Baptism and the existence of a church

[Dr. Walter]

First, John the Baptist was never baptized but also was never part of the church as he was "the friend of the bride" (Jn. 3:29). His mission as the final Old Testament line of the prophets was to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord' (Lk. 1:17). It is the apostles that were set first in the church (I Cor. 12:28).

Jesus took materials that John had prepared (Lk. 1:17; Jn. 1:38-51). The qualification to be chosen as an apostle was that this person had companied with Jesus "from the baptism of John" until his resurrection (Acts 1:22-23). The apostles were identified as "disciples" in Matthew 28:16 and were commissioned by Christ to "make disciples" (Mt. 28:19) through a process they "have" already been through (Mt. 28:20). Jesus defined disciples as baptized persons. Jesus taught that all who refused to be baptized with the baptism of John rejected the counsel of God against themselves (Lk. 7:29-30) and those who submitted to the baptism of John "justified God." Jesus baptized others through his disciples (Jn 4:1-2) insomuch that they baptized more disciples than John. There is nothing in the scriptures that even hints the apostles were ever baptized after Pentecost or the hundreds baptized by John and Jesus disciples were ever baptized after Pentecost.

For your objection to have any validity Jesus would have to call persons unto him and make them apostles who sided with the Pharisees in refusing to submit to the baptism of John, thus rejecting the counsel of God against themselves. They would be authorized by Christ to baptize others but refuse to justify God themselves. They would be authorized to "make disciples" through a process they "have" not submitted to themselves. They would demand that any person filling that office start with "the baptism of John" but they themselves are unbaptized. If you can believe such a nonsensical inferrence more power to you.

In regard to those in Acts 19. They were part of no church because the person who baptized them was no part of any church and that is why their baptism was invalid. I never said they were lost. I never said they were without some kind of baptism. The evidence I put forth was that they were without the kind of baptism they claimed. They were not baptized by John the Baptist nor did they have the baptism of John. Whoever baptized them was ignorant of the Holy Spirit and particularly the promise of the Spirit and His arrival on Pentecost. They were ignorant of the Biblical purpose for baptism. They were baptized to identify with John the Baptist. John the Baptist administered baptism for the purpose to identify a person with repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 19:4). It is when they heard this they submitted to baptism under Paul (Acts 19:5) and sign gifts were conveyed to them through the laying on of apostolic hands (Acts 19:6). Similarly, Apollos had some of the same problems as these disciples. He knew the way of salvation according to the Old Testament gospel of Christ but did not know that Jesus of Nazeth was the fulfillment of the promised Christ. He knew the baptism of John and there is no mention of him being rebaptized but did not know about the baptism in the Spirit or the divine accreditation of the authorized administrator of the ordinances or the new house of God.

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:

 

[Dr. Walter]

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​

Well, I thought this text was so obvious that I didn't need to use it. However, thanks for bringing it into the discussion. You are very welcome

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.

You make the stupid assumption that simply because we believe the scriptures place limitations upon a teaching that this makes us an elitist!!!!!! Your argument is the very same argument used by pantheists against monotheist. It is the very same argument used by other world religions against Christians who believe in "one" way and through Jesus Christ alone. It is the very same argument used by other world religions against the final authority of the Bible as opposed to other holy books of other religions.

If we took the limitations of "one" in Ephesians 4:4-6 those who oppose that Biblical limitation of only "one hope" or "one Spirit" or "one faith" or "one baptism" or "one God" or "one Lord" and "one body" would use your exact argument of elitism simply because we believe there is only "one" and all others are false and derived from Satan.

You see, when the scriptures place a limitation such as "one body" and "one baptism" it draws a circle that excludes all who are not in agreement with that limiation. In your mind that makes all who side with the scriptures on such a limitation that draws a circle that condemns and excludes all outside that circle as elitists!!!

Landmarkers simply believe there is "one body" for the Christian and that is the kind we find in the New Testament and it is further limited by "one baptism" for the Christian and that is the one in the Great Commission and there is but "one faith" for the Christian and that is the one that was "ONCE delivered" that we should contend for. However, all who would side with the Scriptures on this narrow limits of "one" by the Scriptures you call an elitist!!!

