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

[Iconoclast]

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.

You have demonstrated no such thing....because you offer "your explanation of the facts" does not mean you have "covered it"...everyone offers a view....Rc , cults, everyone thinks they have it covered.

They were ignorant of the Holy Spirit because John had a limited understanding of Him . they identified with his message and his baptism , which was not yet, "christian baptism"

 

[Iconoclast]

"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.

The focal point of the Servant’s work in Isaiah’s prophecy is the recovery to God of estranged mankind. But, in keeping with the fact that the curse extended to the whole creation, Isaiah showed that work of recovery to reach beyond man to embrace the entire created order. Through His Servant, Yahweh would vanquish the curse and usher in a new creation (cf. 65:1-25, 66:5-24 with 11:1-10).
a. Thus Yahweh’s message through Isaiah was one of comfort. Desolation and destruction had been decreed, but that wasn’t to be the last word: Judgment and wrath would one day yield to renewal and recovery when the Lord rose up on behalf of His estranged creation to deliver it from its bondage and restore it to Himself. This message and the proclamation of its impending fulfillment had been entrusted to the forerunner – now present in John – and he was to prepare the sons of Israel to receive the Servant coming to accomplish that work (40:1-11).
b. As the Isaianic forerunner, John’s mission was one of preparation; the Lord raised him up to prepare the people of Israel for the coming of their Messiah and the inauguration of His kingdom. He was to “make smooth in the desert a highway for Israel’s God,” and there were two components of his preparatory work, both of which focused on the matter of repentance.
The first was John’s baptism, which the Scripture calls a “baptism of repentance” (cf. Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; also Acts 13:23-24); John called the sons of Israel to undergo this ritual washing in connection with the confession of their sins (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5). Some have wrongly concluded that John’s baptism itself secured the forgiveness of sins, but it actually symbolized the purification from uncleanness that was the goal of a person’s repentance. It wasn’t a baptism unto repentance and forgiveness, but a baptism because of the repentance that brings forgiveness of sin. For this reason it was universal in scope (Luke 3:14), though it primarily targeted the unfaithful house of Israel. All men were in need of repentance, even as the forerunner was appointed to announce Yahweh’s salvation that would extend to the ends of the earth (John 1:29).
An even worse conclusion is that John was preparing the people for the coming of the messianic kingdom by calling them away from their bad behavior. Luke’s account especially has been used to support this understanding (ref. 3:10-14). But a closer examination shows that John was revealing to the multitudes that the emerging kingdom calls for an entirely new way of thinking about and approaching life. The kingdom of God, soon to be inaugurated in the messianic Servant, is an otherworldly kingdom that operates according to a radically different set of principles. It is a heavenly kingdom rather than an earthly one.
[Kit Culver]

 

[Iconoclast]

2. The Coming Elijah
John’s role as Isaiah’s forerunner is further elucidated by his being the Elijah promised by Malachi (4:5-6; cf. Matthew 11:7-14, 17:1-13). John’s appearance mirrored Elijah’s, but the real issue was his coming in the spirit and power of Elijah. As the forerunner, John was to prepare a smooth pathway for the Lord’s entrance, but he would do so by turning the hearts of the father to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers (Luke 1:5-17). Like Elijah before him, John emerged as Yahweh’s prophet at a time when Israel was at a critical point of decision. Each indicted the covenant people for their rebellious unbelief and each called them to repent and return to their God. In Elijah’s case this meant renouncing Baal; in John’s it meant embracing Yahweh in His Son.
Israel’s repentance would prepare them to receive their Messiah, but it also represented the reuniting of their hearts with their fathers. The meaning becomes clear when it is recognized that the text is referring to the patriarchal fathers. The people of Israel were the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to whom the kingdom promise first came, and the Israelite nation was the first realization of that promise. But the children had turned away from their fathers by rejecting the patriarchs’ God and covenant. Now the time had come for Yahweh to inaugurate the true kingdom promised to the fathers – the kingdom they had seen by faith and longed for up until the day of their death (Hebrews 11:8-16). Only by repentance – by rethinking what it means to be sons of the kingdom – would the children of the patriarchs be reunited with them and prepared for Abraham’s Seed.

