Iconoclast disagreed with my interpretation of 1 pet. 3:21 above. That should be all the readers need to know to reject his newly invented theology.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Union With Christ
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Iconoclast disagreed with my interpretation of 1 pet. 3:21 above. That should be all the readers need to know to reject his newly invented theology.
You do not understand the passage and your view is not quite up to it. Thats what i disagreed about...I will now go back and show how you are quickly turning into the non-biblicist.
The Biblicist,
When Christians repent of sin and trust the Lord they are then baptized'
No....he had no sin.He never needed to repent.
When Christians repent of sin and trust the Lord they are then baptized'
No....he had no sin.He never needed to repent.
The Biblicist,
From the greek text exegetical commentary;
The baptism of John was of a deeper significance than that usual among the Jews in the case of proselytes, and formed an integral part of his divinely appointed office. It was emphatically the baptism of repentance ( λουτρὸν μετανοίας, says Olshausen (cf. Luke 3:3), but not λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας, Titus 3:5). We find in Acts 18:24-26; Acts 19:1-7, accounts of persons who had received the baptism of John, who believed and (in Apollos’s case) taught accurately the things (i.e. facts) concerning the Lord; but required instruction (in doctrine) and rebaptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus. Whether the baptism practised by the disciples before the Resurrection was of the same kind, and required this renewal, is uncertain. The fact of our Lord Himself having received baptism from John, is decisive against the identity of the two rites, as also against the idea (Olsh. i. 154, note) derived from Acts 19:4, that John used the formula βαπτίζω σε εἰς τὸν ἐρχόμενον. His whole mission, as Olsh. well observes, was calculated, in accordance with the office of the law which gives the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), to bring men’s minds into that state in which the Redeemer invites them (ch. Matthew 11:28), as weary and heavy laden, to come to him.
opps...I guess they did not check with the mighty biblicist first
as far as your claim of Christian baptism;
Verse 13
13. τοῦ βαπτ.] Why should our Lord, who was without sin, have come to a baptism of repentance? Because He was made sin for us: for which reason also He suffered the curse of the law. It became Him, being in the likeness of sinful flesh, to go through those appointed rites and purifications which belonged to that flesh. There is no more strangeness in His having been baptized by John, than in His keeping the Passovers. The one rite, as the other, belonged to sinners—and among the transgressors He was numbered. The prophetic words in Psalms 40:12, spoken in the person of our Lord, indicate, in the midst of sinlessness, the most profound apprehension of the sins of that nature which He took upon him. I cannot suppose the baptism to have been sought by our Lord merely to honour John (Kuinöel), or as knowing that it would be the occasion of a divine recognition of his Messiahship (Paulus), and thus preordained by God (Meyer): but bona fide, as bearing the infirmities and carrying the sorrows of mankind, and thus beginning here the triple baptism of water, fire, and blood, two parts of which were now accomplished, and of the third of which He himself speaks, Luke 12:50, and the beloved Apostle, 1 John 5:8, where πνεῦμα = πῦρ.
His baptism, as it was our Lord’s closing act of obedience under the Law, in His hitherto concealed life of legal submission, His πληρῶσαι πᾶσ. δικ., so was His solemn inauguration and anointing for the higher official life of mediatorial satisfaction which was now opening upon Him. See Romans 1:3-4. We must not forget that the working out of perfect righteousness in our flesh by the entire and spotless keeping of God’s law (Deuteronomy 6:25), was, in the main, accomplished during the thirty years previous to our Lord’s official ministry.[/QUOTE]
This professor from Dallas seminary also should have checked with biblicist I guess;
Robert L. (Bob)Deffinbaugh graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary with his Th.M. in 1971.
The outward symbol of repentance was baptism. The only baptism the Jews of that day knew about was proselyte baptism. In such baptisms, the believer would baptize himself and then (if it was a male) he would be circumcised. The self-baptized and circumcised Gentile thus embraced Judaism and placed himself under the Old Testament Law. You can imagine the humility that baptism required of a Jew. The inference was clear: if the Jew had to repent in anticipation of the Messiah’s coming, he must thereby confess the inadequacy of Judaism to save him from his sins. And by embracing baptism he likewise placed himself on the same (lower) level as a Gentile. Both Jews and Gentiles alike were required to prepare for Messiah’s appearance in the same manner: (1) repent of the false system in which they had formerly trusted; (2) confess their sins; and, (3) be baptized, like the Gentiles who became Jewish proselytes. No wonder the Pharisees did not want to be baptized!