When we say there is only "one hope" this excludes all human beings as Christians as saved, as going to heaven other than those who are within that circle of "one hope." Your type of reasoning would call them elitist.

When we say there is only "one baptism" this excludes all Christians as baptized Christians if they were sprinkled, poured or even immersed for the wrong purpose by the wrong administrator and to you that makes those who believe in "one baptism" elitists.

Your thinking and reasoning is warped and certainly does not originate with the Spirit of God as God is a very narrow minded God. He thinks He is right and all who disagree with Him are wrong. He has one way of salvation and all who disagree with Him He condemns to hell. He says that Jesus is the only way and all who disagree with him and go other ways he condemns. By your definition God is an elitist IF He claimed to have but ONE WAY of service as well as you think anyone is an elitists if you draw a circle that might exclude other ways of service.

Your reasoning applied to anything you believe would force you to embrace relativism and never absolutism on any subject. You can never draw circles that eliminate anyone by your reasoning or that is elitism.

My challenge was simple - Can you find any precept or any example in Scripture of any visible church institution made up of unbaptized believers?

I did not say they were not "believers" (although many are probably not by Biblical definition).

My position is that both Biblical precept and Biblical example restrict a true church of Christ to a membership scripturally baptized professed believers and all churches that do not fit that description are not true churches of Christ and are therefore without authority to administer the ordinances, ordain ministers or constitute churches.

You would make a perfect politician because when they cannot respond with substantive reasons they simply make personal attacks upon the person presenting the evidence. This is what you have done from the start. You have no substantive response so you make personal attacks on all who believe what you cannot disprove.

 

[kyredneck]

You make the stupid assumption that simply because we believe the scriptures place limitations upon a teaching that this makes us an elitist!!!!!! Your argument is the very same argument used by pantheists against monotheist. It is the very same argument used by other world religions against Christians who believe in "one" way and through Jesus Christ alone. It is the very same argument used by other world religions against the final authority of the Bible as opposed to other holy books of other religions.

If we took the limitations of "one" in Ephesians 4:4-6 those who oppose that Biblical limitation of only "one hope" or "one Spirit" or "one faith" or "one baptism" or "one God" or "one Lord" and "one body" would use your exact argument of elitism simply because we believe there is only "one" and all others are false and derived from Satan.

You see, when the scriptures place a limitation such as "one body" and "one baptism" it draws a circle that excludes all who are not in agreement with that limiation. In your mind that makes all who side with the scriptures on such a limitation that draws a circle that condemns and excludes all outside that circle as elitists!!!

Landmarkers simply believe there is "one body" for the Christian and that is the kind we find in the New Testament and it is further limited by "one baptism" for the Christian and that is the one in the Great Commission and there is but "one faith" for the Christian and that is the one that was "ONCE delivered" that we should contend for. However, all who would side with the Scriptures on this narrow limits of "one" by the Scriptures you call an elitist!!!

When we say there is only "one hope" this excludes all human beings as Christians as saved, as going to heaven other than those who are within that circle of "one hope." Your type of reasoning would call them elitist.

When we say there is only "one baptism" this excludes all Christians as baptized Christians if they were sprinkled, poured or even immersed for the wrong purpose by the wrong administrator and to you that makes those who believe in "one baptism" elitists.

Your thinking and reasoning is warped and certainly does not originate with the Spirit of God as God is a very narrow minded God. He thinks He is right and all who disagree with Him are wrong. He has one way of salvation and all who disagree with Him He condemns to hell. He says that Jesus is the only way and all who disagree with him and go other ways he condemns. By your definition God is an elitist IF He claimed to have but ONE WAY of service as well as you think anyone is an elitists if you draw a circle that might exclude other ways of service.

Your reasoning applied to anything you believe would force you to embrace relativism and never absolutism on any subject. You can never draw circles that eliminate anyone by your reasoning or that is elitism.

My challenge was simple - Can you find any precept or any example in Scripture of any visible church institution made up of unbaptized believers?

I did not say they were not "believers" (although many are probably not by Biblical definition).

