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

[Iconoclast]

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).

Here is a classic example......I never said Jesus did that,did I?
I used Hebrews 9 to show Jews were familiar with various washings....
Jn and lk that you quote are fine......but they are before the cross and before the King comes to Zion.......they are before the Great Commission was given ,post cross , post resurrection . ....Jesus has ALL authority to command a completely NEW BAPTISM . .....sorry if it does not fit your narrow little narrative that you have repeated 6 or 7 times now....
There is nothing irrational here at all....there is your unwillingness to consider something outside your box.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is a classic example......I never said Jesus did that,did I?
I used Hebrews 9 to show Jews were familiar with various washings....
Jn and lk that you quote are fine......but they are before the cross and before the King comes to Zion.......they are before the Great Commission was given ,post cross , post resurrection . ....Jesus has ALL authority to command a completely NEW BAPTISM . .....sorry if it does not fit your narrow little narrative that you have repeated 6 or 7 times now....
There is nothing irrational here at all....there is your unwillingness to consider something outside your box.

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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

The above has been answered.....you do not like the answers.....the tern Christian was not used until recorded in acts 11, the great commission baptism answered twice.....you just do not agree....

 

[The Biblicist]

The above has been answered.....you do not like the answers.....the tern Christian was not used until recorded in acts 11, the great commission baptism answered twice.....you just do not agree....

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Can you show any earlier statement offering that baptismal formula? no you cannot.....are you saying that after the cross.....the message preached concerning the salvation and Kingdom was not quite different ?
That is quite irrational if you ask me...

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Again you do this.......you asked for a text that uses the term christian baptism, before the term was recorded in scripture acts 11...

Using your own logic.....if Christians exist before the recorded use of the term.....and they did.....then I would submit so did Christian baptism....game set and match.......checkmate!

 

[Iconoclast]

I am content to let the readers decide and use whatever they find helpful

 

[The Biblicist]

Can you show any earlier statement offering that baptismal formula? no you cannot.....are you saying that after the cross.....the message preached concerning the salvation and Kingdom was not quite different ?
That is quite irrational if you ask me...

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again you do this.......you asked for a text that uses the term christian baptism, before the term was recorded in scripture acts 11...

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!

 

[The Biblicist]

I am content to let the readers decide and use whatever they find helpful

A hearty AMEN!

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Lol....How many times does Jesus have to teach something for it to be authoritative?
Jesus only mentioned being born from above as recorded in jn 3.....did he have to repeat it.....
It was Jesus who brought a full revelation of the Father and Spirit.

For you to jump back before the cross after the Mt 28 passage is quite foolish......

 

[The Biblicist]

Lol....How many times does Jesus have to teach something for it to be authoritative?

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.

For you to jump back before the cross after the Mt 28 passage is quite foolish......

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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

OT saints before the NT. are OT.saints.......after he cross they are described with us in Hebrews 12:22-24.......with us....which you said was mystical remember?....so now you want to cover it over...as you and others who believe as you do dislike both hebrews 12 and eph 5.....lest you slip into the dreaded universal church.....which you accused me of 6 or 7 times even after I flat out told you I only not hold to it.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

And yet, John Murray, and Matthew Henry used the same exact texts I used in the same way......does that bother you B......I have not found any orthodox person who teaches what you do.......millions of people read their bibles and yet only you and a few persons see it as the truth...

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

You can make the accusation of absurdity all you want to.
I believe your error is making the great ministry of John the Baptist as great as it was . ....you exalt it over and above the overall eternal purpose of God in Christ.....made known to the church.
John himself pointed forward to Jesus ministry and baptism . ...with the Spirit that you are squeamish about.....
You divorce all of this teaching as offered by godly teachers given to the church.....those uninspired men as you like to call them....and offer your uninspired thoughts and error in its place.
No....while I consider your thoughts and objections.....the other men see the scriptures different than you do.

 

[The Biblicist]

And yet, John Murray, and Matthew Henry used the same exact texts I used in the same way......does that bother you B......I have not found any orthodox person who teaches what you do.......millions of people read their bibles and yet only you and a few persons see it as the truth...

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

You can make the accusation of absurdity all you want to.
I believe your error is making the great ministry of John the Baptist as great as it was . ....you exalt it over and above the overall eternal purpose of God in Christ.....made known to the church.
John himself pointed forward to Jesus ministry and baptism . ...with the Spirit that you are squeamish about.....
You divorce all of this teaching as offered by godly teachers given to the church.....those uninspired men as you like to call them....and offer your uninspired thoughts and error in its place.
No....while I consider your thoughts and objections.....the other men see the scriptures different than you do.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

OT saints before the NT. are OT.saints.......after he cross they are described with us in Hebrews 12:22-24.......with us....which you said was mystical remember?....so now you want to cover it over...as you and others who believe as you do dislike both hebrews 12 and eph 5.....lest you slip into the dreaded universal church.....which you accused me of 6 or 7 times even after I flat out told you I only not hold to it.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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?

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Believing Padeo baptists are.my brothers. I do not discount them.
Pastor Culver is a sovereign Grace baptist....Pastor Downing , pastor Martin , Geoff Thomas, James White and many more I use are quite solid . ..you can call any.of them if you.like.....they will help you if you would welcome the help.....
None of them agree with you.....no.....not one.