From the greek text exegetical commentary;
The baptism of John was of a deeper significance than that usual among the Jews in the case of proselytes, and formed an integral part of his divinely appointed office. It was emphatically the baptism of repentance ( λουτρὸν μετανοίας, says Olshausen (cf. Luke 3:3), but not λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας, Titus 3:5). We find in Acts 18:24-26; Acts 19:1-7, accounts of persons who had received the baptism of John, who believed and (in Apollos’s case) taught accurately the things (i.e. facts) concerning the Lord; but required instruction (in doctrine) and rebaptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus. Whether the baptism practised by the disciples before the Resurrection was of the same kind, and required this renewal, is uncertain. The fact of our Lord Himself having received baptism from John, is decisive against the identity of the two rites, as also against the idea (Olsh. i. 154, note) derived from Acts 19:4, that John used the formula βαπτίζω σε εἰς τὸν ἐρχόμενον. His whole mission, as Olsh. well observes, was calculated, in accordance with the office of the law which gives the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), to bring men’s minds into that state in which the Redeemer invites them (ch. Matthew 11:28), as weary and heavy laden, to come to him.
opps...I guess they did not check with the mighty biblicist first
as far as your claim of Christian baptism;
Verse 13
13. τοῦ βαπτ.] Why should our Lord, who was without sin, have come to a baptism of repentance? Because He was made sin for us: for which reason also He suffered the curse of the law. It became Him, being in the likeness of sinful flesh, to go through those appointed rites and purifications which belonged to that flesh. There is no more strangeness in His having been baptized by John, than in His keeping the Passovers. The one rite, as the other, belonged to sinners—and among the transgressors He was numbered. The prophetic words in Psalms 40:12, spoken in the person of our Lord, indicate, in the midst of sinlessness, the most profound apprehension of the sins of that nature which He took upon him. I cannot suppose the baptism to have been sought by our Lord merely to honour John (Kuinöel), or as knowing that it would be the occasion of a divine recognition of his Messiahship (Paulus), and thus preordained by God (Meyer): but bona fide, as bearing the infirmities and carrying the sorrows of mankind, and thus beginning here the triple baptism of water, fire, and blood, two parts of which were now accomplished, and of the third of which He himself speaks, Luke 12:50, and the beloved Apostle, 1 John 5:8, where πνεῦμα = πῦρ.
His baptism, as it was our Lord’s closing act of obedience under the Law, in His hitherto concealed life of legal submission, His πληρῶσαι πᾶσ. δικ., so was His solemn inauguration and anointing for the higher official life of mediatorial satisfaction which was now opening upon Him. See Romans 1:3-4. We must not forget that the working out of perfect righteousness in our flesh by the entire and spotless keeping of God’s law (Deuteronomy 6:25), was, in the main, accomplished during the thirty years previous to our Lord’s official ministry.[/QUOTE]
This professor from Dallas seminary also should have checked with biblicist I guess;
Robert L. (Bob)Deffinbaugh graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary with his Th.M. in 1971.
The outward symbol of repentance was baptism. The only baptism the Jews of that day knew about was proselyte baptism. In such baptisms, the believer would baptize himself and then (if it was a male) he would be circumcised. The self-baptized and circumcised Gentile thus embraced Judaism and placed himself under the Old Testament Law. You can imagine the humility that baptism required of a Jew. The inference was clear: if the Jew had to repent in anticipation of the Messiah’s coming, he must thereby confess the inadequacy of Judaism to save him from his sins. And by embracing baptism he likewise placed himself on the same (lower) level as a Gentile. Both Jews and Gentiles alike were required to prepare for Messiah’s appearance in the same manner: (1) repent of the false system in which they had formerly trusted; (2) confess their sins; and, (3) be baptized, like the Gentiles who became Jewish proselytes. No wonder the Pharisees did not want to be baptized!
Last edited:
pt2
John was the last of the Old Testament prophets. His message was intended to prepare men for the coming of the Messiah, and for the message of salvation that would be proclaimed after our Lord’s death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Jesus and the apostles made it clear that there was more to the gospel than what John proclaimed, as good as that was:
For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5).