 

[Iconoclast]

b. Jesus’ identity as the fulfilled temple is most clearly seen in His person, but it is also evident in the purpose of His coming. Specifically, He entered the world as the God-Man in order to recover sacred space by reconciling all things to God. In that way He would usher in the long-promised kingdom.
As seen, the promise of the coming kingdom is everywhere associated with temple and sanctuary imagery. The reason, again, is that God presents His kingdom as being established through His deliverance of His people (and the whole creation) from their captivity (redemption) in order to restore them (and all things) to Himself (reconciliation). The true kingdom is about restored relationship and recovered intimacy, and, considered from within the framework of the Israelite kingdom (as was the case with the prophets), the temple concept speaks to this dynamic more powerfully than anything else. The temple represented sacred space – the reality of divine-human encounter and communion.
Thus the promise of the kingdom was the promise of restored sanctuary. As would be expected, this theme comes to the forefront in the historical context of the captivities. The temple was to be destroyed, but just as Yahweh promised the restoration of David’s house and kingdom, so He promised the restoration of His own “house.” A new “David” would restore the kingdom, and that same Davidide would build the Lord’s house (ref. again Zechariah 6:9-15; also Amos 9:11-15).

Yahweh would recover what humanity could not, but, just as He had sworn that day in the garden, He would do so through a man. Peace was to be recovered through a chosen descendent of Eve – a man later revealed to be the covenant Seed of Abraham and royal Branch of David. This connection is most explicit in Isaiah’s prophecy, but extends through the other prophets as well (ref. esp. Isaiah 9:1-7; also 11:1-9, 42:1-13, 32:1-20, 53:1-55:13, 61:1-7; cf. Jeremiah 33:1-26; Ezekiel 34:1-31, 37:1-28; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 4:1-5:5; Nahum 1:11-15; Haggai 2:1-9; Zechariah 6:9-15, 9:9-12).
The prophets proclaimed that the promise of the kingdom was the promise of everlasting peace, and this kingdom was to be inaugurated by the Davidic king who is the Prince of Peace. For this reason, the gospel writers are careful to emphasize the theme of peace in their presentation of Jesus and His purpose in coming.
One aspect of this fulfillment that is often missed is related to Jesus’ role as the true Israel. As Yahweh’s chosen “son,” Israel was to live with Him in the intimate, unqualified devotion due a Father. The covenant nation’s relationship with God was to be shalomic, but was instead characterized throughout its history by distrust, disloyalty, and lovelessness. Israel responded to Yahweh’s faithful husbandry with unashamed and unrepentant adultery; in every way, Israel failed to be Israel. In contrast, Jesus came as a truly devoted son, living the shalomic life Israel could not.

 

[Iconoclast]

All of that leads to this;
The Son of David was appointed to establish and rule over Yahweh’s house and kingdom forever, and this implied the establishment of Zion as the everlasting focal point of that kingdom. More specifically, the Scripture indicated that Messiah would establish the kingdom through His personal triumph over God’s enemies. By His victory He would deliver the captive people and restore them to their covenant Lord and Father. Messiah’s work was to be one of comprehensive renewal and recovery, and this promise accordingly had a central thread in Zion’s future glorification. The Son of David would rule over Yahweh’s kingdom from His throne in the midst of glorified Zion. This theme is prominent in Isaiah’s prophecy (cf. in context 28:14-16, 40:1-10, 46:12-13, 51:1-11, 52:1-9, 59:1-60:14, 62:1-12, 66:1-13), but weaves throughout the prophetic literature (cf. Psalm 87, 102:11-22, 110:1-10; Jeremiah 3:6-17, 31:1-40; Joel 2:23-32; Micah 4:1-5:5; Zechariah 9:9-17).
Likewise, God’s image-son has been recreated in the likeness of the divine Son and Last Adam (2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:1-16, 4:17-24, 5:6-10; Colossians 3:1-11; etc.). And yet, “it has not presently appeared what we shall be” (1 John 3:1-2). Moreover, the “not yet” of our present renewal embraces both our spiritual and physical humanity (ref. esp. Romans 8:18-25; cf. also 1 Corinthians 15:1-28; 2 Corinthians 4:1-18; Philippians 1:6, 3:1-21; Colossians 3:1-4).
So also, God has restored His glory-presence to His sanctuary (Ezekiel 43:1-5). However, His dwelling place is no longer a physical structure but the souls of men (cf. John 14:16-17 with Acts 2:1-18; also 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:17-20; Ephesians 2:11-22). In the age of promise Zion represented both God’s dwelling place and His relationship with His people; now, in Christ – the fulfilled sanctuary – those representations have converged. Zion has been restored as a living, spiritual house, though it, too, awaits the fullness to come (Revelation 21:1-22:5).

