"to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." - Lk. 1:17

[The Biblicist]

Those who reject the baptism of John as "Christian" baptism deny John completed his mission. They deny that he made ready a people "prepared" for the Lord. Instead, they claim it is the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost that actually made "ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Those who reject the baptism of John as "Christian" baptism deny his baptism was "the counsel of God" (Lk. 7:29-30) or at least infer it was inferior counsel as not only would all Christians reject it on Pentecost but God would reject it as well. Hence, the Pharisees were wiser than God or Christ in rejecting his baptism as it would be invalidated in less than a year and half by God and Christians according to their theory.

Paul plainly says that John required repentance and faith in Christ (Acts 19:4) and John claims to have preached the gospel of Christ (Jn. 3:36) but for some reason those who deny that his baptism was Christian baptism think it was some other kind of repentance connected with some other kind of gospel.

The bottom line, is that those who reject the baptism of John are forced to that conclusion by their soteriology and ecclesiology rather than by Scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Those who reject the baptism of John as "Christian" baptism deny John completed his mission. They deny that he made ready a people "prepared" for the Lord. Instead, they claim it is the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost that actually made "ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Those who reject the baptism of John as "Christian" baptism deny his baptism was "the counsel of God" (Lk. 7:29-30) or at least infer it was inferior counsel as not only would all Christians reject it on Pentecost but God would reject it as well. Hence, the Pharisees were wiser than God or Christ in rejecting his baptism as it would be invalidated in less than a year and half by God and Christians according to their theory.

Paul plainly says that John required repentance and faith in Christ (Acts 19:4) and John claims to have preached the gospel of Christ (Jn. 3:36) but for some reason those who deny that his baptism was Christian baptism think it was some other kind of repentance connected with some other kind of gospel.

The bottom line, is that those who reject the baptism of John are forced to that conclusion by their soteriology and ecclesiology rather than by Scripture.

No one rejects John's baptism....or that it was prepatory , and required repentance .
Other OT ordinances were preparing for the coming Kingdom also...we're they Christian also....?
I am thinking that you will say no.

 

[The Biblicist]

No one rejects John's baptism....or that it was prepatory , and required repentance .
Other OT ordinances were preparing for the coming Kingdom also...we're they Christian also....?
I am thinking that you will say no.

First it is no part of the Old Covenant Law. It can't be found in Moses. The Old Covenant was formulated in the the books of Moses not in the Gospels. Even the Jewish leadership recognized it was not part of the Old Covenant but had to do with a new dispensation (Jn. 1).

Second, no one, and I mean no one, has produced a single text that they can defend exegetically that denies it is Christian baptism. It is the ONLY possible baptism existent when the Great Commission was given. It is the ONLY baptism that the "have" of the Great Commission could possibly refer to (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30) and therefore it is the ONLY possible baptism promised age long administration by the Great Commission.

Third, it was not "prepatory" in the sense of "temporary" but it MADE READY a people PREPARED for the Lord. They did not need to repent again or believe in Christ again, and therefore did not need to be baptized again. Baptism was the consequence of repentant faith in the gospel of Christ and it is the very same gospel preached by evangelicals today or does your gospel differ from John 3:16 (which is the gospel Jesus preached) and John 6:36 (which is the gospel John preached)?? Your doctrine is based upon pure silence, presumption a false system of ecclesiology.

Your IMAGINARY "Christian" baptism beginning on Pentecost is simply that IMAGINARY! There is not a single text in the Bible that predicts any other kind of water baptism before or after the day of Pentecost!

How can you even rationalize that it "prepared a people made ready" for Christ when everything about it (according to your theology) is replaced at Pentecost by a baptism in water that the bible nowhere even speaks about????? That is simply irrational, unbiblical without a single text of scripture to support it. It is only demanded by an ecclesiastical bias rather than by Scripture.

 

[TCassidy]

If John's baptism was not Christian baptism then the Apostles, baptized by John, were never baptized.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

First it is no part of the Old Covenant Law. It can't be found in Moses.

No one said it was. It was a baptism of repentance for Israel.
John was baptizing before Jesus came to him.
Jesus tied John in with the OT prophets as the last ot prophet;
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.