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephesus. He was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak out fearlessly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:24-26).
1 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul went through the inland regions and came to Ephesus. He found some disciples there 2 and said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, 6 and when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. 7 (Now there were about twelve men in all.) (Acts 19:1-7)
Through John’s ministry, God introduced Jesus as the promised and long-awaited Messiah, much like God used Samuel to designate Saul (1 Samuel 10), and then David (1 Samuel 16) as Israel’s king. As John put it, his role was to be the “friend of the bridegroom,” whose privilege it was to hear the voice of the bridegroom and rejoice (John 3:29).
summary;
The preaching and practice of John the Baptist underscores the importance of Christian baptism. I realize that John’s baptism was preparatory, and that when John’s followers became Christians they had to be re-baptized. But baptism was a very important part of John’s preaching and practice. Those who truly repented were baptized (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:5); those who did not repent were not (Luke 7:30). Those who followed Christ were baptized (Matthew 28:19; John 3:22, 26; 4:1; Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 38; 10:47; 19:35). Baptism symbolized repentance and faith, as it does today. Those who have not been baptized would do well to ask themselves why they have not...
Someone tell him to check with Biblicist first
John was the last of the Old Testament prophets. His message was intended to prepare men for the coming of the Messiah, and for the message of salvation that would be proclaimed after our Lord’s death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Jesus and the apostles made it clear that there was more to the gospel than what John proclaimed, as good as that was:
For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5).
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephesus. He was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak out fearlessly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:24-26).
1 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul went through the inland regions and came to Ephesus. He found some disciples there 2 and said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, 6 and when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. 7 (Now there were about twelve men in all.) (Acts 19:1-7)
Through John’s ministry, God introduced Jesus as the promised and long-awaited Messiah, much like God used Samuel to designate Saul (1 Samuel 10), and then David (1 Samuel 16) as Israel’s king. As John put it, his role was to be the “friend of the bridegroom,” whose privilege it was to hear the voice of the bridegroom and rejoice (John 3:29).
summary;
The preaching and practice of John the Baptist underscores the importance of Christian baptism. I realize that John’s baptism was preparatory, and that when John’s followers became Christians they had to be re-baptized. But baptism was a very important part of John’s preaching and practice. Those who truly repented were baptized (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:5); those who did not repent were not (Luke 7:30). Those who followed Christ were baptized (Matthew 28:19; John 3:22, 26; 4:1; Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 38; 10:47; 19:35). Baptism symbolized repentance and faith, as it does today. Those who have not been baptized would do well to ask themselves why they have not...
Someone tell him to check with Biblicist first
Another who did not read Biblicist I guess;
J.LIGON DUNCAN says-
And finally, the baptism fulfills all righteousness because it is a sign Christ Himself is willing to take on the role as our Mediator. He is willing to be our Redeemer. In the baptism, the Lord steps down. He enters humbly and receives the baptism. He acknowledges, Lord, I will receive all the humiliation that is necessary to fulfill My work on behalf of My people. I will take any humiliation necessary in order to save My people from their sins. The baptism shows Jesus’ willing acceptance of the Messianic role. And so John, how much he understood, we don’t know, John says, "Okay, Lord, I will baptize You."
The Lord Jesus’ baptism was an act that He performed on our behalf as the mediator of the covenant of grace. He did not need the baptism of repentance. And He did not repent on our behalf. But He did identify Himself with His people as the one who would be the sin bearer and the whose baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit would bring renovation of our hearts and lives.
And here on a basic site;Got questions
Christian baptism today also symbolizes repentance, cleansing, and commitment, but Jesus has given it a different emphasis. Christian baptism is a mark of one’s identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It is representative of a cleansing that is complete and a commitment that is the natural response of one who has been made new. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross completely washes away our sins, and we are raised to new life empowered by the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 5:17–21; Romans 6:1–11). With John’s baptism, a person repented of sin and was therefore ready to place his faith in Jesus Christ. John’s baptism foreshadowed what Jesus would accomplish, much as the Old Testament sacrificial system did.