My position is that both Biblical precept and Biblical example restrict a true church of Christ to a membership scripturally baptized professed believers and all churches that do not fit that description are not true churches of Christ and are therefore without authority to administer the ordinances, ordain ministers or constitute churches.

You would make a perfect politician because when they cannot respond with substantive reasons they simply make personal attacks upon the person presenting the evidence. This is what you have done from the start. You have no substantive response so you make personal attacks on all who believe what you cannot disprove.

Thank you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Thank you.

Your welcome.

 

[HankD]

Please return to your corners and come out when the bell rings.

HankD

 

[HankD]

My challenge was simple - Can you find any precept or any example in Scripture of any visible church institution made up of unbaptized believers?

For the sake of the debate, there is no scriptural record of anyone being baptised in water by immersion by a NT apostle for the following churches: Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis and Philadelphia (Revelation 1:11) that I can find.

HankD

 

[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.....

If I wanted to build a replica of the ark that Noah built, or the one that Moses built, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to build those in the scriptures. If I wanted to perform (God forbid) a ceremonial sacrifice or oblation, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to do it. The scriptures contain many examples of plain, precise, detailed instructions that were given. Where is the plain, precise, detailed instructions given in the scriptures on how to correctly perform the rite of water baptism? If there are such profound consequences as being grouped with 'the other spiritual source' for failing to correctly perform this rite, then why didn't Christ or one of the Apostles think to provide us with a set of plain, precise, detailed instructions?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If I wanted to build a replica of the ark that Noah built, or the one that Moses built, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to build those in the scriptures. If I wanted to perform (God forbid) a ceremonial sacrifice or oblation, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to do it. The scriptures contain many examples of plain, precise, detailed instructions that were given. Where is the plain, precise, detailed instructions given in the scriptures on how to correctly perform the rite of water baptism? If there are such profound consequences as being grouped with 'the other spiritual source' for failing to correctly perform this rite, then why didn't Christ or one of the Apostles think to provide us with a set of plain, precise, detailed instructions?

Good question.

 

[HankD]

If I wanted to build a replica of the ark that Noah built, or the one that Moses built, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to build those in the scriptures. If I wanted to perform (God forbid) a ceremonial sacrifice or oblation, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to do it. The scriptures contain many examples of plain, precise, detailed instructions that were given. Where is the plain, precise, detailed instructions given in the scriptures on how to correctly perform the rite of water baptism? If there are such profound consequences as being grouped with 'the other spiritual source' for failing to correctly perform this rite, then why didn't Christ or one of the Apostles think to provide us with a set of plain, precise, detailed instructions?

Because no amount of water in any baptismal font, tank, river, lake, sea, ocean, etc. can save anyone.

Like the song says ... Nothing but the blood of Jesus ...

HankD

 

[Eagle]

If I wanted to build a replica of the ark that Noah built, or the one that Moses built, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to build those in the scriptures. If I wanted to perform (God forbid) a ceremonial sacrifice or oblation, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to do it. The scriptures contain many examples of plain, precise, detailed instructions that were given. Where is the plain, precise, detailed instructions given in the scriptures on how to correctly perform the rite of water baptism? If there are such profound consequences as being grouped with 'the other spiritual source' for failing to correctly perform this rite, then why didn't Christ or one of the Apostles think to provide us with a set of plain, precise, detailed instructions?

Detailed instructions? The specificity of the Greek language, as well as the history and Jewish understanding of ritual cleansings, make the statement, "baptizing [baptidzo: immerse] them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" as 'detailed' as anyone could want!

Whether actually invoking the triune names during baptism, or merely doing it with the understanding of their authority and purpose, is moot.

In comparison let's look at all the "detailed instructions" we have about how to "do" church. I think we will find they are quite sufficient as well -- though certainly not found in one place -- and really not very "detailed" :tongue3:!

We worship God in spirit and in truth. We assemble ourselves. We sing hymns and spiritual songs. We preach the Word. We encourage one another and bear one another's burdens. We pray for ourselves and intercessorily. We collect tithes and offerings. We do all things decently and in order. We make disciples. We maintain discipline. We have pastors and deacons. We administer the ordinances. We generally promote and "oversee" the affairs of the Kingdom of God -- for our Head, Jesus -- as His body.