14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

If the cross has not yet taken place, how can this be rightly said to be Christian baptism?
Ot saints in Israel needed to repent as do people today.
repentance alone does not make it NT baptism.

The Old Covenant was formulated in the the books of Moses not in the Gospels

.

Correct B.....but when this takes place....there were no gospels yet, and Jesus had not announced the new Covenant in His blood...even though you suggest that in your comments as you say here

Even the Jewish leadership recognized it was not part of the Old Covenant but had to do with a new dispensation (Jn. 1).

Second, no one, and I mean no one, has produced a single text that they can defend exegetically that denies it is Christian baptism

.
There is no single text that says it was christian baptism, so why would we find any text denying it is christian baptism?

Now of course we do have the Acts 19 account that you mishandle-
19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
They were not told....JOHN'S BAPTISM WAS CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, SO YOU ARE GOOD TO GO
no...they were re-baptized...sorry B....this is indeed what it says.

Third, it was not "prepatory" in the sense of "temporary" but it MADE READY a people PREPARED for the Lord.

yes the elect remnant was prepared.

They did not need to repent again or believe in Christ again, and therefore did not need to be baptized again.

You do not know any of this....3000 were baptized at Pentecost, you do not know if any of the 3000 had Johns baptism.
You are quick to mention to me that if I make a comment without a scripture verse it is my opinion....and now I see you doing the same thing.

Baptism was the consequence of repentant faith in the gospel of Christ and it is the very same gospel preached by evangelicals today or does your gospel differ from John 3:16 (which is the gospel Jesus preached) and John 6:36 (which is the gospel John preached)??



Your doctrine is based upon pure silence, presumption a false system of ecclesiology.

Your IMAGINARY "Christian" baptism beginning on Pentecost is simply that IMAGINARY!

no...what is imaginary is you thinking and claiming John's baptism is the only baptism that qualifies as Christian baptism when those in Acts 19 were baptized again;

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

There is not a single text in the Bible that predicts any other kind of water baptism before or after the day of Pentecost!

yes right here....

How can you even rationalize that it "prepared a people made ready" for Christ when everything about it (according to your theology) is replaced at Pentecost by a baptism in water that the bible nowhere even speaks about?????

The elect remnant was called to repentance....by John....they repented rom9
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

That is simply irrational, unbiblical without a single text of scripture to support it. It is only demanded by an ecclesiastical bias rather than by Scripture.

Or....it is your ecclesiastical bias once again trying to force itself into scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

If John's baptism was not Christian baptism then the Apostles, baptized by John, were never baptized.

Hello TC,

We do not really know either way do we? 3000 were baptized at Pentecost, they were there....it does not say they were or were not.

 

[percho]

The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all. That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; Acts 10:36,57
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Luke 16:16

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.[fn] M-Text omits and fire. Matt 3:11

Not sure what those passages say relative whether the baptism of John is Christian or not but they may be relevant?

Did Christ not baptize the apostles with the Holy Spirit?

 

[percho]

I wonder if John spoke any words as he was baptizing someone? If yes, what would you think he said?

 

[TCassidy]

Hello TC,

We do not really know either way do we? 3000 were baptized at Pentecost, they were there....it does not say they were or were not.

An argument from silence is no argument at all.

 

[Iconoclast]

An argument from silence is no argument at all.

..yes ...so where is your verse that states the apostles were not baptized? where does scripture say they were baptized by John again???

 

[TCassidy]

so where is your verse that states the apostles were not baptized?

They were.

where does scripture say they were baptized by John again?

They weren't.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist,


No one said it was. It was a baptism of repentance for Israel.
John was baptizing before Jesus came to him.
Jesus tied John in with the OT prophets as the last ot prophet;
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

My friend, all this means is that the coming of Christ was predictive by all previous prophets until John. With John his coming was no longer predictive but fulfilled. John was not the last prophet as many prophets came after him (Eph. 2;20; 1 Cor. 12:28) but he was the prophet who terminated the predictive anticipation of the coming Christ as Jesus fulfilled that prediction.