John prepared the way for Christ by calling people to acknowledge their sin and their need for salvation. His baptism was a purification ceremony meant to ready the peoples’ hearts to receive their Savio
J.LIGON DUNCAN says-
And finally, the baptism fulfills all righteousness because it is a sign Christ Himself is willing to take on the role as our Mediator. He is willing to be our Redeemer. In the baptism, the Lord steps down. He enters humbly and receives the baptism. He acknowledges, Lord, I will receive all the humiliation that is necessary to fulfill My work on behalf of My people. I will take any humiliation necessary in order to save My people from their sins. The baptism shows Jesus’ willing acceptance of the Messianic role. And so John, how much he understood, we don’t know, John says, "Okay, Lord, I will baptize You."
The Lord Jesus’ baptism was an act that He performed on our behalf as the mediator of the covenant of grace. He did not need the baptism of repentance. And He did not repent on our behalf. But He did identify Himself with His people as the one who would be the sin bearer and the whose baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit would bring renovation of our hearts and lives.
And here on a basic site;Got questions
Christian baptism today also symbolizes repentance, cleansing, and commitment, but Jesus has given it a different emphasis. Christian baptism is a mark of one’s identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It is representative of a cleansing that is complete and a commitment that is the natural response of one who has been made new. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross completely washes away our sins, and we are raised to new life empowered by the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 5:17–21; Romans 6:1–11). With John’s baptism, a person repented of sin and was therefore ready to place his faith in Jesus Christ. John’s baptism foreshadowed what Jesus would accomplish, much as the Old Testament sacrificial system did.
John prepared the way for Christ by calling people to acknowledge their sin and their need for salvation. His baptism was a purification ceremony meant to ready the peoples’ hearts to receive their Savio
Studylight.org....did not read Biblicists posts either;
1. That the notion of washing in John's baptism differs from ours, in that he baptized none who were not brought over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too,--into another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us who are born Christians: the condition, therefore, being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also. Our baptism argues defilement, indeed, and uncleanness; and demonstrates this doctrinally,--that we, being polluted, have need of washing: but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God: with which stain, indeed, they were defiled who were baptized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacramental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufficient as the dipping into water,--when, in truth, this argues washing and purification as well as that. But those who were baptized by John were blemished with another stain, and that an outward one, and after a manner visible; that is, a polluted religion,--namely, Judaism or heathenism; from which, if, according to the custom of the nation, they passed by a deeper and severer washing,--they neither underwent it without reason; nor with any reason may it be laid upon us, whose condition is different from theirs.
2. Since dipping was a rite used only in the Jewish nation and proper to it, it were something hard, if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially, when it is neither necessarily to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous, that, in regard of these things, it scarcely gave place to circumcision. We read that some, leavened with Judaism to the highest degree, yet wished that dipping in purification might be taken away, because it was accompanied with so much severity. "In the days of R. Joshua Ben Levi, some endeavoured to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the women of Galilee; because, by reason of the cold, they became barren. R. Joshua Ben Levi said unto them, Do ye go about to take away that which hedges in Israel from transgression?" Surely it is hard to lay this yoke upon the neck of all nations, which seemed too rough to the Jews themselves, and not to be borne by them, men too much given to such kind of severer rites. And if it be demanded of them who went about to take away that dipping, Would you have no purification at all by water? it is probable that they would have allowed of the sprinkling of water, which is less harsh, and not less agreeable to the thing itself.
3. The following ages, with good reason, and by divine prescript, administered a baptism differing in a greater matter from the baptism of John; and therefore it was less to differ in a less matter. The application of water was necessarily of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks but a circumstance: the adding also of the word was of the nature of a sacrament; but the changing of the word into this or that form, would you not call this a circumstance also? And yet we read the form of baptism so changed, that you may observe it to have been threefold in the history of the New Testament.
Secondly, In reference to the form of John's baptism [which thing we have propounded to consider in the second place], it is not at all to be doubted but he baptized "in the name of the Messias now ready to come": and it may be gathered from his words, and from his story. As yet he knew not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias; which he confesseth himself, John 1:31: yet he knew well enough, that the Messias was coming; therefore, he baptized those that came to him in his name, instructing them in the doctrine of the gospel, concerning faith in the Messias, and repentance; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias when he should manifest himself. Consider well Malachi 3:1, Luke 1:17, John 1:7,31, &c. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them "in the name of Jesus"; because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias; and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, "Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23, 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in 'the name of Jesus,' that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38; "Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ": and that, Acts 8:16, "They were baptized in the name of Jesus."