 

[Iconoclast]

So...John being the fore-runner has much more to it, than your burning concern as to if it was christian baptism or not.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

Yes, he came to the Jew first, and gentiles second and Paul practiced the very same order. So your argument is nothing.

2

]John was baptizing before Jesus came to him.

And your point is......???? Was not he sent to prepare a people MADE READY for the Lord? Is not baptism still the very first step of SERVICE in preparing the people of God and making them ready for his SECOND coming???? Was not he sent to baptize that Christ would be manifest? Is not baptism today the manifestation of Christ, his death, burial and resurrection in figure (1 Pet. 3:21)????

3

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

Look at this statement in its context in Mark 1:1-15. The term "basilea" can refer to the PERSON and/or rule, and/or territory of a king. Mark 1:1-3 makes it clear it is the PERSON of the King John was sent to preach that "is at hand" and the gospel of the person of the king is repentance or submission to his rule. From Luke 24:47 throughout the book of Acts the gospel of the kingdom was continual preached to both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 8:12; 20:25; 28:23; 28:31).

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

Don't you know what the term "Christian" infers? A follower of Christ. All who lived prior to His incarnation were believers and followers of "Christ." They did not have to know that Jesus was the Christ to be a believer in Christ. The name "Jesus" is defined in Matthew 1 in two texts. The first text tells us the meaning of the last part of the name - "shall save" while the following text tells us the meaning of the first part of his name "Immanuel" or "God with us." Old Testament saints believed in the Messiah as Jehovah their Savior (the name Jesus Christ) and Peter tells you that they did in Acts 10:43 "whosoever believed upon HIS NAME shall receive remission of sins). Isaiah repeated tells over and over again that Yahweh is our Savior (Jesus).

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.,

Can't you understand the very text your using????? He refused to administer baptism to unrepentant men (v. 8) and therefore repentance was the FIRST prerequisite for his baptism but not the only prerequisite as Paul plainly tells you he preached faith in Christ (Acts 19:4) and John tells you this bluntly in John 3:36!!!!!! The Great Commission continues preaching repentance PRIOR TO baptism (Lk. 24:47). On the day of Pentecost repentance precedes baptism (Acts 2;38) but includes faith in Christ as well (Acts 2:41).

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.....

But not another WATER baptism as your false doctrine demands.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

So, based upon this response are we to assume then that you don't believe any Christians existed prior to Acts 11?????? Oh consistency what a jewel it is!

Yes, that is the first time they were given this as a name. However, do you really think that in order TO BE a Christian requires the name given to you????? Or are you a "Christian" when you repent and believe in Christ regardless if anyone every attaches that title to you? Come on Iconoclast, you are brighter than this.

 

[The Biblicist]

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;

This is like one blind man quoting another blind man and then asking can't anyone see what we see????. I could quote many fellow Baptists who could back my position up as well but you would just scoff. In fact, the oldest Baptist interpretation of 1 Cor. 12:13 is water baptism. Check it out for yourself. You can't deal with the evidence and so you run to uninspired men and rest your case on tradition of the elders.

 

[The Biblicist]

So also, God has restored His glory-presence to His sanctuary (Ezekiel 43:1-5). However, His dwelling place is no longer a physical structure but the souls of men (cf. John 14:16-17 with Acts 2:1-18; also 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:17-20; Ephesians 2:11-22). In the age of promise Zion represented both God’s dwelling place and His relationship with His people; now, in Christ – the fulfilled sanct?