Second, all saints prior to the coming of Jesus as the Christ were "Christians" as they were all believers in Christ (Messiah/Anointed) and Peter plainly tells you that (Acts 4:12 with 10:43).Sure, they were not called "Christians" by lost people as far as we know, but they were believers in Christ as their Savior.

repentance alone does not make it NT baptism.

As I previously said, all saints prior to the Cross were "Christians" or believers in Christ. They simply did not know that Jesus of Nazareth was that Christ. They did not merely repent, but believed in Christ (Acts 19:4; Jn. 3:36) and yes,all that is required for baptism is repentance AND faith in Christ as that IS "Christian" baptism. BTW where can you find baptism ever once called "Christian" in the New Testament???? You can't! Second, you know very well the redemptive benefits of the cross were applied long before the cross as Abraham and Job are explicit examples of this.


.

Correct B.....but when this takes place....there were no gospels yet, and Jesus had not announced the new Covenant in His blood...even though you suggest that in your comments as you say here

Again, this is not an argument as you know very well the redemptive benefits of the cross were applied long before the cross based upon the "everlasting covenant." Abraham is explicitly said to be "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) and justified by faith, meaning his sins were remitted in full (Rom. 4:7-8) and righteousness imputed (Rom. 4:6) and so you have no argument at all.



.

There is no single text that says it was christian baptism, so why would we find any text denying it is christian baptism?

Can you produce any text that calls any water baptism either before or after the cross as "Christian" baptism? You have no argument at all! So baptism before the cross is just as "Christian" as baptism after the cross as far as scripture concerned.

Moreover, the only possible baptism in existence when Christ gave the Great Commission including baptism was the baptism of John. The "have" of the Great Commission could not refer to any other baptism than the baptism of John as it is the only baptism in existence and the only possible one Christ could "have" commanded previously just as John 4;1-2 and Luke 7:29-30 confirm. You have no argument at all.

Now of course we do have the Acts 19 account that you mishandle-
19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
They were not told....JOHN'S BAPTISM WAS CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, SO YOU ARE GOOD TO GO
no...they were re-baptized...sorry B....this is indeed what it says.

Read verse 4 again. He is clearly saying that John's baptism required both repentance and faith in Christ, making Christ the object of his baptism. In contrast when asked what were they baptized INTO (Gr. eis) or INTO WHAT NAME. They responded they had been baptized INTO JOHN kind of baptism (anarthous construct). However, John never baptized anyone INTO (unto) his own self or name. When they realized that John never baptized INTO or with reference to himself but INTO or with reference to Christ, then they too were baptized "INTO" (eis) or with reference to Christ's name.

You do not know any of this....3000 were baptized at Pentecost, you do not know if any of the 3000 had Johns baptism.
You are quick to mention to me that if I make a comment without a scripture verse it is my opinion....and now I see you doing the same thing.

Wrong! I do know for a fact that no TRUE repentant believer baptized by John or Jesus was part of the 3000.

First, these are identified as Jews who came from OUTSIDE of Palestine in direct contrast to the 120 John the Baptists kind of baptized disciples (Acts 1:21-22; 2:1) who were "all" Galileans:

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Note carefully, "all" speaking were Galileans but the crowd listening was from the countries listed in verses 8-11 not from INSIDE Palestine. These were men who had come from OUTSIDE of Palestine to the Passover and Pentecost, while ALL those baptized by John over a year and half ago, and ALL who were baptized by Christ's disciples PREVIOUS to the Passover were residents INSIDE of Palestine.

Secondly, all these are being charged with crucifying Christ. Do you actually believe the repentant believers in Christ were among those who cried "crucify him"?

Third, all of these are commanded to repent (Acts 2:38) but ALL of those baptized by John and Jesus (through his disciples) already had repented and believed in the Christ.

Fourth, all of these were "ADDED UNTO THEM" - them being ALL of those that had gathered in one accord "in one place" in Acts 2. The contextual antecendent for "ALL" of those in Acts 2:1 are the 120 gathered in Acts 1:15-27.

So again, you have no argument at all. I do know for a fact that no true repentant baptized believer in Christ were among these 3000 IF the Bible is our final authority. Is the Bible your final authority in this matter?