But the apostles baptized the Gentiles, according to the precept of our Lord, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Matthew 28:19. For since it was very much controverted among the Jews about the true Messias, and that unbelieving nation denied, stiffly and without ceasing, that Jesus of Nazareth was he (under which virulent spirit they labour even to this day), it was not without cause, yea, nor without necessity, that they baptized in the name of Jesus; that by that seal might be confirmed this most principal truth in the gospel, and that those that were baptized might profess it; that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messias. But among the Gentiles, the controversy was not concerning the true Messias, but concerning the true God: among them, therefore, it was needful that baptism should be conferred in the name of the true God, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
We suppose, therefore, that men, women, and children came to John's baptism, according to the manner of the nation in the reception of proselytes; namely, that they standing in Jordan were taught by John that they were baptized into the name of the Messias, that was now immediately to come; and into the profession of the doctrine of the gospel concerning faith and repentance; that they plunged themselves into the river, and so came out. And that which is said of them, that they were baptized by him "confessing their sins," is to be understood according to the tenour of the Baptist's preaching; not that they did this man by man, or by some auricular confession made to John, or by openly declaring some particular sins; but when the doctrine of John exhorted them to repentance and to faith in the Messias, they renounced and disowned the doctrine and opinion of justification by their works, wherewith they had been beforetime leavened, and acknowledged and confessed themselves sinners.
[In Jordan.] John could not baptize in any part of Jordan, so it were within the bounds of Judea (which the evangelists assert), which had not been dried up, and had afforded a passage to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt, and were now entering into the promised land.
1. That the notion of washing in John's baptism differs from ours, in that he baptized none who were not brought over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too,--into another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us who are born Christians: the condition, therefore, being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also. Our baptism argues defilement, indeed, and uncleanness; and demonstrates this doctrinally,--that we, being polluted, have need of washing: but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God: with which stain, indeed, they were defiled who were baptized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacramental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufficient as the dipping into water,--when, in truth, this argues washing and purification as well as that. But those who were baptized by John were blemished with another stain, and that an outward one, and after a manner visible; that is, a polluted religion,--namely, Judaism or heathenism; from which, if, according to the custom of the nation, they passed by a deeper and severer washing,--they neither underwent it without reason; nor with any reason may it be laid upon us, whose condition is different from theirs.
2. Since dipping was a rite used only in the Jewish nation and proper to it, it were something hard, if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially, when it is neither necessarily to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous, that, in regard of these things, it scarcely gave place to circumcision. We read that some, leavened with Judaism to the highest degree, yet wished that dipping in purification might be taken away, because it was accompanied with so much severity. "In the days of R. Joshua Ben Levi, some endeavoured to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the women of Galilee; because, by reason of the cold, they became barren. R. Joshua Ben Levi said unto them, Do ye go about to take away that which hedges in Israel from transgression?" Surely it is hard to lay this yoke upon the neck of all nations, which seemed too rough to the Jews themselves, and not to be borne by them, men too much given to such kind of severer rites. And if it be demanded of them who went about to take away that dipping, Would you have no purification at all by water? it is probable that they would have allowed of the sprinkling of water, which is less harsh, and not less agreeable to the thing itself.
3. The following ages, with good reason, and by divine prescript, administered a baptism differing in a greater matter from the baptism of John; and therefore it was less to differ in a less matter. The application of water was necessarily of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks but a circumstance: the adding also of the word was of the nature of a sacrament; but the changing of the word into this or that form, would you not call this a circumstance also? And yet we read the form of baptism so changed, that you may observe it to have been threefold in the history of the New Testament.
Secondly, In reference to the form of John's baptism [which thing we have propounded to consider in the second place], it is not at all to be doubted but he baptized "in the name of the Messias now ready to come": and it may be gathered from his words, and from his story. As yet he knew not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias; which he confesseth himself, John 1:31: yet he knew well enough, that the Messias was coming; therefore, he baptized those that came to him in his name, instructing them in the doctrine of the gospel, concerning faith in the Messias, and repentance; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias when he should manifest himself. Consider well Malachi 3:1, Luke 1:17, John 1:7,31, &c. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them "in the name of Jesus"; because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias; and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, "Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23, 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in 'the name of Jesus,' that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38; "Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ": and that, Acts 8:16, "They were baptized in the name of Jesus."