What day or days we do this; what time or times we do this; how "oft" we remember the Lord's Supper; whether we baptize immediately upon profession or wait; whether we have 2,3,4, etc., pastors or deacons; whether we set up a bucket for people to drop an offering into or 'pass a plate'; whether we sing first, last, or both; whether we preach for 30 minutes or 2 preach for an hour each; etc., etc., etc., is not given.

Not neccessarily 'detailed' depending on what you are looking for, but sufficient none-the-less! After all, this is the best set of "plain, precise, detailed instructions" that "Christ or one of the Apostles [thought] to provide us with." To quote you.

 

[Eagle]

Dr. Walter,

You are doing an excellent, first rate, job of setting forth and defending your position - which is scriptural, and which I share with you.

I am truly amazed that someone like kyredneck, with over 1,100 posts to this board, or Thinkingstuff, with over 4,000 posts, could really be so lacking in understanding as to these basic Baptist doctrinal underpinnings - and how they permeate so many other things they believe. Their arguments seem like those I would expect on an all-denominational "Christian" board - not the Baptist Board!

It can be very frustrating and hard not to let some emotion out at times -- trust me -- I know! However, I am encouraging you to be as kind, patient, and harmless, as you can be -- for the sake of the truths you set forth. We don't want for your weak 'self' to rear it's ugly head (so to speak!) - to the harm of God's truth!

Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

I know these doctrinal truths are much needed 'out there' in 'Christendom,' if you will. And even 'out here' at my Baptist church for example, and apparently, they are much needed right here on BB!

At any rate, keep up the good fight, just maybe tone it down a little?! :thumbsup:

 

[Dr. Walter]

If I wanted to build a replica of the ark that Noah built, or the one that Moses built, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to build those in the scriptures. If I wanted to perform (God forbid) a ceremonial sacrifice or oblation, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to do it. The scriptures contain many examples of plain, precise, detailed instructions that were given. Where is the plain, precise, detailed instructions given in the scriptures on how to correctly perform the rite of water baptism? If there are such profound consequences as being grouped with 'the other spiritual source' for failing to correctly perform this rite, then why didn't Christ or one of the Apostles think to provide us with a set of plain, precise, detailed instructions?

The answer to your question is found clearly in the Scriptures. The term "baptizo" and its associations ("buried" - Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12) clearly and unmistakenly limit scriptural baptism to immersion. This unbaptizes the vast majority of Christendom who sprinkle and pour.

The Scriptures clearly and unmistakenly over and over again limit immersion to those who are already repentant believers as faith always precedes baptism in the scriptures (Acts 2:41; Mt. 28:19; Acts 8:35-37; etc.). This eliminates all who were baptized as infants which again eliminates the vast majority of professing Christendom.

The Scriptures clearly and unmistakenly teach that the purpose of baptism is public identification with Christ, His gospel, His authorized administrators and their doctrine rather than to be literally regenerated, saved or born again (Mt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:41-42; I Pet. 3:21). This eliminates all who are immersed in order to be regenerated.

The Scriptues clearly and unmistakenly teach that authority to administer the ordinances is given by God (Jn. 1:31; Mt. 18:17-18; 28:18-20). Jesus went to the man authorized and "sent" (Gr. apostolos) by God (Jn. 1:30; Mt. 3:15-17) when there were Jewish authorities that performed immersion. Jesus identified the authority behind his own ministry with that baptism (Mt. 21:23-25). Christ authorized and commission those contextually defined as "ye" in contrast to those defined as "them" in Mt. 28:19-20. This plural "ye" are further defined in Acts 1:15-23 and 2:1, 41,47 as "the church." Anyone who studies the "keys of the kingdom" (Mt. 18:17-18) and the phrase "house of God" (I Tim. 3:15 with Deut. 12) realize it is the public institution for worship and administration of the ordinances with a qualified ministry as clearly seen in I Tim. 3:1-13 which leads up to I Tim. 1:15 and the expression "house of God."

Hence, scriptural baptism is by immersion only. It is of believers in Christ only. It is for public identification with Christ not for regeneration. It is administered by the church as "the house of God" and custodian of the "keys of the kingdom" (Mt. 18:17-18) through its membership set apart to administer the ordinances. This is not merely the clear and explicit Biblical pattern but the historical position of ancient Baptists.

