"Christian" Baptism prior to the Resurrection

[The Biblicist]

Baptism in general existed long before John, and what many (to include myself) would term "Christian Baptism" was practiced after the Resurrection (as symbolizing not only forgiveness, but also redemption through the blood of Christ).

Jewish ceremonial washings existed long before John but not Christian baptism and John baptized in reference to repentance and faith in the gospel of Christ (Acts 19:4; Jn. 3;36) even though he did not know that Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of that Christ gospel preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43). It was through baptism Christ was "made manifest" to Israel.

Ceremonial cleansings are Old Covenant ordinances but the baptism of John was a new covenant ordinance that cannot be found under Old Covenant Law. With regard to ceremonial cleansing of Gentile proselytes, it was joined with circumcision as an Old Covenant type of the internal washing of regeneration but with regard to actual Jewish practice it was part of their abused means for being justified by the works of the law. This explains the debate between the disciples of John with the Pharisees with regard to the Old Covenant ceremonial cleansings.

 

[postman pat]

It is often presented that baptism represents our death, burial, and resurrection in Christ. I realize that there is quite a bit in that short statement, and of course that “in the name of Christ” may indicate or include his death, burial, and resurrection (I’m not disputing or arguing against that symbolism).

But if the primary symbolism of Christian baptism is a representation of our death, burial, and resurrection in Christ then what is the significance of the baptisms performed by the disciples while Jesus was still living?

A person is first united to Christ by the Spirit of God. He who is dead in sin is resurrected by the Spirit (is made spiritually alive) and is engrafted into the body of Christ. Water baptism symbolises the believer's death and resurrection in Christ. The rite itself does not accomplish anything spiritually. Rather the spiritually comes before the physical representation.
The Christian is one who has been spiritually resurrected, and yet one who looks forward to another resurrection, that concerning his mortal body.

 

[The Biblicist]

A person is first united to Christ by the Spirit of God. He who is dead in sin is resurrected by the Spirit (is made spiritually alive) and is engrafted into the body of Christ. Water baptism symbolises the believer's death and resurrection in Christ. The rite itself does not accomplish anything spiritually. Rather the spiritually comes before the physical representation.
The Christian is one who has been spiritually resurrected, and yet one who looks forward to another resurrection, that concerning his mortal body.

You are confusing the church with salvation "in Christ." The church had no existence prior to the personal ministry of Christ, its foundation consisted of "apostles and prophets" thus it is New Testament in origin. However, salvation in Christ existed from Genesis 3:15 as Paul explicitly states that the covenant of God with Abraham was "in Christ" - Gal.3:17. Furthermore, those chosen "in him" were chosen before the foundation of the world. You are following the same confusion introduced by Augustine where he confused the church with the family and kingdom of God.

Water baptism is the prerequisite for church membership and necessary for the constitution of a New Testament church, without which no church in the Biblical sense exists.

 

[postman pat]

You are confusing the church with salvation "in Christ." The church had no existence prior to the personal ministry of Christ, its foundation consisted of "apostles and prophets" thus it is New Testament in origin. However, salvation in Christ existed from Genesis 3:15 as Paul explicitly states that the covenant of God with Abraham was "in Christ" - Gal.3:17. Furthermore, those chosen "in him" were chosen before the foundation of the world. You are following the same confusion introduced by Augustine where he confused the church with the family and kingdom of God.

Water baptism is the prerequisite for church membership and necessary for the constitution of a New Testament church, without which no church in the Biblical sense exists.

Yes, I would agree that salvation in Christ has existed from the first promise for all those who believe. I would say, however, that the true church has always been in Christ. To be in Christ is to be in the kingdom of God and to be in the true church is to be counted among the congregation of God's people. It is to belong to the true Israel of God. The growth of the NT church, I would say, is based on "apostles, prophets", this, however, alludes to the growth of the church after the middle wall of partition had been abolished. The true church of Christ has from the beginning and has only consisted of those who have truly eaten the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man. In the OT this consisted of the remnant according to election.
If you say that one must be physically baptised to belong to the church of Christ, then there is the possibility that one can belong to Christ, be part of his body, be spiritually resurrected, and yet be outside the church. I can't see this.