But the apostles baptized the Gentiles, according to the precept of our Lord, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Matthew 28:19. For since it was very much controverted among the Jews about the true Messias, and that unbelieving nation denied, stiffly and without ceasing, that Jesus of Nazareth was he (under which virulent spirit they labour even to this day), it was not without cause, yea, nor without necessity, that they baptized in the name of Jesus; that by that seal might be confirmed this most principal truth in the gospel, and that those that were baptized might profess it; that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messias. But among the Gentiles, the controversy was not concerning the true Messias, but concerning the true God: among them, therefore, it was needful that baptism should be conferred in the name of the true God, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
We suppose, therefore, that men, women, and children came to John's baptism, according to the manner of the nation in the reception of proselytes; namely, that they standing in Jordan were taught by John that they were baptized into the name of the Messias, that was now immediately to come; and into the profession of the doctrine of the gospel concerning faith and repentance; that they plunged themselves into the river, and so came out. And that which is said of them, that they were baptized by him "confessing their sins," is to be understood according to the tenour of the Baptist's preaching; not that they did this man by man, or by some auricular confession made to John, or by openly declaring some particular sins; but when the doctrine of John exhorted them to repentance and to faith in the Messias, they renounced and disowned the doctrine and opinion of justification by their works, wherewith they had been beforetime leavened, and acknowledged and confessed themselves sinners.
[In Jordan.] John could not baptize in any part of Jordan, so it were within the bounds of Judea (which the evangelists assert), which had not been dried up, and had afforded a passage to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt, and were now entering into the promised land.
"The Biblicist,
The One Baptism of water means nothing if Spirit baptism has not happened on behalf of all the elect.
Water baptism shows the unseen work of the Spirit.
You make this claim, I do not in fact i repudiate your false idea.
The One Baptism of water means nothing if Spirit baptism has not happened on behalf of all the elect.
Water baptism shows the unseen work of the Spirit.
This has been answered. You trying to set up reasons and obstacles does not change a thing.
You make this claim, I do not in fact i repudiate your false idea.
The cross was a one time event...so according to you, no one before the cross could be saved then.
The eternal benefits are insured by this.
The Biblicist,
The physical description does not begin to explain 1 cor 10:2 being baptized unto Moses....you avoid this once again.
Go ahead...you can say it....It was an Identification with Moses.
The physical description does not begin to explain 1 cor 10:2 being baptized unto Moses....you avoid this once again.
Go ahead...you can say it....It was an Identification with Moses.
You interpretation does not deal with the verse speaking and highlighting the answer of a good conscience.That would be the working of the Spirit internally....it does not fit your theology.
The Biblicist,
From the greek text exegetical commentary;
The baptism of John was of a deeper significance than that usual among the Jews in the case of proselytes, and formed an integral part of his divinely appointed office. It was emphatically the baptism of repentance ( λουτρὸν μετανοίας, says Olshausen (cf. Luke 3:3), but not λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας, Titus 3:5). We find in Acts 18:24-26; Acts 19:1-7, accounts of persons who had received the baptism of John, who believed and (in Apollos’s case) taught accurately the things (i.e. facts) concerning the Lord; but required instruction (in doctrine) and rebaptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus. Whether the baptism practised by the disciples before the Resurrection was of the same kind, and required this renewal, is uncertain. The fact of our Lord Himself having received baptism from John, is decisive against the identity of the two rites, as also against the idea (Olsh. i. 154, note) derived from Acts 19:4, that John used the formula βαπτίζω σε εἰς τὸν ἐρχόμενον. His whole mission, as Olsh. well observes, was calculated, in accordance with the office of the law which gives the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), to bring men’s minds into that state in which the Redeemer invites them (ch. Matthew 11:28), as weary and heavy laden, to come to him.
