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

Your explanation is no more rational than your first statement. First, the text contradicts your premise as the text says "all things whatsoever I HAVE" commanded. In light of that very command, he would have to make a clear stated explanation that would say to the effect "EXCEPT for baptism as previously commanded" but the text does not even suggest such a radial idea.

 

Your response here is so irrational that it hardly believable that you really mean what you are saying. Didn't you read my response to this irrational idea? If not, let me restate by asking a very simple question. Are you then declaring that no Christians existed previous to Acts 11 as that is the very conclusion your use of this text in this argument demands.

If not, then you have repudiated your very use of the text,as that is admission one can be a true "Christian" in the true sense of this term without the actual use of the term.

It is these kind of responses that characterize your defense. My position has not been touched by your arguments as they are as superficial and false as this one and I have demonstrated that and any objective reader can easily see.

 

Look at yourself. Your argument has been proven false and superficial and all you do is simply ignore you are wrong and then pick up another silly and aprrational argument to take its place.

I will show you how irrational this new argument is by asking another very simple question. Can you find ANYWHERE in Acts or the epistles where the precise wording found in Matthew 28:19-20 is every once repeated?

John the Baptist believed in a Triune God and I have documented that in detail. He claimed his AUTHORITY for administering baptism was by God - a Triune God. Acts 4:7 demonstrates the current view of doing something "in the name" of someone. It means by the authority given by the one commanding them to do that Jesus authorized his congregation to administer baptism "in the name of" the true God, or by HIS AUTHORITY and that is what they did. All you find in the book of Acts are statements to that effect "in the name of Jesus" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or "in the name of Christ" meaning in keeping with the authority found in the true God as the baptism of John was the "counsel of God" (Lk. 7:29) and the basis for the authority of Christ's own ministry, as when Christ was challenged about who gave him authority to conduct his ministry, what was his reply??? His reply the baptism of John, was it from heaven or from men. Why? Because his ministry began with submission to heavenly authorized baptism which is the FIRST STEP in service or ministry for God. Go think about this.

 

Yes, because YOU first denied pre-pentecost baptism was "Christian" baptism and my response is try to find a Post-Pentecost baptism that is called "Christian" in distinction from what your position denies can be Christian prior to Pentecost. Thus it was YOU that began this DENIAL that prePentecost baptism was "christian" and that "Christian" began on the day of Pentecost and so I called your hand, to prove that the New Testament ever used the term Christian to distinguish the two from one another. I maintained both were equally "Christian" and then you went to Acts 11 argument. So checkmate brother!

 

A hearty AMEN!

 

Oh, so all the accounts are disobedience to his command. However, that is not the point. The point is that your whole position denies the "have" in Matthew 28:19-20 and you have NOTHING to base this is a new kind of baptism upon as you cannot disprove John baptized in the name of the triune God - meaning - as authorized by God.

Your arguments are inconsistent with both the text (Mt. 28:19-20) and the practice of Jesus. Your position demands that he is not commanding them to observe "all things" that he previously commanded and thus your theory is absurd and inconsistent with the plain meaning of both the text and His practice.

Of course, if I held your presuppositions, but I don't. Here is another example of circular reasoning. All of your arguments have been superificial, inconsistent and violations of the context and texts that you have used.

 

I am not surprised your sources listed above are non-baptist paedobaptists as so is your doctrine. Of course, you define the term "orthodox" don't you? Like I said, all the Particular Baptists in England up to 1660 interpreted 1 Cor. 12:13, Romans 6, etc. as water baptism. Dr. J.M. Pendleton, Dr. Boyce H. Taylor, Dr. T.P. Simmons and I could go on and on listing credentialed men who do. But as I said, you will simply scoff at them while worshipping at the feet of paedobaptists.

 

I could care less about your opinion, assertions and traditions. If you can't defend your position with indisputable contextual based evidence you need to bow out and let someone who can.

 

I have dealt with Hebrew 12 in a detailed expository and exegetical fashion pointing out the use of the perfect tenses and comparison with the Jewish ekklesia at Mount Sinai. You couldn't respond then and you can't now, so you just reassert proven error.

 

I thought you were satisfied to just allow the readers to decide? Instead, you continue with just assertions that are as void of contextual based evidence as when you first made them. What happened with your contentment?