 

[JonC]

A person is first united to Christ by the Spirit of God. He who is dead in sin is resurrected by the Spirit (is made spiritually alive) and is engrafted into the body of Christ. Water baptism symbolises the believer's death and resurrection in Christ. The rite itself does not accomplish anything spiritually. Rather the spiritually comes before the physical representation.
The Christian is one who has been spiritually resurrected, and yet one who looks forward to another resurrection, that concerning his mortal body.

I agree insofar that salvation entails a person being united to Christ, accomplished through the work of the Spirit and by the will of God. And baptism does symbolize the believer's death, burial and resurrection in Christ. But I cannot see how those baptisms performed by the disciples during Jesus' earthly ministry were recognized as holding that symbolism with the Disciples or those being baptized simply because they did not understand at that time that Jesus would die and be resurrected.

Think of it this way...if you listened to Jesus preach and was baptized as a disciple by the apostle John a year before the crucifixion, what did that baptism represent? My answer is that it represented both being cleansed from one's sin and becoming a member of that specific community of believers as historically baptism has been used to represent both (e.g., the Jewish washings, the baptisms of Gentile proselytes converting to Judaism). In it's fullest form, I agree that it symbolizes a death, burial, and resurrection in Christ. But I also think that we sometimes gloss over it's meaning and foster a misunderstanding that focuses on this "newness of life" apart from the practice of daily putting to death our sins. In other words, the church today seems less focused on sin and more focused on a future resurrected existence (which ironically will be elusive apart from that death).

 

[JonC]

Jewish ceremonial washings existed long before John but not Christian baptism and John baptized in reference to repentance and faith in the gospel of Christ (Acts 19:4; Jn. 3;36) even though he did not know that Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of that Christ gospel preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43). It was through baptism Christ was "made manifest" to Israel.

Ceremonial cleansings are Old Covenant ordinances but the baptism of John was a new covenant ordinance that cannot be found under Old Covenant Law. With regard to ceremonial cleansing of Gentile proselytes, it was joined with circumcision as an Old Covenant type of the internal washing of regeneration but with regard to actual Jewish practice it was part of their abused means for being justified by the works of the law. This explains the debate between the disciples of John with the Pharisees with regard to the Old Covenant ceremonial cleansings.

I was not thinking so much of ceremonial cleanings or the baptisms of John. I was thinking of the baptisms performed by the Disciples under Jesus' earthly ministry. I can see two ways that this may be recognized by those being baptized and those baptizing (before the understanding that Jesus would die and be resurrected). One is a cleansing. We look at baptism symbolizing a death to sin, but I suppose it would look to forgiveness. But also, those Gentiles who converted to Jews were also baptized into that community. What I am looking at is the baptisms of the Disciples before the Cross.

 

[The Biblicist]

The growth of the NT church, I would say, is based on "apostles, prophets", this, however, alludes to the growth of the church after the middle wall of partition had been abolished. The true church of Christ has from the beginning and has only consisted of those who have truly eaten the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man. In the OT this consisted of the remnant according to election.

You are turning the metaphor "foundation" upon its head! This metaphor is NEVER used for "growth" but for the beginning point in any building project. In addition, Paul says that God added "first" to the church not Abel or Abraham, but the "apostles" thus again reinforcing the metaphorical idea of origin with "foundation."

If you say that one must be physically baptised to belong to the church of Christ, then there is the possibility that one can belong to Christ, be part of his body, be spiritually resurrected, and yet be outside the church. I can't see this.

Circular reasoning. You are assuming the truth of your position in this statement to prove your position. Your premise is what is being challenged. Physical baptism is into a physical church as there is no such thing as any other kind of church in the scriptures.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree insofar that salvation entails a person being united to Christ, accomplished through the work of the Spirit and by the will of God. And baptism does symbolize the believer's death, burial and resurrection in Christ. But I cannot see how those baptisms performed by the disciples during Jesus' earthly ministry were recognized as holding that symbolism with the Disciples or those being baptized simply because they did not understand at that time that Jesus would die and be resurrected.