John's Baptism was the consequence of repentant faith in the gospel of Christ and it is the very same gospel preached by evangelicals today or does your gospel differ from John 3:16 (which is the gospel Jesus preached) and John 6:36 (which is the gospel John preached)??

The Great Commission condemns your view as thoroughly unbiblical as no other baptism was in existence, and no other baptism could be referred to as "HAVE commadned" than the baptism of John.

Your view INVENTS a water baptism on the day of Pentecost, that YOU (not the scriptures) call "Christian" when the scriptures never use the term "Christian" to distinguish water baptism before Pentecost from after Pentecost. This invention repudiates the commission of Christ and the water baptism he commissioned until the end of the age. You have no biblical basis for your position at all - none - zilch. However, your argument is in defiance of many explicit scriptures. Your position stands with the Pharisees who rejected the baptism of John, thus rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (Lk. 7:29-30) as the Pharisees position makes sense if God himself were going to reject and replace it just a couple years later as your theory teaches.

 

[Iconoclast]

Acts 19 clearly identifies two baptisms....end of story....
They were not told....okay...you already have been baptized....there is only one baptism anywhere.There were other washings that were not Christian baptism.Heb6
Yes....OT saints are found In Christ.....I know how they get there with NT saints also.
I believe the gospel is preached in all 66 books so nice try with that one.

John baptism was a baptism of repentance. The PHARISEES did not think they needed to repent. The baptism was one that identified people with the message, just as 1 Cor 10....baptized unto Moses identified them with His message......pre cross baptisms . .....after the cross Identification with Christ and the work of the Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

My friend, all this means is that the coming of Christ was predictive by all previous prophets until John. With John his coming was no longer predictive but fulfilled. John was not the last prophet as many prophets came after him (Eph. 2;20; 1 Cor. 12:28) but he was the prophet who terminated the predictive anticipation of the coming Christ as Jesus fulfilled that prediction.

Second, all saints prior to the coming of Jesus as the Christ were "Christians" as they were all believers in Christ (Messiah/Anointed) and Peter plainly tells you that (Acts 4:12 with 10:43).Sure, they were not called "Christians" by lost people as far as we know, but they were believers in Christ as their Savior.




As I previously said, all saints prior to the Cross were "Christians" or believers in Christ. They simply did not know that Jesus of Nazareth was that Christ. They did not merely repent, but believed in Christ (Acts 19:4; Jn. 3:36) and yes,all that is required for baptism is repentance AND faith in Christ as that IS "Christian" baptism. BTW where can you find baptism ever once called "Christian" in the New Testament???? You can't! Second, you know very well the redemptive benefits of the cross were applied long before the cross as Abraham and Job are explicit examples of this.


.

Again, this is not an argument as you know very well the redemptive benefits of the cross were applied long before the cross based upon the "everlasting covenant." Abraham is explicitly said to be "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) and justified by faith, meaning his sins were remitted in full (Rom. 4:7-8) and righteousness imputed (Rom. 4:6) and so you have no argument at all.



.
Can you produce any text that calls any water baptism either before or after the cross as "Christian" baptism? You have no argument at all! So baptism before the cross is just as "Christian" as baptism after the cross as far as scripture concerned.

Moreover, the only possible baptism in existence when Christ gave the Great Commission including baptism was the baptism of John. The "have" of the Great Commission could not refer to any other baptism than the baptism of John as it is the only baptism in existence and the only possible one Christ could "have" commanded previously just as John 4;1-2 and Luke 7:29-30 confirm. You have no argument at all.



Read verse 4 again. He is clearly saying that John's baptism required both repentance and faith in Christ, making Christ the object of his baptism. In contrast when asked what were they baptized INTO (Gr. eis) or INTO WHAT NAME. They responded they had been baptized INTO JOHN kind of baptism (anarthous construct). However, John never baptized anyone INTO (unto) his own self or name. When they realized that John never baptized INTO or with reference to himself but INTO or with reference to Christ, then they too were baptized "INTO" (eis) or with reference to Christ's name.





Wrong! I do know for a fact that no TRUE repentant believer baptized by John or Jesus was part of the 3000.

