Featured Alien Baptism

I trust that you agree that the ekklesia is people, not bricks and mortar. Well on Monday morning, you are not assembled with your brothers and sisters, but you are still part of the ekklesia and you are being built in to the 'holy temple of the Lord' described in Ephesians 2:19-21. So it is with the Universal Church. If you understand Inaugurated Eschatology, you will know that there is a sense in which we are already seated together in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6 etc.). But the full realization comes when we are part of that great crowd of Revelation 7:9ff.

It is sad that that is exactly what you seem to be promoting. The Lord Jesus prayed that His disciples might be one (John 17:20-21). Since it is our Lord who prayed that prayer, we may be assured that it has been answered, not in an organic sense as the Church of Rome claims, but in a spiritual sense, that wherever I am in the world, I can find believers and enjoy fellowship with them. The body is already 'joined' and it is unfortunate that your ecclesiology seeks to wrench it apart. 'What God has joined together, let not man separate.'

The Lord Jesus is building His Church today, but it goes without saying that until He returns the building must inevitably be incomplete, as there are still more living stones to be added.

Well now you have them.

 

Just so. But when you are not assembled you are still part of the assembly Your church does not cease to be because it is not holding a service at a given time. Likewise the Universal church does not cease to be because it is not meeting, although, as I wrote and you did not answer, there is a sense in which we are already meeting, seated together in the heavenlies.

You're getting very grumpy these days. I have looked through this thread looking for your definition of 'body' but what I've found mostly is failed attempts at one or two line slap-downs to people who disagree with you. If you have the immense wisdom and experience of which you are constantly telling us, you should maybe be following the example of 2 Timothy 2:24-25.

Amen! But not just in our own assemblies, but one with all of God's people (cf. Romans 16:1-2). If the 'one body, one Spirit' of Ephesians 4:4 applies to each church individually, then does every church have its own 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (v.5)?

Wonderful! Wouldn't it be a shame to spoil it by evangelizing and bringing sinners into it? My church is not complete; there is a whole load of unsaved folk out there needing to be brought in.

That, I think, may be your problem. No ears to hear.

 

Yes, as the requirement should be believers Baptism, by Immersion, regarding if done by SBC/IFB Baptist church, as that person would meet the biblcal requirements of Christian baptism!

 

That depends on what they claim is baptism! A believer may be sprinkled but that is not baptism. A believer may have been poured upon but that is not baptism. A believer may have been immersed by a Catholic priest but that is not baptism as authority to administer baptism is given to "discples" of Christ who are like faith and order with Christ in the same gospel, same baptism and same basic faith and order (Mt. 28:19-20).

Another thing, the phrase "in Christ" has several different applications in scripture. The most obvious one is our spiritual union with Christ by regeneration (Eph. 2:10a). However, it is also used to describe the metaphorical body of Christ the local congregation made up of PHYSICAL bodies of the believers (1 Cor. 6:17-19; 12:27). So baptized "in" or "into" Christ with regard to water baptism does not bring us into spiritual union with Christ (baptismal regeneration) but into the congregational "body of Christ".

Another thing, every example in the book of Acts where baptism in water is found is administered by a disciple that is not merely like faith and order with Christ in the Great Commission essentials (Mt. 28:19-20 with Acts 2:40-41) but were administrators within a New Testament Congregation. Philip baptized the Samaritans and the congregation at Jerusalem followed up (acts 8:14) and the results were congregations in Samaria (Act 9:31 interpreted in connection with Gal. 1:22 "churches"). The congregation followed up on the baptism by its members in Antioch and consequence was a New Testament congregation (Acts 11:19-27). Why would the Eunuch be any different? When you have clear precepts (Mt. 28:19-20) followed by clear example (Acts 2:40-41) why would you choose to interpret the Eunuch based upon SILENCE any differently? Can you find anywhere in the conversation between Philip and the Enuch where Philip had mentioned baptism?? No! So the argument based on silence is wrought with difficulty even with baptism.