Just the first two essentials listed above define the vast majority of professing Christians as unbaptized persons. Where there is no scriptural baptism there cannot possibly exist any scriptural church as there is no such church to be found in the New Testament that consists of unbaptized persons.

 

[HankD]

Dr. Walter,

You are doing an excellent, first rate, job of setting forth and defending your position - which is scriptural, and which I share with you.

I am truly amazed that someone like kyredneck, with over 1,100 posts to this board, or Thinkingstuff, with over 4,000 posts, could really be so lacking in understanding as to these basic Baptist doctrinal underpinnings - and how they permeate so many other things they believe. Their arguments seem like those I would expect on an all-denominational "Christian" board - not the Baptist Board!

It can be very frustrating and hard not to let some emotion out at times -- trust me -- I know! However, I am encouraging you to be as kind, patient, and harmless, as you can be -- for the sake of the truths you set forth. We don't want for your weak 'self' to rear it's ugly head (so to speak!) - to the harm of God's truth!

Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

I know these doctrinal truths are much needed 'out there' in 'Christendom,' if you will. And even 'out here' at my Baptist church for example, and apparently, they are much needed right here on BB!

At any rate, keep up the good fight, just maybe tone it down a little?! :thumbsup:

Hi Eagle,

this is a debate board and often every nook and cranny is examined, every stone unturned, every doctrine put under the microscope of the Scripture.

This does not necessarily mean that there is a complete disagreement and in fact often "challenging" questions are asked between the debators (or combatants as the case may be) as clarification and not actually a challenge.

Even at that, personally I see it as a good and healthy thing that some take it upon themselves to play the "devil's advocate".

Yes, often it goes beyond that and the ad hominems fly and for that reason it may be wise for some to refrain from getting "into the fray".

You shouldn't be amazed at the diversity of beliefs here at the BB after all as Baptists we do all support the distinctive of soul liberty.

Those that I have read who are opposed to some of the details of Dr Walter's propositions have even said that they believe pado-baptists and non-immersionists to be wrong.

Sincere but wrong, however Christians nonetheless.

Might I remind everyone that Calvin supported pado-baptism in his Institutes (4:32) Why Satan so violently assails paedobaptism.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/CalvinInfantBaptism.htm#32.

Many here seem content with his other writings though he would call us "satanic" in our opposition to the practice of paedobaptism.


HankD

 

[Eagle]

Hi Eagle,

this is a debate board and often every nook and cranny is examined, every stone unturned, every doctrine put under the microscope of the Scripture.

This does not necessarily mean that there is a complete disagreement and in fact often "challenging" questions are asked between the debators (or combatants as the case may be) as clarification and not actually a challenge.

Even at that, personally I see it as a good and healthy thing that some take it upon themselves to play the "devil's advocate".

Yes, often it goes beyond that and the ad hominems fly and for that reason it may be wise for some to refrain from getting "into the fray".

You shouldn't be amazed at the diversity of beliefs here at the BB after all as Baptists we do all support the distinctive of soul liberty.

Those that I have read who are opposed to some of the details of Dr Walter's propositions have even said that they believe pado-baptists and non-immersionists to be wrong.

Sincere but wrong, however Christians nonetheless.

Might I remind everyone that Calvin supported pado-baptism in his Institutes (4:32) Why Satan so violently assails paedobaptism.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/CalvinInfantBaptism.htm#32.

Many here seem content with his other writings though he would call us "satanic" in our opposition to the practice of paedobaptism.


HankD

Hey HankD! Thanks for the line!

I quite understand what you say about this being a debate board and all. If you followed some other threads I have been involved in you would see that I have had occasion to remind others of this as well! None-the-less, I do not mind the occasional jolt as to how "best"(?) to make my point? I trust that Dr. Walter understands this as well.

My main point was to let Dr. Walter know that he was definitely not alone in what he is espousing - and to encourage him. My aim is definitely NOT to discourage debate - at all!