First, these are identified as Jews who came from OUTSIDE of Palestine in direct contrast to the 120 John the Baptists kind of baptized disciples (Acts 1:21-22; 2:1) who were "all" Galileans:

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Note carefully, "all" speaking were Galileans but the crowd listening was from the countries listed in verses 8-11 not from INSIDE Palestine. These were men who had come from OUTSIDE of Palestine to the Passover and Pentecost, while ALL those baptized by John over a year and half ago, and ALL who were baptized by Christ's disciples PREVIOUS to the Passover were residents INSIDE of Palestine.

Secondly, all these are being charged with crucifying Christ. Do you actually believe the repentant believers in Christ were among those who cried "crucify him"?

Third, all of these are commanded to repent (Acts 2:38) but ALL of those baptized by John and Jesus (through his disciples) already had repented and believed in the Christ.

Fourth, all of these were "ADDED UNTO THEM" - them being ALL of those that had gathered in one accord "in one place" in Acts 2. The contextual antecendent for "ALL" of those in Acts 2:1 are the 120 gathered in Acts 1:15-27.

So again, you have no argument at all. I do know for a fact that no true repentant baptized believer in Christ were among these 3000 IF the Bible is our final authority. Is the Bible your final authority in this matter?

John's Baptism was the consequence of repentant faith in the gospel of Christ and it is the very same gospel preached by evangelicals today or does your gospel differ from John 3:16 (which is the gospel Jesus preached) and John 6:36 (which is the gospel John preached)??

The Great Commission condemns your view as thoroughly unbiblical as no other baptism was in existence, and no other baptism could be referred to as "HAVE commadned" than the baptism of John.

Your view INVENTS a water baptism on the day of Pentecost, that YOU (not the scriptures) call "Christian" when the scriptures never use the term "Christian" to distinguish water baptism before Pentecost from after Pentecost. This invention repudiates the commission of Christ and the water baptism he commissioned until the end of the age. You have no biblical basis for your position at all - none - zilch. However, your argument is in defiance of many explicit scriptures. Your position stands with the Pharisees who rejected the baptism of John, thus rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (Lk. 7:29-30) as the Pharisees position makes sense if God himself were going to reject and replace it just a couple years later as your theory teaches.

Here is the evidence again. Anyone else care to challenge it by dealing with the evidence instead of ignoring as did Iconoclast?

 

[The Biblicist]

Acts 19 clearly identifies two baptisms....end of story....
They were not told....okay...you already have been baptized....there is only one baptism anywhere.There were other washings that were not Christian baptism.Heb6
Yes....OT saints are found In Christ.....I know how they get there with NT saints also.
I believe the gospel is preached in all 66 books so nice try with that one.

Then stop making foolish arguments that infer OT saints could not obtain redemptive benefits until after the cross.

J

ohn baptism was a baptism of repentance. The PHARISEES did not think they needed to repent. The baptism was one that identified people with the message, just as 1 Cor 10....baptized unto Moses identified them with His message......pre cross baptisms . .....after the cross Identification with Christ and the work of the Spirit.

So what is the Great Commission all about? Read carefully Luke' account of it:

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Tell me. do you baptize unrepentant people? Does your church? Did John? - you have no argument at all - end of story

So what baptism is found in the PRE-Pentecost Great Commission? The ONLY possible one is the baptism of John as no other water baptism existed when this commission was given. The ONLY possible one is John's baptism as that is the ONLY water baptism Christ "HAVE" commanded (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30). Jesus is commissioning the ONLY existent baptism unto the end of the age - you have no argument - end of story.

I have contextually proven that the water baptism in Acts 2 was not administered to any of the true repentant baptized beleivers and there is no possible way for you to overturn the amount of evidence I provided - try! You have no argument at all - end of story!

I have contextually demonstrated by the repetitive Greek preposition "eis" in Acts 19 that they had been baptized "into" (eis) a baptism with reference to John, whereas John administered a baptism "into" (eis) or with reference Christ. Hence, they were baptized correctly "into" (eis) with reference to Christ just as John administered baptism. Some one had been administering baptism in the name of John the Baptist.

I have contextually demonstrated their first baptism could not possibly have been administered by John the Baptist as they were ignorant of one of the primary teachings of John - the Holy Spirit. You have no response! You simply reassert your disproven error - you have no argument - end of story.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

Here is the evidence again. Anyone else care to challenge it by dealing with the evidence instead of ignoring as did Iconoclast?