Think of it this way...if you listened to Jesus preach and was baptized as a disciple by the apostle John a year before the crucifixion, what did that baptism represent? My answer is that it represented both being cleansed from one's sin and becoming a member of that specific community of believers as historically baptism has been used to represent both (e.g., the Jewish washings, the baptisms of Gentile proselytes converting to Judaism). In it's fullest form, I agree that it symbolizes a death, burial, and resurrection in Christ. But I also think that we sometimes gloss over it's meaning and foster a misunderstanding that focuses on this "newness of life" apart from the practice of daily putting to death our sins. In other words, the church today seems less focused on sin and more focused on a future resurrected existence (which ironically will be elusive apart from that death).

It does not matter if they understood the prophetic purpose at this point. God designed it for God's purpose that became revealed clearly (Lk. 7:29-30).

 

[JonC]

It does not matter if they understood the prophetic purpose at this point. God designed it for God's purpose that became revealed clearly (Lk. 7:29-30).

I agree. But the designation as a symbol representing the death, burial, and resurrection that was clearly revealed is not the topic of this thread (the topic was baptism after John but prior to that revelation of which you point). When we read of the baptism in question, do we read into it an understanding that was absent at the event? Scripture tells us that Jesus' followers did not understand what was to occur. They remained ignorant for a period of time. Yet people were baptized (not by Jesus Himself, but by His disciples). What I am getting at is that baptism was significant to the people who were baptized during Jesus' "earthly" ministry. But it's significance was not a symbolic death, burial and resurrection. Personally, I like to try and see things from a vantage contemporary to the events being described. I'm not questioning the symbolism, just pondering the significance to a people apart from that symbolism.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree. But the designation as a symbol representing the death, burial, and resurrection that was clearly revealed is not the topic of this thread (the topic was baptism after John but prior to that revelation of which you point). When we read of the baptism in question, do we read into it an understanding that was absent at the event? Scripture tells us that Jesus' followers did not understand what was to occur. They remained ignorant for a period of time. Yet people were baptized (not by Jesus Himself, but by His disciples). What I am getting at is that baptism was significant to the people who were baptized during Jesus' "earthly" ministry. But it's significance was not a symbolic death, burial and resurrection. Personally, I like to try and see things from a vantage contemporary to the events being described. I'm not questioning the symbolism, just pondering the significance to a people apart from that symbolism.

Paul tells us how both John and the people that submitted to baptism understood it. It was understood in connection with the gospel preached by John - repentance and faith in Christ - Acts 19:4. So even before the cross it was the consequence of professing the gospel of the anticipated Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

From the very beginning of the administration of the baptism of John, it was for public identification with the gospel of the anticipated coming of Christ. It was designed to purposely identify with Gospel repentance and faith in the coming Christ (Acts 19:4). "How" (1 Cor. 15:3-4) the coming Savior was going to specifically accomplish the predicted defeat of Satan (Gen. 3:15) was not grasped fully by those living at the time of Christ's coming. However, Christ came at a time of great apostasy and false teaching that wholly misrepresented the prophetic scriptures by the traditions of the elders. It is in the apostate atmosphere of confusion and perversion of the way of salvation that the apostles lived. Hence, former saints prior to the first century may have understood the gospel better than those in the days of Christ (Rom. 10:16; Acts 2:30-31; Gal. 3:6-8, 17), although they certainly did not have the perspective of fulfilled prophecy and therefore their understanding could not have been as clear as post-prophetic fulfillment.

 

[JonC]

Paul tells us how both John and the people that submitted to baptism understood it. It was understood in connection with the gospel preached by John - repentance and faith in Christ - Acts 19:4. So even before the cross it was the consequence of professing the gospel of the anticipated Christ.

Yes, exactly. And in Luke 18:31-33 we see Jesus spelling out that he was to die and on the third day rise again. But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement (Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection) was hidden from them and they did not comprehend the things that were said (v. 34). I am not arguing against what we believe in terms of baptism representing our death, burial and resurrection, nor am I rejecting at all the earlier understanding that baptism represented forgiveness and inclusion.