Your flawed interpretation is simply contradicted by plain explicit scriptures. Your mythical church is a SPIRITUAL ENTITY while the "members of Christ" at Corinth includes the SIN INDWELT PHYSICAL BODIES (1 Cor. 6:15) in addition to their spirits. Due to its PHYSICAL nature wherein the "spirits" are confined within those bodies it demands a PHYSICAL visible assembly in a physical visible "place" which the Holy Spirit calls the "temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 3:16) built from water baptized beleivers in their physical bodies (1 Cor. 3:5-10). So God has a dwelling place ON EARTH called "the house of God" which is visible just as it was visible under the Old Covenant (heb. 9:1) except this "temple" is made out of "LIVELY" (spirits) "STONES" (bodies) that offer up "acceptable" sacrifices that distinguish it from the Great Harlot and her harlot daughter counterfeit congregations.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
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.

1. Note the contrast between the audience and those speaking.

a. The audience defines "all" who are speaking to them as Galileans or those who live INSIDE Palestine.

b. The audience identify themselves as those who live OUTSIDE Palestine "every man in OUR OWN TONGUE" and then give the names of the countries they came from.

c. These are males who have come INTO palestine into Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover and Pentecost as commanded by Moses.

d. These are the ones being addressed by Peter

e. These are the ones that Peter charges with crucifying Christ as they were present during the crucifixion.

f. These are the ones that asked Peter what they must do (Acts 2:37)

g. These are the ones that Peter responds to that very question calling on them to repent.

h. These are not the disciples of John the Baptist who had been baptized by John IN Palestine over a year ago.

i. These are not the disciples of Christ who had been baptized IN Palestine long before the Passover.

CONCLUSION: Iconolast ignores the explicit contextual identity provided in the context and READS INTO this text what it neither says or even suggests but adamantly demands to be contrary to his whole theory.

2. The ONLY possible baptism existing when the Great Commission was given was the baptism of John. The ONLY possible baptism which Christ could "HAVE" commanded (Mt. 28:20) was the baptism of John. Thus, the only baptism promised to be administered by men to other men to the end of the age is the baptism of John.

a. There is no mention of any kind of new water baptism between Mt. 28:19 and Acts 2

b. There is no mention of anyone having to be rebaptized prior to Acts 2

c. The term "Christian" is never used to distinguish baptism after Pentecost from baptism before
Pentecost.


3. The rebaptism 20 years later in Acts 19 was not administered by John the Baptist.

a. John could not have possibly baptized them as they lived 20 years or more after the ministry of
John the Baptist and they are spoken of as newly found disciples in Ephesus.

b. John preached the Holy Spirit but these did not even know about Him.

c. They were asked "unto" (Gr. eis "into" "in" with reference to) WHOM or "what person" (Gr. autous "he" "him" ) were they baptized. They replied "unto" (Gr. eis "into" in" with reference to) John (John's name stands first in the text a the immediate object of the preposition) or a baptism characterized by John (anathrous construct can convey characterization).

d. However, John baptized "unto" (Gr. eis "into" "in" with reference to) Christ not in reference to himself. When they hear that John did not baptism "eis" with reference to himself but to Christ, they realized they did not have John's baptism.

CONCLUSION: This cannot be used as a proof text against the baptism of John as Paul corrects them about the very nature of John's baptism. Moreover, Paul demands that John required both repentance and faith in Christ as John's own words demand in John 3;36.

 

[Iconoclast]

Clearly you are unable to grasp the magnitude of what is taking place at this time.
YOU have a narrow agenda that you cling to missing the Forrest for the trees.
Your view does not affect me as I never encounter anyone else who suggests this narrow focus. It is error but far from the worst errors that we deal with.
I enjoy how you casually set aside Matthew Henry, John Murray, Ligon Duncan, as if they are novices....lol
You alone have the correct understanding? .....you and this man Graves????
It looks like he was trying to correct the errors of Cambellites, but perhaps went too far In over correcting. It might be something to consider. I have not read enough of his actual ideas....but awhile back would read some B.H. Carroll.
AS time permits I would read a bit more, but those uninspired men I offered seem more on the biblical trail of truth, then assorted trail of blood theology.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is like one blind man quoting another blind man and then asking can't anyone see what we see????. I could quote many fellow Baptists who could back my position up as well but you would just scoff. In fact, the oldest Baptist interpretation of 1 Cor. 12:13 is water baptism. Check it out for yourself. You can't deal with the evidence and so you run to uninspired men and rest your case on tradition of the elders.

