baptism as they are not one and the same. Yet, the Great Commission promises age long administration of water baptism, as no other kind of baptism can be administered by men ("ye"). Therefore the age long administration of baptism in the Commission must be WATER baptism. In addition it cannot possibly be any other kind of baptism because it is AFTER the commission was given that Jesus predicts Spirit baptism is still future (Acts 1:5).

Acts 11:15-16 is a problem for both Pentecostalism and Universal Invisible Churchism as well as those who define regeneration as spiritual baptism. All of these interpretations of Spirit baptism demand individual application and therefore repetition since the day of Pentecost to individuals. However, if that were the case, the nearest reference point for Peter to identify what occurred at the house of Corneilus to the Jewish members (Acts 11:1-2) would not be "AT the beginning" but since the last time an individual was saved and added to the church at Jerusalem.

The baptism in the Spirit is the common variety of divine accreditation of every new house of God at the beginning in its dedication service (Ex.40; 2 Chron. 8; Acts 2:1). The temple was a three part complex (outer court, holy place and holy of holiest) and the Jewish aspect (Acts 11:1) of the Jerusalem church was baptized in the Spirit on Pentecost. The half Jew half Gentile was baptized in the Spirit in Acts 8:17-19 and the Gentile aspect was baptized in the Spirit in Acts 10. Thus it is completely fulfilled and never mentioned again but in the past tense as a completed action.

Nonetheless Dr Walter, you by your own writing endorse both Spirit baptism as well as water baptism. You have your reasonings and I have mine for the meaning of "one" baptism and which is the "one" baptism spoken of in Ephesians 4:5.

You yourself said have admitted to Spirit baptism (howbeit as a fulfilled historical event).

My membership in and my name written on the roll of any local church is secondary to having my name written in the Lamb's Book of Life which happened before the foundation of this world.

So, it is perfectly in line to say that the baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is the "one" baptism in the Spirit which we (Jew and Gentile alike) and we only (the children of God) all have participated in whether we have made our entrance into this world or not. Ephesians 4:5 is therefore a timeless statement being worked out in the passage of time until He come.

On the other hand, some or many of those though having been baptised or are being baptized or will be baptized in water in the proper manner by mortal men have not the guarantee of Ephesians 4:5 and have not have their names written in the eternal Lamb's Book of Life as He works all things to His will through this process of time.

As I said before, I don't like prolonged debates although I have participated in them.

I felt another voice was needed again.

Let the readers decide for themselves.

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

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:​

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.​

This is the one baptism of all true believers in this age, Jew or Gentile, male or female.

Water baptism guarantees nothing except the making of a public profession of an individual in the belief of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life.

Hopefully it is a legitimate profession, an act of obedience done in Spirit and truth.

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

Either you do not believe in water baptism at all OR you believe in more than "one" baptism for Christians which contradicts Ephesians 4:5 AND/OR you deny the great commission age long administration of WATER baptism as spirit baptism cannot be administered by the "YE" of the Great Commission.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Mk 16

You keep bringing up and tying water baptism in with 'the great commission' as you call it, which He gave to ' the eleven' (Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles was absent).

Luke records it this way:

But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1:8

Take note Christ said, 'ye shall' receive power, 'ye shall' be my witnesses unto the end of the earth. Period. He didn't say I want you to, He told them that they indeed would do it. Period.

In the very next chapter Luke records (paraphrase mine):

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit [RECEIVED POWER].......
5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven [UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH].
6 .........every man heard them speaking in his own language [WITNESSES OF CHRIST].

Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God. Acts 2:9-11 [...Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.... Acts 1:8]

What do you think that those 'Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven' in Acts 2 did when they all went back home from the feast of Pentecost, after hearing and believing the gospel and themselves having received power from the Holy Spirit?

You can bet they didn't keep that 'lamp under the bushel'. No, they 'put it on the stand' so that 'it shined unto all that are in the house'. They preached the gospel in all those nations under heaven that they were from. The day of Pentecost was literally in every sense a 'gospel bomb'.