I am saying that to me it seems that many churches focus on baptism as that work of Jesus on the Cross, but not completely as that work applied to the lives of those being saved. Much too often the gospel is presented as an addition to our lives rather than the power of salvation. I think that many churches do not focus on repentance and faith, on taking up our crosses and dying daily to the flesh, of what John Owen called the "mortification of sin". When the early saints viewed baptism as inclusion, symbolizing repentance and faith, they were not in any way rejecting how this was going to occur. They simply did not understand how God was bringing about redemption. But today, I've seen churches focusing heavily on this symbolism of baptism as a death, burial and resurrection...however what is missing is true repentance and faith. I think that sometimes American Christianity looks to heaven without even considering salvation out of their own sin.

We seem to often want the ticket, not the transformation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, exactly. And in Luke 18:31-33 we see Jesus spelling out that he was to die and on the third day rise again. But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement (Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection) was hidden from them and they did not comprehend the things that were said (v. 34). I am not arguing against what we believe in terms of baptism representing our death, burial and resurrection, nor am I rejecting at all the earlier understanding that baptism represented forgiveness and inclusion.

I am saying that to me it seems that many churches focus on baptism as that work of Jesus on the Cross, but not completely as that work applied to the lives of those being saved. Much too often the gospel is presented as an addition to our lives rather than the power of salvation. I think that many churches do not focus on repentance and faith, on taking up our crosses and dying daily to the flesh, of what John Owen called the "mortification of sin". When the early saints viewed baptism as inclusion, symbolizing repentance and faith, they were not in any way rejecting how this was going to occur. They simply did not understand how God was bringing about redemption. But today, I've seen churches focusing heavily on this symbolism of baptism as a death, burial and resurrection...however what is missing is true repentance and faith. I think that sometimes American Christianity looks to heaven without even considering salvation out of their own sin.

We seem to often want the ticket, not the transformation.

I agree. The emphasis of baptism is true repentance which means a CHANGE wrought by God within man. A change of mind from unbelief to belief. A change of heart from love of sin to love of righteousness. A change of will from resistance to submission. Baptism declares that change has occurred and provides in picture the cause for that change - Christ's redemptive work. Paul emphasizes this in Romans 6:1-8:26. Formerly he concluded that where sin abounded grace did much more abound. That gave rise the anticipated argument, well, if that is the case then why not sin more so grace can more abound? Therefore, justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works promotes sin.

Paul responds immediately, "God forbid" but then takes the members of the churches in Rome to their common public water baptism. From a post-cross perspective baptism not only openly idenifies the believer with the gospel of Christ but more specfically with the inseparability of justification by faith and regeneration. His death and burial satisfied the law's penalty - thus justified - dead to sin legally. However, it also identified the believer with the resurrection of Christ and his resurrrected life - dead to the power of sin personally. Sin had no dominion over the resurrected life of Christ and sin has no dominion over the believer who is walking in the power of the indwelling Spirit and not after the flesh (Rom. 6:7-8:26). Water baptism identifies us with Christ both positionally and personally with regard to sin and its dominion as a penalty and its power. When a person is water baptized they are saying I have not only been justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works - the redemptive work of Christ that has made me legally free, thus dead to sin, but I have been also regenerated by the Spirit that raised up Christ from the dead which provides victory over the power of indwelling sin, so I can experientially die daily to sin.

 

[postman pat]

You are turning the metaphor "foundation" upon its head! This metaphor is NEVER used for "growth" but for the beginning point in any building project. In addition, Paul says that God added "first" to the church not Abel or Abraham, but the "apostles" thus again reinforcing the metaphorical idea of origin with "foundation."



Circular reasoning. You are assuming the truth of your position in this statement to prove your position. Your premise is what is being challenged. Physical baptism is into a physical church as there is no such thing as any other kind of church in the scriptures.