Well....as we differ....that is exactly as I view your defective teaching. You like Graves before you are bit schismatic , yet you think you are on the trail of blood.....
I will stay where I am using the verses and views I have put forward along with many of the historic teachings of the mainstream teachers.

 

[The Biblicist]

AS time permits I would read a bit more, but those uninspired men I offered seem more on the biblical trail of truth, then assorted trail of blood theology.

And who do you think you sources are? Inspired men??? You can't deal with the Biblical and contextual evidence I have provided and so you flee to your only refuge - tradition

 

[The Biblicist]

Well....as we differ....that is exactly as I view your defective teaching. You like Graves before you are bit schismatic , yet you think you are on the trail of blood.....
I will stay where I am using the verses and views I have put forward along with many of the historic teachings of the mainstream teachers.

Have I ever once quoted any uninspired author to support anything I have stated? No! Look who had to flee the scriptural evidences placed before him and run to traditions! Not I. You are like talking to a Roman Catholic, when they forsake the scriptures and start quoting their uninspired traditions for refuge there can be no further reasonable discussion as they have forsaken the only inspired teachings given to man.

 

[Iconoclast]

Have I ever once quoted any uninspired author to support anything I have stated? No! Look who had to flee the scriptural evidences placed before him and run to traditions! Not I. You are like talking to a Roman Catholic, when they forsake the scriptures and start quoting their uninspired traditions for refuge there can be no further reasonable discussion as they have forsaken the only inspired teachings given to man.

No...the difference between me and you is I am not afraid to compare my thinking with others who are gifted in the scriptures and receive correction and instruction from other people.
Not only do you not do this, but you turn away from this positive instruction because you did not think of it and cannot grasp what is offered.
It is not that you....could not.....it is that you are in defensive mode so when they burst your little bubble you attack these men and reject that which did not enter into your thinking.
You did the same with me, and when I offer other thoughts that agree you cannot deal with it....
If though hast run with the footmen,and they have wearied thee,then how canst thou contend with the horses?and if in the land of peace,wherein thou trustedst,they wearied thee, then how wilt though do in the swelling of the Jordan?

 

[Iconoclast]

And who do you think you sources are? Inspired men??? You can't deal with the Biblical and contextual evidence I have provided and so you flee to your only refuge - tradition

Another problem is.....you suggest there is no other baptism mentioned as if the trinitarian baptism Jesus teaches in the great commission is not valid.
He had just said all authority is given unto me,then in light of that gives clear instruction of what baptism He was instructing them to perform.
By the way....it was not John's baptism as you insist it was the only one it could be......and yet you claim you have dealt with it,lol
Hebrews 9:10.......divers WASHINGS, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation......
This was what they were already used to, and the fact they questioned John the Baptist as to if he was the Christ shows they were anticipating such a change......but you had it all covered right?

 

[The Biblicist]

Another problem is.....you suggest there is no other baptism mentioned as if the trinitarian baptism Jesus teaches in the great commission is not valid.
He had just said all authority is given unto me,then in light of that gives clear instruction of what baptism He was instructing them to perform.
By the way....it was not John's baptism as you insist it was the only one it could be......and yet you claim you have dealt with it,lol
Hebrews 9:10.......divers WASHINGS, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation......
This was what they were already used to, and the fact they questioned John the Baptist as to if he was the Christ shows they were anticipating such a change......but you had it all covered right?

This response is so irrational it is hard to believe you could be driven to this extreme. Christ NEVER commanded his disciples to administer proselyte Old Testament immersions for ceremonial cleanses - NEVER. The ONLY baptism he ever commanded, submitted unto or administered through his disciples or defended was the baptism of John (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30).