I have probably made the point about many "baptists" on this Board not sounding like "Baptists" half-a-dozen times now. I may not be done yet! If I were seeking a Catholic, or a Presbyterian, or a Methodist, etc., point of view, or discussion - I would seek out their Boards. I come to a (the?) Baptist Board to encourage, grow deeper, enlighten, and be enlightened, to a greater degree than I was before. Iron sharpening iron - if you will.

I do not expect to be teaching basic Baptist doctrines to "thousands posters" (is that a word?) Baptist (?) members. That would be more like iron flaying water?

Whether Baptist Doctrine is right BECAUSE it is Biblically, historically, and every other ...ly correct, should be a done deal BEFORE claiming the Baptist name and 'jawing' with other Baptists. How some can despise Baptist belief and have such sarcasm for those who espouse it -- as evidenced on this Board -- all the while calling themselves Baptist - is somewhat befuddling to me. If I must argue with them as tho they are a Presbyterian - so be it!

HOWEVER! I am in no way in a state of 'gloom & despair' (think Hee-Haw here!) over it. If this is a somewhat surprising place to educate, inform, cajole, witness for the truth of Christ's sake (a.k.a. Baptist Doctrine) - so be it!

1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

That verse is a little strong for this application - but I think you know what I mean. :tongue3:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hi Eagle,
Those that I have read who are opposed to some of the details of Dr Walter's propositions have even said that they believe pado-baptists and non-immersionists to be wrong.

Sincere but wrong, however Christians nonetheless.

Might I remind everyone that Calvin supported pado-baptism in his Institutes (4:32) Why Satan so violently assails paedobaptism.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/CalvinInfantBaptism.htm#32.

Many here seem content with his other writings though he would call us "satanic" in our opposition to the practice of paedobaptism. HankD

Because the universal invisible body of Christ theory and its "in Christ" interpretation permeates the minds of so many Baptists in thinking to be in this kind of church is to be saved and to be outside is to be lost many Baptists cannot divorce the church from the salvation in their thinking.

That is our problem here and it is reflected in Hank's words above when he said,

Those that I have read who are opposed to some of the details of Dr Walter's propositions have even said that they believe pado-baptists and non-immersionists to be wrong. Sincere but wrong, however Christians nonetheless.

I have never denied or disputed that a person could be saved who was not a baptist, or who is without scriptural baptism. I am not talking about the state of one's individual salvation but the church as a visible institution as presented in the scriptures. There is no such thing as a church of Christ consisting of unbaptized BELIEVERS. Where there is no scriptural baptism there is no scriptural church. All the improperly baptized members of an institution such as Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Lutheran, etc., etc. may be saved but their individual salvation does not make them a New Testament church.

I grant you that a correct profession of salvation is one essential for constitution of a New Testament church but since the church has nothing to do with saving anyone but with serving Christ acceptably then the essentials of a church has to do exactly with acceptable service and it begins with baptism. It does not begin and end with baptism but it must begin there.

The Masonic lodge in America requires all members to believe in a god and in the deep south most Masonic lodges are made up of professed Christians who meet regularly and administer Masonic rites but would anyone claim that this regular assembly of Masonic Christians is a New Testament church simply because they may be saved and regularly assemble????? Get my point?

 

[canadyjd]

Jesus took materials that John had prepared (Lk. 1:17; Jn. 1:38-51).

Please explain this statement. What "materials" were prepared by John the Baptist? Are you saying all the Apostles of Jesus were baptized by John? If so, that is certainly an argument from silence, since scripture doesn't teach it.

The qualification to be chosen as an apostle was that this person had companied with Jesus "from the baptism of John" until his resurrection (Acts 1:22-23).

That was the qualification put into place by Peter, but certainly wasn't the qualification put into place by Christ when He called His disciples.

There is no indication from scripture (with the possible exception of Andrew and one other) that any of the 12 were present at the baptism of Jesus. Peter, James and John were still fishermen. Matthew is still a tax collector well into the ministry of our Lord. You are arguing from silence if you maintain all the 12 were present at the baptism of Jesus or had been baptized by John.

The apostles were identified as "disciples" in Matthew 28:16 and were commissioned by Christ to "make disciples" (Mt. 28:19) through a process they "have" already been through (Mt. 28:20).