I agree with our poster that baptism is a congregational ordinance, but not just any congregation, but the congregation that is like faith and order WIITH CHRIST in the gospel, in baptism, and in essential doctrine and practice. The only place where authority to baptize is addressed in Scripture is Matthew 28:18-20 and in that text there are three groups of people identified:

1. "ye"
2."all nations"
3. "them"

Who did Jesus give authority to administer water baptism unto? Not the lost "all nations." Not unbaptized untaught believers ("them") but only to "ye" who are "disciples" which have been discipled or followers of Christ in the same "gospel" same "baptism" and same faith and order, as the contextual "ye" had already been through the threefold process listed in Matthew 28:19-20. They had been gone to with the gospel by John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-22), they had been baptized by John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-22; Lk. 7:29-30). They had been taught how to observe all things commanded by Christ for the past three and half years (Acts 1:21-22) in a congregational body of baptized believers.

The difference between just getting wet and being baptized is that baptism is administered "in the name of Christ." That does not refer to mere verbalization as in "I baptize you in the name of......" followed by immersion. That means the baptism is administered in keeping with the commands of Christ or how Christ authorized it to be performed and he never authorized unbelievers ("all nations") or unbaptized believers ("them") or believers who do not identify with a teaching observing assembly that is like faith and order with Christ ("them"). The authorized administrator is one that goes with the same gospel Christ preached, administers the same baptism that Christ administered and teaches the same faith and practice Christ commanded to be observed - or congregations of like faith and order AS SEEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Notice it is the same kind of "ye" that goes with the gospel that is authorized to administer baptism.
Notice it is the same kind of "ye" that teaches them how to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded that is authorized to administer baptism. Christ does not want believers in him to publicly identify with any other kind as all other kinds are APOSTATES from the faith (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17).

If you claimed to be saved and then invited us to the Roman Catholic Church in order to be sprinkled, poured or immersed what does that public identification with that administrator loudly proclaim? It proclaims you are a Roman Catholic in doctrine and practice or why else choose to publically identify with that particular denominational administrator??? If you chose a Methodist or a Prebyterian, etc., Christ does not want any of his people to publicaly identify with any public institution but his kind, which are identified by the same gospel, same baptism and same faith and order he commanded and which are illustrated throughout the new Testament.

To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be baptized so that person identifies with Christ in the gospel, Christ in baptism and Christ in congregational observance of all things commanded.

Beleif in the gospel gets one into heaven, whereas water baptism is the prerequisite that gets one into the church. The former has to do with salvation while the latter has to do with service.

The plural "ye" authorized are identified in acts 1:21-22 as the congregational body of Christ wherein each member has already been through the same threefold process outlined in the Great Commission with regard to the SAME gospel, SAME baptism and SAME faith and order. That threefold process is how one is MADE A DISCIPLE of Christ and that is ONLY KIND of disciple that are authorized by Christ to be produced by his congregations.

 

Another thing, the "baptism of repentance" is simply a baptism that are requires both faith in Christ and repentance toward God as prerequisites for baptism. John demanded "fruits of repentance" prior to baptism thus making it a "baptism of repentance." John demanded faith in the coming Christ as prerequisite for baptism (Acts 19:4). John believed in the TRIUNE God and baptized in the name or by the authority or as directed by that TRIUNE God. John's baptism was the "counsel of God" (Lk. 7:29-30) which Jesus submitted unto (Mt. 3:15-17) and administered to others through his disciples (Jn. 4:1-2) and it is was the only possible existing baptism in water when the Great Commission was given. There is no record of Christ being rebaptized and to claim to follow Christ in baptism while rejecting the baptism of John as "Christ"-ian baptism is oxymoronic. There is no record of the apostles or any of the 120 listed in Acts 1:15 ever being rebaptized.

Acts 19 occurs over 20 years later and is about those baptized by an unauthorized administrator - Apollos, who himself had proper baptism and was not rebaptized. However, he did not have authority to administer baptism, much less administer it in the name of John - which these were baptized in the name of John or "unto John." John the Baptized baptized in the name of Christ or with reference to faith in Christ - Acts 19:4.