 

[The Biblicist]

No...the difference between me and you is I am not afraid to compare my thinking with others who are gifted in the scriptures and receive correction and instruction from other people.
Not only do you not do this, but you turn away from this positive instruction because you did not think of it and cannot grasp what is offered.
It is not that you....could not.....it is that you are in defensive mode so when they burst your little bubble you attack these men and reject that which did not enter into your thinking.
You did the same with me, and when I offer other thoughts that agree you cannot deal with it....
If though hast run with the footmen,and they have wearied thee,then how canst thou contend with the horses?and if in the land of peace,wherein thou trustedst,they wearied thee, then how wilt though do in the swelling of the Jordan?

Do you really think I cannot provide pages of references of gifted men who take the same position I do. However, if I did, you would simply scoff at them and claim they are "Landmarkers." For example the early particular British Baptists in their minutes up to 1660 take the same position as I do. I could give many examples of men who were well admired among American Baptists from the early 1700's up to the beginning of the 19th century (before Graves) who take the same position I do. But to what avail would that be? Nothing, as you equally scoff at them as you do at me.

I stand on the solid exegesis of God's Word and it is "solid" because you can't refute it , but have to flee to your traditions to handle it and then your traditions don't provide sound exegetical principles either as they for the most part completely ignore the preceding context that leads up to 1 Cor. 12:13.

 

[The Biblicist]

Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
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.

1. Note the contrast between the audience and those speaking.

a. The audience defines "all" who are speaking to them as Galileans or those who live INSIDE Palestine.

b. The audience identify themselves as those who live OUTSIDE Palestine "every man in OUR OWN TONGUE" and then give the names of the countries they came from.

c. These are males who have come INTO palestine into Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover and Pentecost as commanded by Moses.

d. These are the ones being addressed by Peter

e. These are the ones that Peter charges with crucifying Christ as they were present during the crucifixion.

f. These are the ones that asked Peter what they must do (Acts 2:37)

g. These are the ones that Peter responds to that very question calling on them to repent.

h. These are not the disciples of John the Baptist who had been baptized by John IN Palestine over a year ago.

i. These are not the disciples of Christ who had been baptized IN Palestine long before the Passover.

CONCLUSION: Iconolast ignores the explicit contextual identity provided in the context and READS INTO this text what it neither says or even suggests but adamantly demands to be contrary to his whole theory.

2. The ONLY possible baptism existing when the Great Commission was given was the baptism of John. The ONLY possible baptism which Christ could "HAVE" commanded (Mt. 28:20) was the baptism of John. Thus, the only baptism promised to be administered by men to other men to the end of the age is the baptism of John.

a. There is no mention of any kind of new water baptism between Mt. 28:19 and Acts 2

b. There is no mention of anyone having to be rebaptized prior to Acts 2

c. The term "Christian" is never used to distinguish baptism after Pentecost from baptism before
Pentecost.


3. The rebaptism 20 years later in Acts 19 was not administered by John the Baptist.

a. John could not have possibly baptized them as they lived 20 years or more after the ministry of
John the Baptist and they are spoken of as newly found disciples in Ephesus.

b. John preached the Holy Spirit but these did not even know about Him.

c. They were asked "unto" (Gr. eis "into" "in" with reference to) WHOM or "what person" (Gr. autous "he" "him" ) were they baptized. They replied "unto" (Gr. eis "into" in" with reference to) John (John's name stands first in the text a the immediate object of the preposition) or a baptism characterized by John (anathrous construct can convey characterization).

d. However, John baptized "unto" (Gr. eis "into" "in" with reference to) Christ not in reference to himself. When they hear that John did not baptism "eis" with reference to himself but to Christ, they realized they did not have John's baptism.

CONCLUSION: This cannot be used as a proof text against the baptism of John as Paul corrects them about the very nature of John's baptism. Moreover, Paul demands that John required both repentance and faith in Christ as John's own words demand in John 3;36.

The above exposition still stands firm as no one yet has provided any explicit clear contextual based evidence to overthrow it.