opps...I guess they did not check with the mighty biblicist first
You are quoting someone who openly admits they really don't know (see bold emphasis above)
First, Apollos was not rebaptized. He was simply instructed in two areas that he was ignorant. First, he preached the OT gospel "OF CHRIST" (Acts 10;43) as he knew "the way of the Lord" but did not know that Jesus of Nazereth was that Christ, so from that point forward he preached Jesus was that Christ:
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. v. 27
Second, he did not know the NT. Ekklesia had been immersed in the Spirit as the confirmed authorized administrator of baptism and administrator of the keys or the Great Commission (Mt. 18:17; 28:19-20; Acts 2:40) and so from this point forward he worked through NT churches:
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: - v. 27
This is idiotic! The baptism of John was no part of the MOSAIC law covenant! John preached Christ alone for eternal life (Jn. 3:36) not the Law!
Another idiotic statement. John was not part of the Jewish proselyte temple immersion system or mosaic Law covenant but was sent by God to "prepare a people made ready" for the Lord to build his ekklesia (lk. 1:17). Jesus said the Pharisees rejected "the counsel of God" by refusing the baptism of JOhn and SO ARE YOU!
You are only quoting people who are as ignorant as you are on this topic.
There is no end of quotes that Iconoclast can give to support his error because this is the view of every universal invisible church scholar and hyper dispensationalist. He thinks by merely quoting men who agree with him that repudiates the scriptures that repudiate this theory. This is the same mentality of Roman catholics when they can't answer scriptures they begin quoting church father's and church scholars to overthrow plain scripture. Iconoclast cant' respond to scriptures so he no quotes uninspired men who are as ignorant of scriptures as he is.
Another ignorant man! He says "He did not need" when Jesus said "it becometh us". THis man says Christ repented "He did not repent on our behalf on our behalf" implying CHrist repented by submitting to JOhn's baptism.
Baptism was designed by God to picture the gospel and His submission symbolically "fulfilled all righteousness" as he was the spotless "lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world"
NO scripture just personal opinion!
More personal opinion.
Another ignorant man! He says "He did not need" when Jesus said "it becometh us". THis man says Christ repented "He did not repent on our behalf on our behalf" implying CHrist repented by submitting to JOhn's baptism.
Baptism was designed by God to picture the gospel and His submission symbolically "fulfilled all righteousness" as he was the spotless "lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world"
NO scripture just personal opinion!
More personal opinion.
Water baptism is a "FIGURE" and a figure does not remove "the filth of the flesh" (sinful nature) but water baptism is the "answer"or Response of an already cleansed conscience, already saved person who declares in FIGURE what really saved him - the death, burial and resurrected Christ.
The word "baptism" can be metaphorically, but it retains the idea of immersion. Israel was not immersed in water. However the passage through the red sea was a metaphorical immersion with reference to moses. THEY were enclosed on all sides. The baptism of suffering is a metaphorical immersion or being overwhelmed in troubles. THE baptism in the SPIrit was a literal immersion of the institutional "House of God" in the glory of the Spirit in Exodus 40:35; 1 Chron. 7:1-3 and ACTs 2:1-3.
Certainly water baptism is public IDENTIFICATION with Christ's death, burial and resurrection - 1 Pet. 3:21. Certainly baptism in the Spirit is public IDENTIFICATION of God's House. Certainly baptism unto Moses was public IDENTIFICATION with Moses.
THe exodus Passover was a type of salvation followed by passage through the Red sea a type of water baptism.
The order contradicts application to your doctrine of spirit baptism. You must have Pentecost BEFORE you have salvation or Christian baptism. However, Pentecost in OT type followed passage in the red sea at Mount Sinai as Pentecost observed the house of God built at Mount Sinai. The Jews regarded giving of the Law at Mount Sinai as the source of Pentecost observance.
YOU are making this baptism EQUAL to regeneration and it is not!
My post #96 answers this.
POst #96 answers this
YOU are making this baptism EQUAL to regeneration and it is not!
This has been answered. You trying to set up reasons and obstacles does not change a thing.
You make this claim, I do not in fact i repudiate your false idea.
The cross was a one time event...so according to you, no one before the cross could be saved then.
The eternal benefits are insured by this.[/QUOTE]
Now you are confusing the sealing work which the Spirit does with the baptizing work which JEsus does. Note this sealing work is TIME FIXED with each individual "AFTER"
This post has never been addressed and so I repost it again.