I thought you had worked some of this out of your system but it looks like that is not the case....

Iconoclast has stopped driving for the day, so perhaps he can now deal with your "evidence"

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast said;
No one said it was.
1]It was a baptism of repentance for Israel.

2]John was baptizing before Jesus came to him.

3]The message was repent for the kingdom of heaven was at hand...



This does not constitute Christian baptism when The identity of the Christ is not identified as yet-

3 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

These were Ot persons....still under Mosaic law, feast days and everything else.....no Christians yet anywhere, no matter how you attempt to rewrite the timeline

The Ot covenant curses from the song of Moses were about to fall on them if they were not found to be covenant keepers....how do we know? we read this-
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.
John explains his baptism, so we are spared your version.,


Water unto repentance.....no Christian baptism here...Ot covenant persons told to repent and bring forth fruits of repentance.....

Then he speaks of another baptism- different from his....

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
The Holy Ghost and fire.....not water here.....

 

[Iconoclast]

Acts11
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

Can you produce any text that calls any water baptism either before or after the cross as "Christian" baptism?
You have no argument at all! So baptism before the cross is just as "Christian" as baptism after the cross as far as scripture concerned.

Those identified with John s baptism of repentance were Ot saints...
When they were taught of the Nt reality they then identified with the Christian baptism....
you tried to explain it away with this;

I have contextually demonstrated by the repetitive Greek preposition "eis" in Acts 19 that they had been baptized "into" (eis) a baptism with reference to John, whereas John administered a baptism "into" (eis) or with reference Christ. Hence, they were baptized correctly "into" (eis) with reference to Christ just as John administered baptism. Some one had been administering baptism in the name of John the Baptist.

Wrong again B. They identified with him and showed it was different, so when they transitioned into the NT baptism they were properly baptized.

Moreover, the only possible baptism in existence when Christ gave the Great Commission including baptism was the baptism of John.

All authority was given to the Son.....He gave the new formula for baptism....He did not repeat Johns baptism;

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

No mention of John or his baptism here.

 

[Iconoclast]

Several times my friend Biblicist suggests things like this;
1] You have no argument at all.

2]So again, you have no argument at all

3] Is the Bible your final authority in this matter?

4]The Great Commission condemns your view as thoroughly unbiblical as no other baptism was in existence,

5]Your view INVENTS a water baptism on the day of Pentecost,


6]that YOU (not the scriptures) call "Christian" when the scriptures never use the term "Christian" to distinguish water baptism before Pentecost from after Pentecost. This invention repudiates the commission of Christ and the water baptism he commissioned until the end of the age.

7]You have no biblical basis for your position at all - none - zilch.

8]However, your argument is in defiance of many explicit scriptures.

9]Your position stands with the Pharisees who rejected the baptism of John, thus rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (Lk. 7:29-30) as the Pharisees position makes sense if God himself were going to reject and replace it just a couple years later as your theory teaches.

So..we see B suggests no one else holds what he calls "my View", as if no one else holds these positions....I have perhaps invented a novelty or two??? Let's take a look;

Matthew Henry on 1 Cor 12.13...water baptism for local church membership, reflective of SPIRIT BAPTISM....

One body may have many members, as many members of the same body are made to drink of the same Spirit.
Christians become members of this body by baptism, they are baptized into one body.
And by communion at the other ordinance we are sustained by drinking into one Spirit.
It is BAPTISM by the SPIRIT, it is internal renovation and drinking into one SPIRIT that makes us TRUE MEMBERS of Christs body...

Here is JOHN MURRAY....REDEMPTION ACCOMPLISHED AND APPLIED, PG. 164-166....170
Hence when we say that union with Christ is Spiritual we mean,first of all that the bond of this Union is....THE HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF.
For In one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether jew or greek, bond or free....All were made to drink of ONE SPIRIT.
1 cor12:13 1cor6:17,rom8:9-11

Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation.All to which the people of God have been predestined in the eternal election of God, all that has been secured for them in the once for all accomplishment of redemption