You are assuming they had been through the "process". Scripture doesn't specifically say they were baptized.

Jesus defined disciples as baptized persons.

Where? In Matt. 28? He didn't define disciples as those who were baptized. Jesus commanded disciples to be baptized. You are getting the cart before the horse. They were baptized because they were disciples. They didn't become disciples after they were baptized.

For your objection to have any validity Jesus would have to call persons unto him and make them apostles who sided with the Pharisees in refusing to submit to the baptism of John, thus rejecting the counsel of God against themselves.

Or maybe they just never heard of John the Baptist, thus didn't reject him at all.

Matthew, without question, was called after the baptism of Jesus. He was still serving as a tax collector. There is no indication he was a disciple of John prior to Jesus calling Him. There is no indication he was saved prior to Jesus calling him, in fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.

They would be authorized to "make disciples" through a process they "have" not submitted to themselves.

Just like John the Baptist, according to your theory.

In regard to those in Acts 19. They were part of no church because the person who baptized them was no part of any church and that is why their baptism was invalid.

The person who baptized them is not mentioned, as valid or invalid. Any such statement is pure speculation. They were baptized into the baptism of John. The baptism of John is not the same baptism as Christian baptism (IMHO). The baptism of John was unto repentance for remission of sins. It prepared the Jews for the reality that forgiveness of sins did not come through temple sacrifices by Priests, but by God's mercy through His Messiah who would forever take away the temple sacrifices.

Christian baptism symbolizes our participation in the new life in Christ by our own death, burial and ressurrection. No where is John's baptism described in such a way, that I can find anyway.

....He knew the baptism of John and there is no mention of him being rebaptized but did not know about the baptism in the Spirit or the divine accreditation of the authorized administrator of the ordinances or the new house of God.

Apollos was "mighty in the scriptures" and had been "instructed in the way of the Lord". He was "speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus". Apparently, Apollos lacked crucial understanding only in one area. He was aqcuainted "only with the baptism of John" (18:25)

If the baptism of John was the same as Christian baptism, there would be no reason for Apollos to receive more instruction concerning the way of Jesus, IMHO.

peace to youraying:

 

[HankD]

The Masonic lodge in America requires all members to believe in a god and in the deep south most Masonic lodges are made up of professed Christians who meet regularly and administer Masonic rites but would anyone claim that this regular assembly of Masonic Christians is a New Testament church simply because they may be saved and regularly assemble????? Get my point?

Yes, of course Dr. Walter.

However, the Masonic Lodges don't claim to be local churches, neither do they assemble in the name of Jesus Christ but the Grand Architect of The Universe.

HankD

 

[Dr. Walter]

Read Luke 1:17b and you will see John's mission was to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord". The "Lord" in question is Jesus Christ (Mk 1:1-4). How did he make read a people prepared? This requires study of the overall context of the gospels in how John carried out his mission. He preached the gospel and called on his hearers to repent and believe in Christ (Jn. 1:29; 3:36; Acts 19:4). He baptized those who responded in this manner. As such they were "prepared for the Lord" to take and use in building the church as they are the first officer set in the church (I Cor. 12:28) and this happened very early in the gospel accounts.

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.

First, my position is not built upon silence because the scriptures are not silent about how Jesus took unto himself those baptized by John in the first chapter of John's gospel as you even admit. You are the one arguing from silence. You are insisting that unless it can be shown that each and every apostle followed the order we are given in scripture of the first apostles then it must be assumed on silence that the rest did not follow the stated order and that some other kind of order may have applied to other apostles. You do this with Acts 1:22-23. Why would Peter even say this if it were not true of the rest of the apostles? Why would he suggest something NEW or not true of some of the Apostles but insist upon it for a replacement? Your argument makes no sense.

Your denial that Matthew 28:19-20 is commissioned to those who "have" already been through the same process (gospelized, baptized and instructed how to observe) presumes that non-disciples can make disciples as this is the very process given by Christ to "make disciples" (main Greek verb). The ungospelized would be sent to gospelize others or the unbaptized would be sent to baptize others or the untaught would be sent to teach what they were never taught? Based purely upon silence you assume that some other baptism than the baptism of John existed in the pre-Pentecost Great Commission. Based purely upon silence you assume that some of those called "disciples" in Matthew 28:16 were unbaptized when all available evidence and I might add common sense dictates completely otherwise.