Surely you agree that there are those who belong to the true church and those who are false, making a profession, but yet remaining outside the body of Christ. When the apostle penned Romans 6, whilst he did not know the hearts of all who made a profession, he knew that those who truly believed were indeed, dead to sin and alive the Christ. My point is simply that one can belong to the body of Christ, be spiritually resurrected, without undergoing the rite of physical baptism.
The true church consists of all those who are in Christ from Genesis 3:15. It is this church that is being conformed to the image of Christ. Christ is the Head of the church and he is the Saviour of the body. I cannot make a distinction between the true church that consists of those that are truly regenerate and the body of Christ. They are one and the same. I would have no difficult in believing that Abraham was in the church and a member of Christ's body. That he was seated in heavenly places in Christ and a member of the new covenant. It is the the entire church from both before and after Christ's earthly work that is going to be presented without spot or wrinkle.
Again, I say that if one is insistent on the rite of water baptism before one can become a recipient of the true church of christ, one is attributing an unscriptural efficacy to the rite. I don't for a second believe that in Romans 6 Paul is speaking of the rite of baptism, but, rather, the Spirit's engrafting into Christ's body. I don't follow the circular reasoning argument because I believe all believers to be in the church, irrespective of the rite. I don't recognise that demarcation point between OT and NT saints. Believing this it must then follow that to insist on the rite of baptism as a precondition to belonging to the true church, the body of Christ, is to put the cart before the horse.
Having said this, I do see that in the NT, the rite and membership of the visible church appear to go together.

 

[postman pat]

It does not matter if they understood the prophetic purpose at this point. God designed it for God's purpose that became revealed clearly (Lk. 7:29-30).

John's baptism was in the name of the promised one. It don't think it mattered much that the disciples did not quite grasp the rite's significance. For example, Jesus own disciples did not fully understand the nature of Christ's ministry, but I would have no hesitation in saying that they were believers. OT saints saw from a distance, yet they were as much in Christ as believers today. One's understanding does not affect one's objective position in Christ. The luxury of subjectively entering into one's inheritance was, I believe, associated with that blessing we read about at Pentecost.

 

[JonC]

John's baptism was in the name of the promised one. It don't think it mattered much that the disciples did not quite grasp the rite's significance. For example, Jesus own disciples did not fully understand the nature of Christ's ministry, but I would have no hesitation in saying that they were believers. OT saints saw from a distance, yet they were as much in Christ as believers today. One's understanding does not affect one's objective position in Christ. The luxury of subjectively entering into one's inheritance was, I believe, associated with that blessing we read about at Pentecost.

That brings to my mind the faith of OT saints. They believed in the Promised One yet to come. On the other hand, we have those who received John's Baptism but were re-baptized in the name of Christ:

Acts 19:1-7 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

 

[The Biblicist]

That brings to my mind the faith of OT saints. They believed in the Promised One yet to come. On the other hand, we have those who received John's Baptism but were re-baptized in the name of Christ:

Acts 19:1-7 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions here. John the Baptist preached a lot about the Holy Spirit and yet these ignorant about some aspect of the Spirit. The grammar here can easily be understood to mean that they had been baptized in reference to John or in the name of John by the administrator of their baptism. However, Paul tells them that John baptized in reference to Christ not in reference to himself. This occurs some 19-22 years after the ministry of John the Baptist. Their administrator was most likely Apollos who was ignorant that the Holy Spirit had publicly accredited the church as the administrator of water baptism (Mt. 28:19 with Acts 2:40) and was ignorant that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Apollos was not rebaptized, but from that point forward worked in and through New Testament churches and preached Jesus was the Christ. Apollos had no authority to administer baptism and these 12 have all the markings of his ministry before he was instructed more perfectly in the way of the Lord

 

[The Biblicist]

Surely you agree that there are those who belong to the true church and those who are false, making a profession, but yet remaining outside the body of Christ.

You are making a fundemental exegetical error. The Greek term ekklesia was used in Classical Greek and throughout its pre-New Testament history to mean only a local visible assembly of people gathered to conduct some sort of business. It never was used to mean "the called out ones." It was commonly used in the institutional sense in Classical Greek. In the New Testament, one cannot simply tack on a brand new meaning opposite to its whole history of usage until it is proven that its common ordinary concrete and institutional uses do not make sense and there is no passage where either the concrete or the institutional sense does not make sense. The Bible never uses metaphors that convey invisibility or universality in reference to ekkesia. They are metaphors that convey visibleness and locality.

To answer your question, the churches of Christ contain no members who do not profess Christ but do contain lost professors as in the case of Judas. The church and salvation are not synonyms in any context in the New Testament. You believe in church salvation as you have no salvation outside your church and only in your church is salvation - that is fundamentally the Roman Catholic doctrine of church salvation simply revised to "invisible" by Reformed Roman Catholics but both are false doctrines.