 

I refer you to my post #60.

 

Can you find any example in the book of Acts or the epistles where the verbal formula "in the name of the Father; Son and Holy Spirit" occurred? Did the disciples under Christ baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as a verbal formula (Jn. 4:1). Was the counsel of God a baptism that was not administered in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Lk. 67:29-30)?

 

A synecdoche is a possible interpretation. However, I wanted Martin to go deeper. Look at Acts 4:7 and notice how doing something "in the name" of someone was understood in New Testament times to mean as authorized by someone or by the authority of someone.

The argument is often made that the baptism of John was not administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and therefore was not "Christian" baptism. However, John did believe in the Triune God and did administer baptism as authorized by God = baptizing "in the name" of the Triune God. To baptize "in the name" of Jesus was to baptize as authorized by Christ or in keeping with his instructions, thus to baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

 

Why do you ask? Have you found one?
It seems to me that we have a very clear command in Matthew 28 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I would be very reluctant to second-guess the Lord Jesus Christ. Wouldn't you? I would tend to agree with TCassidy and various commentators that the baptism 'in the name of the Lord' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' would be a synecdoche, which for those who don't know is a figure of speech where the part is named but the whole is understood, or vice versa. eg. 'I employ two hired hands.' 'I have just bought myself some new wheels.'

I don't think we are told how the disciples baptized before the Great Commission.

Unfortunately my Bible has only 24 chapters of Luke, not 67. I assume you mean Luke 7. Clearly, God's will was that people should undergo John's baptism at the time when John was preaching. It was a baptism of repentance (Luke 3:3), but was not likely to have been Trinitarian. Therefore one assumes that many of the people baptized in Acts 2:41ff would have previously been baptized by John but needed a Trinitarian baptism. Likewise the men in Acts 19.

 

I don't think we are told how the disciples baptized before the Great Commission.

lol, no, my Bible doesn't have 67 chapters in the book of Luke either and yes, I did mean Luke 7:29-30.

No, not just during the time John was preaching but there is absolutely no evidence that any other kind of baptism was administered after he was imprisoned and put to death all the way up to Acts 2.

Tell me, does your church administer baptism to unrepentant people? John refused to baptize those who did not manifest fruits of repentance (Mt. 3:6-8). John didn't have one standard for baptism for the pharisees and another standard for the common folk. Paul explicitly states that John preached Christ and baptized those that believed in Christ (Acts 19:4). John 3:36 proves he preached Christ. So John baptized repentant believers in Christ - that is the baptism of repentance. What kind of baptism does your church preach and administer as John's baptism can be preached (Acts 10:37; Mt. 3:1) as well as administered?

What kind of God do you think sent and authorized John to baptize? John clearly believed in a Triune God (Jn. 3:33-36). John clearly confessed that this kind of God sent and authorized him to baptize (Jn. 1:30-33). Acts 4:7 clearly explains how the person living in the day of Christ understood what it meant to do something "in the name" of another person. It simply meant to act under their authority or as authorized. Do you think Jesus administered baptism through his disciples "in the name" of some other god other than the Triune God? In Matthew 28:20 he told his disciples to teach what "I HAVE" commanded you. Are you saying that Jesus never commanded them to baptize in the name of the triune God when they baptized repentant believers? The implications for all these questions deny your view which you provide nothing but silence for support.

How do you figure? That would mean Jesus did not have "Christ"ian baptism and stands in need of proper baptism! That would mean that 3000 souls on Pentecost were baptized by people who were without Christian baptism themselves. Acts 19 occurs 20 years later and the context does not support your view at all. They claimed they were baptized "unto John" but Paul says John baptized unto Christ (acts 19:4). They denied they knew about the Holy Spirit but John preached the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11) and was filled with the Spirit from birth and was told that he would see the Holy Spirit come upon the Christ. There is NOTHING to support the idea that 120 disciples in Acts 1 were rebaptized and if so, BY WHO? An unbaptized person? Matthew 28:19-20 identifies unbaptized believers as "them" and Christ never authorized "them" to administer baptism to anyone. He authorized only those who already "HAVE" been through this three-fold process (1) evangelized; (2) baptized;(3) already instructed and observing "disciples."