The issue is simple. Iconoclast is confusing the work of Christ (baptism in the Spirit) with the work of the Spirit (indwelling).
It can be demonstrated very easily by merely understanding that spiritual death = spiritual separation from God. Spiritual separation from God is spiritual separation from the life, light, love and holiness of God = spiritual separation.
That is our INWARD condition. The solution to this INWARD condition of spiritual separation from God is to be INWARDLY reunited with the Spirit of God and by the creative act of regeneration (producing indwelling) WITHIN us (Rom. 8:9) in union with our spirit.
This INWARD UNION between our spirit and God’s Spirit IS life, light, holiness and love and it is a creative act of God that the Bible calls REGENERATION not baptism in the Spirit.
The unregenerate state is described in Ephesians 4:18-19
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
In Contrast, the baptism in the Spirit is an Old Testament phenomena that occurs ONCE after a new institutional public “house of God” was COMPLETELY FINISHED when God sent fire down and then immersed and filled the house of God:
Third, when it is realized that the institutional congregation is a metaphorical SINGULAR "temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 3:16 "ye" NOT "we") whereas the physical body of the believer is an individual temple(1 Cor. 6:19) then the baptism in the Spirit refers to the singular institutional congregation of Christ whereas regenerate indwelling refers to the individual believer. Note that the plural "ye" in 1 Cor. 3:16 is a SINGULAR temple rather than PLURAL temples and it excludes Paul (not "we" but "ye").
It is just that simple!
It can be demonstrated very easily by merely understanding that spiritual death = spiritual separation from God. Spiritual separation from God is spiritual separation from the life, light, love and holiness of God = spiritual separation.
That is our INWARD condition. The solution to this INWARD condition of spiritual separation from God is to be INWARDLY reunited with the Spirit of God and by the creative act of regeneration (producing indwelling) WITHIN us (Rom. 8:9) in union with our spirit.
This INWARD UNION between our spirit and God’s Spirit IS life, light, holiness and love and it is a creative act of God that the Bible calls REGENERATION not baptism in the Spirit.
The unregenerate state is described in Ephesians 4:18-19
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
- DARKENED understanding
- DEAD - ALIENATED from the life of God
- DEPRAVED morally – “given…over to lasciviousness…all uncleaness”
- Removes DARKNESS by LIGHT OF KNOWLEDGE as a creative act – 2 Cor. 4:6/Jn. 17:3
- Removes DEADNESS by quickening as a creative act - Eph. 2:1,5,10
- Removes DEPRAVITY by creating the moral image of God – Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
In Contrast, the baptism in the Spirit is an Old Testament phenomena that occurs ONCE after a new institutional public “house of God” was COMPLETELY FINISHED when God sent fire down and then immersed and filled the house of God:
- The Tabernacle - And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. – Ex.40:35
Le 9:24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.
- The Temple - 1 ¶ Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the house. 2 And the priests could not enter into the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD had filled the LORD’S house. And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glor y of the LORD upon the house, - 2 Chron. 7:1-3
- The Church - ¶ And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Third, when it is realized that the institutional congregation is a metaphorical SINGULAR "temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 3:16 "ye" NOT "we") whereas the physical body of the believer is an individual temple(1 Cor. 6:19) then the baptism in the Spirit refers to the singular institutional congregation of Christ whereas regenerate indwelling refers to the individual believer. Note that the plural "ye" in 1 Cor. 3:16 is a SINGULAR temple rather than PLURAL temples and it excludes Paul (not "we" but "ye").
It is just that simple!
Last edited:
Let it clearly be understood. This is a debate between universal church advocates and local church only advocates. So Iconoclast can call on and quote from an innumberal host of universal church advocates who merely repeat his errors because they are the source of his error.
I could quote local church Bible scholars but it would only be met with ridicule whereas he can quote from his biased advocates and it is regarded as "scholarship" by those who already embrace that view.
In contrast, I simply appeal to the Word of God
I could quote local church Bible scholars but it would only be met with ridicule whereas he can quote from his biased advocates and it is regarded as "scholarship" by those who already embrace that view.
In contrast, I simply appeal to the Word of God
1 Peter 3:21 The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
My understanding of that in bold above, is that underlined below. ---
Rom 6:5,8 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Matt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
- Status