When the apostle penned Romans 6, whilst he did not know the hearts of all who made a profession, he knew that those who truly believed were indeed, dead to sin and alive the Christ. My point is simply that one can belong to the body of Christ, be spiritually resurrected, without undergoing the rite of physical baptism.

Romans 6:4-6 is speaking about water baptism not spirit baptism as Spirit baptism portrays or conveys no "likeness" of anything but water baptism does. Moreover, it is water baptism that provides a public "likeness" that repudiates the idea that grace promotes sin because water baptism identifies the believer publicly and openly with both justification or positional deadness to sin by immersion in water as one dead and being buried; and by identification with the resurrected life of Christ, thus identification with regenerative life over which sin has no power. Paul's point is that justification by faith does not occur without or apart from regeneration and it is water baptism that publicly proclaims, affirms and demonstrates this by joining one with the other. Hence, we are dead to sin legally and positionally by the cross, his death and we are dead to sin regeneratively by the resurrection life of Christ, both of which are provided in "likeness" in public water baptism.

The true church consists of all those who are in Christ from Genesis 3:15.

No, it does not! You are teaching the doctrine of Roman Catholocism or church salvation as to be "in Christ" by our doctrine is to be in the church and to be lost by your doctrine is to be outside the church that is Roman Catholicism, the error continued by Reformed Roman Catholics. The church and salvation are not one and the same. For example, your doctrine teaches that entrance into that kind of church is through the baptism in the Spirit, however, there is no baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost is there, and therefore no possible entrance into your kind of church for OT saints. Second, Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Cor. 12:28 explicitly repudiate your Old Testament body of Christ church as Paul plainly states that "apostles" are the FIRST God set in His church not Abel, or Abraham.

It is this church that is being conformed to the image of Christ.

No it is the individual believer that is being conformed to Christ (Rom. 8:28-32). The church is the metaphorical body of Christ that is the visible representative of the kingdom of God on earth and administers the ordinances.

Christ is the Head of the church and he is the Saviour of the body.

That is true as one cannot be a member of a New Testament church apart from such a salvation profession and Paul treats the profession as authentic as he was instrumental in constituting the churches he addresses in this manner. The metaphor "head" is NEVER used of anything other than "authority" in Scripture. Christ is the final "authority" over the church and all New Testament churches confess that.

I cannot make a distinction between the true church that consists of those that are truly regenerate and the body of Christ.

The only "true" church are New Testament churches or using the generic or institutional sense "the church" what you have is a false church that has no reality. In reality your concept is a confusion between the church and the kingdom of God and Augustine was responsible in church history for introducing that confusion with the idea of the church simply to escape the doctrine of church discipline.

They are one and the same. I would have no difficult in believing that Abraham was in the church and a member of Christ's body. That he was seated in heavenly places in Christ and a member of the new covenant. It is the the entire church from both before and after Christ's earthly work that is going to be presented without spot or blemish

You are confusing the "family" of God with the "church" of God and they are not one and the same. You have to ignore scriptures, redefine terms, invent a new kind of salvation to produce your concept of the church. For example, your concept requires entrance by the baptism in the Spirit as that is your doctrine modus operandi for placing members into you kind of church but the baptism in the Spirit had no existence previous to Pentecost.[/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

I think you are making a lot of assumptions here. John the Baptist preached a lot about the Holy Spirit and yet these ignorant about some aspect of the Spirit. The grammar here can easily be understood to mean that they had been baptized in reference to John or in the name of John by the administrator of their baptism. However, Paul tells them that John baptized in reference to Christ not in reference to himself. This occurs some 19-22 years after the ministry of John the Baptist. Their administrator was most likely Apollos who was ignorant that the Holy Spirit had publicly accredited the church as the administrator of water baptism (Mt. 28:19 with Acts 2:40) and was ignorant that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Apollos was not rebaptized, but from that point forward worked in and through New Testament churches and preached Jesus was the Christ. Apollos had no authority to administer baptism and these 12 have all the markings of his ministry before he was instructed more perfectly in the way of the Lord

Thanks. That's a good point and one I hadn't considered.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks. That's a good point and one I hadn't considered.

Your welcome