The 'great commission' as you call it, given to those 'eleven', was accomplished on the day of Pentecost. Paul verifies this here:

So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth, And their words unto the ends of the world. Ro 10:17-18

and here:

if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister. Col 1:23

and here:

Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith: Ro 16:25-26

You ever wonder why Peter was called onto the carpet in Acts 11 for preaching to Cornelius, a Gentile? I'll tell you why. Those 'eleven', to whom 'the great commission' as you call it was given, clearly understood that they were still operating under the confines of Mt 10 'Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

Why would Christ want them, the eleven, to continue under the dictate of Mt 10 with 'the great commission' as you call it? Because the gospel was to 'the Jew first', and for good reason. There was a very serious time line involved for every Jew of 'that generation' alive on the planet. The urgency of the message to the Jew was 'Save yourselves from this crooked generation' (Acts 2), and 'Every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people' (Acts 3).

Consider what was coming upon 'that generation':

upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Mt 23:35,36

God made sure that every Jew on earth was given the chance to 'hearken to that prophet' before the wrath came. All the Jews of that generation on earth heard the gospel, and were given the chance to repent and avoid the wrath and the curses of the OT that were to come on the nation of Israel. Therein lies the fulfillment of 'the great commission' as you call it.

You pre-mils totally miss the magnitude of the significance of the events of 'that generation', and woefully misapply passages to the covenant of grace that pertain only to 'that generation'.

The 'great commission' to the Church is simple:

“Feed my lambs...tend my sheep...feed my sheep”

“Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.”

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nonetheless Dr Walter, you by your own writing endorse both Spirit baptism as well as water baptism. You have your reasonings and I have mine for the meaning of "one" baptism and which is the "one" baptism spoken of in Ephesians 4:5.

You yourself said have admitted to Spirit baptism (howbeit as a fulfilled historical event).

My membership in and my name written on the roll of any local church is secondary to having my name written in the Lamb's Book of Life which happened before the foundation of this world.

So, it is perfectly in line to say that the baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is the "one" baptism in the Spirit which we (Jew and Gentile alike) and we only (the children of God) all have participated in whether we have made our entrance into this world or not. Ephesians 4:5 is therefore a timeless statement being worked out in the passage of time until He come.

On the other hand, some or many of those though having been baptised or are being baptized or will be baptized in water in the proper manner by mortal men have not the guarantee of Ephesians 4:5 and have not have their names written in the eternal Lamb's Book of Life as He works all things to His will through this process of time.

As I said before, I don't like prolonged debates although I have participated in them.

I felt another voice was needed again.

Let the readers decide for themselves.

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

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:​

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.​

This is the one baptism of all true believers in this age, Jew or Gentile, male or female.

Water baptism guarantees nothing except the making of a public profession of an individual in the belief of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life.

Hopefully it is a legitimate profession, an act of obedience done in Spirit and truth.

HankD

Not so! Holy Spirit baptism was already fulfilled before Paul said "one baptism" in Ephesians 4:5. So I do not believe two baptisms co-existed when Paul said that. That ends the argument.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Soooo, you really believe that the Great Commission has been fulfilled? We have no Commission to make disiciples of all nations after A.D. 70. No commission to preach the gospel after A.D. 70. No Commission to baptize believers in water after A.D. 70. No commission to teach baptized believers how to observe all things commanded after A.D. 70.

Soooo, you think that simply because the immediate generation that received this commission obeyed it that this fulfills it for all generations?????

John should have told the seven churches of Asia that in Revelation 2-3.

We just as well assume the whole entire New Testament was written by the Apostles and those under them for ONLY the A.D. 70 generation as well.

So what does your church do? Are they stupid enough to believe something already fulfilled in A.D. 70 should be marching orders for them?????

If that is what you wish to believe so be it.

 

[HankD]

Not so! Holy Spirit baptism was already fulfilled before Paul said "one baptism" in Ephesians 4:5. So I do not believe two baptisms co-existed when Paul said that. That ends the argument.

First, Dr, Walters, this is a debate forum, not an argument forum. I am not arguing with you brother. Second, technically speaking it hasn't ended in my mind until the alleged point that the baptism in the Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16, John 1:33 is not the baptism that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 4:5 and that, as I previously mentioned and that water baptism is a picture representing this baptism of the Spirit has been made.

The ordinance of the Lord's Table uses the symbolism and imagery of bread and wine to show forth the Lord's one past tense atoning death, burial and resurrection til He comes. It is a present tense picture not the actuality. As Christians this we do as often as we see fit.