Luke 7:29-30 demonstrates that John himself need not baptize anyone for that person to have the "baptism of John" as Jesus baptized more than John (Jn. 4:1-2) and it was not a competitive baptism. Hence, those called later by Christ to follow him could have received the baptism of John through Jesus and His disciples (Jn. 4:1-2). Since baptism was the visible sign of acceptance of John's Messiah message then it is assumption based upon pure silence on your part to suppose that one could be a disciple of Christ and yet not submit to the same baptism that Jesus Himself submitted to!!!

Apollos had an active preaching ministry attempting to make disciples. He was not deficient in the way of salvation but he was deficient in the way of service. John did not authorize Apollos or anyone else to continue his ministry or to administer his baptism. Those commissioned by Christ to administer the ordinances was the church he built and set apostles in and gave the keys of the kingdom to (Mt. 18:17-18; Mt. 28:19-20) and this new "house of God" was divinely accredited to be God's house by the baptism in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost and thus the authorized administrator of the ordinances. Apollos, just as those disciples in Acts 19 knew nothing of the baptism in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. He was a fee-lance preacher who had no authority to carry out John's commission or the commission of the church. THERE IS NO RECORD THAT HE WAS BAPTIZED AGAIN. However, from that point forward he worked with New Testament churches instead of outside them.

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:

Please explain this statement. What "materials" were prepared by John the Baptist? Are you saying all the Apostles of Jesus were baptized by John? If so, that is certainly an argument from silence, since scripture doesn't teach it.That was the qualification put into place by Peter, but certainly wasn't the qualification put into place by Christ when He called His disciples.

There is no indication from scripture (with the possible exception of Andrew and one other) that any of the 12 were present at the baptism of Jesus. Peter, James and John were still fishermen. Matthew is still a tax collector well into the ministry of our Lord. You are arguing from silence if you maintain all the 12 were present at the baptism of Jesus or had been baptized by John.You are assuming they had been through the "process". Scripture doesn't specifically say they were baptized.Where? In Matt. 28? He didn't define disciples as those who were baptized. Jesus commanded disciples to be baptized. You are getting the cart before the horse. They were baptized because they were disciples. They didn't become disciples after they were baptized.Or maybe they just never heard of John the Baptist, thus didn't reject him at all.

Matthew, without question, was called after the baptism of Jesus. He was still serving as a tax collector. There is no indication he was a disciple of John prior to Jesus calling Him. There is no indication he was saved prior to Jesus calling him, in fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.
Just like John the Baptist, according to your theory.The person who baptized them is not mentioned, as valid or invalid. Any such statement is pure speculation. They were baptized into the baptism of John. The baptism of John is not the same baptism as Christian baptism (IMHO). The baptism of John was unto repentance for remission of sins. It prepared the Jews for the reality that forgiveness of sins did not come through temple sacrifices by Priests, but by God's mercy through His Messiah who would forever take away the temple sacrifices.

Christian baptism symbolizes our participation in the new life in Christ by our own death, burial and ressurrection. No where is John's baptism described in such a way, that I can find anyway.Apollos was "mighty in the scriptures" and had been "instructed in the way of the Lord". He was "speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus". Apparently, Apollos lacked crucial understanding only in one area. He was aqcuainted "only with the baptism of John" (18:25)

If the baptism of John was the same as Christian baptism, there would be no reason for Apollos to receive more instruction concerning the way of Jesus, IMHO.

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes, of course Dr. Walter.

However, the Masonic Lodges don't claim to be local churches, neither do they assemble in the name of Jesus Christ but the Grand Architect of The Universe.

HankD

Have you ever read the introduction to the Masonic Edition of the Holy Bible? I have. They claim to be a SUPERIOR light to Christianity and thus a superior religious institution under God (even though they deny they are a religious institution). In America the Holy Bible is open upon their table.

However, suppose they did claim to be the real "true" churches of God, would it make them so?