Martin, your view has NOTHING to support it - NOTHING!

 

Thank you for your reply. I will reply in full in due course, but I'd just like to ask you one question first.

Who do you think baptized John the Baptist?

 

I know where you are going with this question but it will not work. John the Baptist was personally selected by divine prophetic revelation to originate this ordinance. The Great Commission is a reproductive cycle guaranteed by the promise of Christ's presence to literally continue "all the days" or as one Greek scholar translates it "day in and day out" until the end of the age. Those who IMAGINE that the authorized "ye" would disappear between the earthly ministry of Christ and His second coming are forced to have those identified as "them" in Matthew 28:19-20 become authorized administrators when Christ never authorized the unbaptized or untaught to administer baptism "until the end of the world."

If you are going to IMAGINE another man like John the Baptist could arrive on the scene, that man will have to provide equal credentials to prove he is personally authorized and sent by God to reoriginate baptism all over again. Again, you are venturing into IMAGINATION without substance.

 

.

I'm glad that we are agreed on that.
I was preparing a great long screed on this subject when it suddenly came to me what you are about in this discussion (I'm a bit slow sometimes). You want to claim that every Baptist (or Fundamentalist Baptist) can trace his baptism back to John the Baptist. Well with the greatest respect, so what? I don't know whether that's true or not, and, frankly, I couldn't care less. Is the aim to be able to say that the Baptists are older than the Romanists? Again, so what? Why would we be bothered about that? I know Anglicans who are so proud that they can trace their Bishops all the way back to Augustine of Canterbury. Again, so what? All that sort of thing is nothing else but sacramentalist one-upmanship, and I rather suspect that God hates it because it has to do with pride. 'But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ....' (Galatians 6:14).

I actually can't remember who baptized me. There were four elders in the Brethren assembly at the time, so it would have been one of them, but I can't remember which one it was, and I don't care. It doesn't matter a row of beans. I remember the couple who ran the Bible study group were I came to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and I shall always be grateful to them, but that doesn't matter either.

So what matters? Christ matters. All that matters is that He has saved me and that I have placed my trust in Him. Anything else is icing on the cake. 'For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in Him' (Colossians 2:9-10). It's great, and important, to have been baptized scripturally on profession of one's faith, but that did Judas Iscariot, Simon Magus, Alexander the coppersmith and Demas no good. It's all about Christ and His Gospel. 'For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel' (1 Corinthians 1:17).

Therefore I shan't be contributing any further to this thread or any similar ones because they don't matter. I shall never have to deal with some guy who has received the baptism of John so I'm not going to worry about it.

 

Oh, and that is where you are so very wrong. If you didn't receive the baptism of John (as did jesus, as did the apostles, as did all the members of the church of Jerusalem, as did all they baptized and formed into congregations) you simply got wet and you are simply a saved but wet child of God still in need of scriptural baptism.

Martin you were saved in an moment of time - and that is wonderful. However, serving God continues for a lifetime. The great Commission includes much more than salvation, although that must be its starting place. But for you, you make it the beginning and the end, but the Lord does not, the apostles do not, and the churches of the New Testament do not.

Grant it, you can go to heaven and never be baptized, but you can never be a member of a true New Testament congregation without the baptism of John - New Testament baptism. There is no such thing as a true church of Christ that can be found in the pages of the New Testament that does not consist of scripturally baptized believers - it simply does not exist, and does not presently exist, nor ever will exist except in the vain imagination of men. No, baptism is not all there is to being a true church either, but without it one does not exist.

 

How long does it usually take for the prospect to learn what proper baptism is? Is this taught in a new member's class? Thanks