The ordinance of water baptism in like manner is a public demonstration, a present tense picture not the actuality of the result of His atoning death: He has placed us (both Jew and Gentile) as one entity in the Spirit and His spritual Body, the one Body of Christ, through faith in and identification with His death burial and resurrection.

As Christians this we do once witnessing that we have been made participants of the baptism in the Spirit promised by John the Baptist and fulfilled by Jesus Christ almost 2000 years ago.


HankD

 

[Dr. Walter]

First, Dr, Walters, this is a debate forum, not an argument forum. I am not arguing with you brother. Second, technically speaking it hasn't ended in my mind until the alleged point that the baptism in the Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16, John 1:33 is not the baptism that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 4:5 and that, as I previously mentioned and that water baptism is a picture representing this baptism of the Spirit has been made.

The ordinance of the Lord's Table uses the symbolism and imagery of bread and wine to show forth the Lord's one past tense atoning death, burial and resurrection til He comes. It is a present tense picture not the actuality. As Christians this we do as often as we see fit.

The ordinance of water baptism in like manner is a public demonstration, a present tense picture not the actuality of the result of His atoning death: He has placed us (both Jew and Gentile) as one entity in the Spirit and His spritual Body, the one Body of Christ, through faith in and identification with His death burial and resurrection.

As Christians this we do once witnessing that we have been made participants of the baptism in the Spirit promised by John the Baptist and fulfilled by Jesus Christ almost 2000 years ago.


HankD

Sorry friend but there is no such thing as "one body" in number (one in kind) that all Christians are baptized into. The Scriptures never use the term "universal" or "invisible" to describe the body of Christ. There is no spirit baptism into spirit body. That is simply a figment of Reformed Roman Catholic imagination.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look, we have strayed far away from the original question of this thread. No one has been able to demonstrate there is such a thing as a church of unbaptized beleivers in the New Testament. No one has been able to overturn explicit scriptures that condemn such a church as anti-scriptural.

If you want to discuss the baptism in the Spirit or a spirit body made up of all believers we need to start a separate thread for that.

 

[HankD]

Sorry friend but there is no such thing as "one body" in number (one in kind) that all Christians are baptized into. The Scriptures never use the term "universal" or "invisible" to describe the body of Christ. There is no spirit baptism into spirit body. That is simply a figment of Reformed Roman Catholic imagination.

"no such thing as 'one body' in number (one in kind)"

The Scripture indicates that there is only one Spirit and there is only one body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
...
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.​

Christ has only one body both in number and kind.​

Whether I endorse the notion of a "universal" or "invisible" Body of Christ, or not, please take note that I personally did not use those words concerning my own belief. In fact I do not like those terms although I see some merit in the underlying reason behind them. i.e. the unity of the Body of Christ particularly in the eternal state.​

Which leads into the next logical entity in this debate: The Bride of Christ specifically revealed in these last days in the Book of Revelation.​

Revelation 21
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.​

Revelation 22
9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
...
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.​

Christ has only one bride both in number and kind.​

HankD​

 

[Dr. Walter]

"no such thing as 'one body' in number (one in kind)"

The Scripture indicates that there is only one Spirit and there is only one body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
...
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.​

Christ has only one body both in number and kind.​

Whether I endorse the notion of a "universal" or "invisible" Body of Christ, or not, please take note that I personally did not use those words concerning my own belief. In fact I do not like those terms although I see some merit in the underlying reason behind them. i.e. the unity of the Body of Christ particularly in the eternal state.​

Which leads into the next logical entity in this debate: The Bride of Christ specifically revealed in these last days in the Book of Revelation.​

Revelation 21
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.​

Revelation 22
9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
...
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.​

Christ has only one bride both in number and kind.​

HankD​

I would be glad to discuss this on another thread. If you will look, I have created another thread for this very discussion.

 

[HankD]

I would be glad to discuss this on another thread. If you will look, I have created another thread for this very discussion.

Very well, however I believe it is related.

Also, I did make note that there are several local churches in the Book of Revelation of which nothing is said of a baptised membership either in the Book of Revelation or anywhere else in the Bible.

Hank

 

[canadyjd]

.... 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."

Now, you have already stated that Andrew, Peter, John, James went back to their jobs as a fishermen; and you are maintaining that Matthew went back to his job as a Tax Collector after becoming a disciple of Jesus.

How then can this passage mean that the replacement must have been just like the disciples and followed Jesus "ALL THE TIME" from the baptism of John, ....when, by your own admission, the Apostles themselves did not did not follow Jesus "ALL THE TIME"?

And John 1:35+ records how Andrew and another are still following John (obviously after the baptism of Jesus) and then leave John to follow Jesus. Can you acknowledge that this passage of scripture directly contradict your theories?

And how do you explain Andrew going to Peter and saying "we have found the Messiah" if Peter was already following Christ? In 1:42, Peter is introduced to Jesus (apparently for the first time), and Jesus changes his name from Simon to Peter (Cephas). What an odd event... if Peter was already following Jesus since His baptism.

And then Phillip finds his brother, Nathanael, and tells him he has found the Messiah... Jesus of Nazareth. Nathanael replies "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

What an odd thing for Nathanel to say if he were already a disicple of Christ and had witnessed His baptism. Please explain why Nathanael would say such things about Jesus if he were already following Jesus? Nathanel doesn't appear to know who Jesus is at that point.... but then again, this is just more scripture, in context, which contradicts your theories.

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

Really? If Matthew was accompaning them "ALL THE TIME" from the baptism of Jesus forward... what in the world was he doing sitting in that tax collector's booth when Jesus came back across the sea to Capernaum?

Scripture, in context, does not support your theories.

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

I also demonstrated that John the Baptist was still alive up to Luke 7:29 so Luke could still say "from the baptism of John" during this whole period between John 1:35+ to Luke 7:29-30.

Now, you have already stated that Andrew, Peter, John, James went back to their jobs as a fishermen; and you are maintaining that Matthew went back to his job as a Tax Collector after becoming a disciple of Jesus.

How then can this passage mean that the replacement must have been just like the disciples and followed Jesus "ALL THE TIME" from the baptism of John, ....when, by your own admission, the Apostles themselves did not did not follow Jesus "ALL THE TIME"?

And John 1:35+ records how Andrew and another are still following John (obviously after the baptism of Jesus) and then leave John to follow Jesus. Can you acknowledge that this passage of scripture directly contradict your theories?

And how do you explain Andrew going to Peter and saying "we have found the Messiah" if Peter was already following Christ? In 1:42, Peter is introduced to Jesus (apparently for the first time), and Jesus changes his name from Simon to Peter (Cephas). What an odd event... if Peter was already following Jesus since His baptism.

And then Phillip finds his brother, Nathanael, and tells him he has found the Messiah... Jesus of Nazareth. Nathanael replies "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

What an odd thing for Nathanel to say if he were already a disicple of Christ and had witnessed His baptism. Please explain why Nathanael would say such things about Jesus if he were already following Jesus? Nathanel doesn't appear to know who Jesus is at that point.... but then again, this is just more scripture, in context, which contradicts your theories.Really? If Matthew was accompaning them "ALL THE TIME" from the baptism of Jesus forward... what in the world was he doing sitting in that tax collector's booth when Jesus came back across the sea to Capernaum?

Scripture, in context, does not support your theories.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

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....

Scripture does use the name of Jesus in this verse.

Of the many times the word "Lord" is used in Acts, it almost always is a direct reference to Jesus.

The word "way" is used several times to refer to Christianity. (9:2, 19:9, 22:4, 24:14, 24:22)

It is certain that Luke used the phrase "the way of the Lord", in Acts 18:25, to refer to Christianity.

But even if what you said was true, it is clear from the context that the area where Apollos needed further instruction was baptism. Why? Because he was only aquainted with the baptism of John. Despite all your mental gymnastics, that is clear from the text.

If John's baptsim and Christian baptism were the same, there would be no need for further instruction for Apollos.

Apollos had no authority from God ... 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.

And there you have it from your own mouth. Apollos knew the baptism of John.... but he did not know the baptism of the church.... two different baptisms.... they are not the same.

Even you can see the text shows there is a difference.

peace to youraying:

 

[saturneptune]

Let me be clear about myself. I am not historically or Biblically related to the Roman Catholic Church in any way, shape or form. Therefore I am not Reformed as the Reformers were simply excommunicated Roman Catholics and thus I call them Reformed Roman Catholics. I am not a follower of Calvin or a friend of Calvin but a follower of Paul when it comes to the doctrines of Grace.

I am not Puritan or a Separatist as the Congregationalist were and are. I am not related to Anglican Roman Catholicism as the Puritan and Separatist. I am not a sacramentalist. I do not own the term "Reformed" but repudiate it entirely.

Some may lack unified visible church relationships but I am not part of that group as they are confused and divided. I believe Jesus gave a commission to reproduce churches of like faith and order as we find in the pages of the New Testament and such churches are promised to reproduce after their own kind until He returns and they have and they will.

I do agree that immersion is the proper way to baptize, but that does not go far enough. The Church of Christ immerses, and believes that a person going under the water is an element of salvation. What use is that? It is a total waste of time and an exercise in futility.

What I am not understanding is what being a Reformist, Calvinist, Catholic, Puritin, or Congregationalist, has to do with this subject.

I would never join either type of church, but will say this. If I was forced to choose between immersion as a requirement for salvation, or sprinkling that followed salvation, I would take sprinking any day of the week.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I do agree that immersion is the proper way to baptize, but that does not go far enough. The Church of Christ immerses, and believes that a person going under the water is an element of salvation. What use is that? It is a total waste of time and an exercise in futility.

What I am not understanding is what being a Reformist, Calvinist, Catholic, Puritin, or Congregationalist, has to do with this subject.

I would never join either type of church, but will say this. If I was forced to choose between immersion as a requirement for salvation, or sprinkling that followed salvation, I would take sprinking any day of the week.

My friend you have completely misinterpreted my statement. I do not believe baptism in any way shape or form is essential to my positional or eternal salvation "in Christ."

Indeed, I am not even talking about salvation but about what is essential to constitute a local visible institutional church of Christ, the kind we see mentioned in various localities throughout the New Testament. My point is there can be no institutional church of Christ apart from scriptural baptism as there cannot be found any church in the pages of the New Testament composed of unbaptized believers and if there could be found such it would be in complete violation of New Testament precepts.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are drawing a conclusion the text does not draw. The only valid conclusion that you can draw is that Apollos was only acquainted with the baptism of John. To draw the conclusion that it was an invalid baptism would have to be based upon the mention of rebaptism as in Acts 19:5. However, there is no mention of re-baptism here.

My conclusion harmonizes with both of these facts. (1) He was only acquainted with the baptism of John and not the baptism in the Spirit (2) there is no mention of rebaptism but there is mention that he identified with New Testament churches from that point forward.

The church was the object of the baptism in the Spirit and that is exactly what Apollos had not identified with previous to this further instruction by the church members at Ephesus. The baptism in the Spirit was the promise by John the Baptist (Mt. 3:11) and by Christ (Acts 1:5) to the commissioned church at Jerusalem (Mt. 28:19-20). Hence, it is the church that was given authority by the Son of God to administer the baptism of John rather than individual unchurched disciples of John. The Baptism in the Spirit was the shikinah glory that publicly accredited every new "house of God" since Exodus 40. The "house of God" by it very definitive use in Deuteronomy 12 is the public place of worship where a designated and qualified ministry administer the ordinances or where the "keys of the kingdom" resides.

Paul makes this clear in his use of the phrase "house of God" in I Timothy 3:15 which follows the description of a qualified ministry (I Tim. 3:1-13) and is found in a context of PASTORAL admonitions to Timothy as the pastor of the church at Ephesus - the very same church in Acts 19 which provided Apollos further instruction that resulted in working through the Spirit baptized church of Christ instead of operating by his OWN AUTHORITY.

Scripture does use the name of Jesus in this verse.

Of the many times the word "Lord" is used in Acts, it almost always is a direct reference to Jesus.

The word "way" is used several times to refer to Christianity. (9:2, 19:9, 22:4, 24:14, 24:22)

It is certain that Luke used the phrase "the way of the Lord", in Acts 18:25, to refer to Christianity.

But even if what you said was true, it is clear from the context that the area where Apollos needed further instruction was baptism. Why? Because he was only aquainted with the baptism of John. Despite all your mental gymnastics, that is clear from the text.

If John's baptsim and Christian baptism were the same, there would be no need for further instruction for Apollos.And there you have it from your own mouth. Apollos knew the baptism of John.... but he did not know the baptism of the church.... two different baptisms.... they are not the same.

Even you can see the text shows there is a difference.

peace to youraying: