A question of authority

[preacher4truth]

Watermaker,

I am baptized.

I was baptized via a Baptist minister, immersed in water.

Do you accept my being Baptized by a Baptist minister as being Scriptural, or not?

I know where the coC stands on this. They say it is unscriptural.

 

[annsni]

Act 26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Lastly, note that though Agrippa believed, and Paul knew he did, he was still not a Christian.

What did Agrippa believe? Did he believe on Jesus Christ for salvation - or did he believe the Old Testament prophecy?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Again, very poor reasoning, sir. As we look through the book of Acts, we find that in nearly every conversion account, baptism is in fact, mentioned.

Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Notice the text doesn't even say that they believed, repented, or confessed. I don't suggest that they didn't, though.

Act 4:4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Baptism, repentance, and confession all left out. I still contend that they happened.

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Repentance and confession omitted. Still necessary.

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.


No comment.

Act 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Act 13:12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.

Repentance, confession, and baptism all left out. Should we assume none were required or done? Don't be silly!

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Act 17:34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Act 26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Lastly, note that though Agrippa believed, and Paul knew he did, he was still not a Christian.

Let us look at this through the lense of the overall Bibical context of divine external rites. God had external rites throughout the 4,000 years of history prior tot he cross as well as after the cross.

However, Jesus claimed that there was but one way of salvation prior to the cross (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6) and it is the same way, same gospel, same Savior after the cross (Acts 4:12; 10:43; 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; Rom. 3:24-26; 10:16; Gal. 1:8-9; 3:8; etc.). The only difference is previous to the cross it was progressive in revelation and after the cross it was fulfilled revelation. However, the same gospel (Heb. 4:2) and the same way (Mt. 7:13-14 with vv. 21-23) and the same Savior (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12).

Remission of sins is explicitly said to be by faith through "believing in his name" prior to the coming of Jesus as the Christ (Acts 10:43) and yet there were external divine rites from Genesis 3 to the cross all of which were accompanied by the language of redemption "for sins" and "for cleansing" etc.

Hebrews 10:4 denies that the langauge of redemption/remission of sins that accompanied the external divine rites was to be understood literally and applied literally in connection with those external ceremonial rites. They are called a "shadow" but not the very "image" which casts the shadow. (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:16). Thus they were a "figure" (1 Pet. 3:21).

Paul denies that "circumcision" literally justified/saved Abraham but Abraham had his sins remitted and righteousness imputed by faith (Rom. 4:5-8) before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:11). Circumcision was the external rite ordained by God but was only a "sign" or a "seal" of something already obtained internally by Abraham and most importantly without any connection in time or administration of circumcision. Yet, redemptive langauge is directly connected with circumcision and the sacrifices and other ceremonial ordinances in the Old Testament just as it is with baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Hence, the issue is not whether redemptive langauge accompanies the "shadows" and "figures" of redemption as that must be the case or else the shadows are not shadows and the figures are not figures of the truth of redemption. The issue is whether the figures and shadows as external divine rites literally or figuratively obtain remission of sins.

More specifically, does regeneration occur prior or during administration of these shadow and "seal" and "sign" external ordinances??

Paul says that "with the heart man believeth" (Rom. 10:10) followed by profession with the mouth all of which must precede baptism or else you would have no idea who you should baptize do you???? John demanded "fruits of repentance" before he would baptize some (Mt. 3:6-8) and "fruits" are evidences that repentance has already occurred.


However, the heart of the unregenerated man described in Ephesians 4:18 cannot repent or believe but is in darkness and denial and that must change before any profession with the mouth is authentic.

Here is your dilemma as I see it. Do you baptize unregenerated, unrepentant, unbelievers or do you baptize those who have already have a believing and repenting heart and have already professed that is their internal condition??? The point is that the condition described in Ephesians 4:18 cannot possibly change in or during baptism as you would be baptizing unrepentant, unbeleivers. The change of heart must have occurred previous to baptism or you do not have any profession to determine they are proper subjects for baptism and that change of heart is called regeneration (Ezek. 36:26 with 2 Cor. 3:3-6). Regeneration is the opposite condition described in Ephesians 4:18. The condition described in Ephesians 4:18 must change BEFORE you can baptize them or else you have no basis to baptize them as there can be no heart obedience as described in Romans 10:10 and therefore no profession with the mouth to identify the proper subject for baptism.

My point is that God has never designed external ordinances to literally save anyone, to regenerate anyone or to be administered in connection with regeneration but they are designed to be "signs" and "seals" of an already regenerate condition. They convey remission of sins figuratively as a "shadow" which conveys the outline of the "very image" but dones not obtain "the very image." The shadow or figure remits sins figuratively as a "sign" and "seal" of what literally does remit sins and that is Christ and His work received through faith (Acts 10:43). Philip would not baptize the Eunuch until he confessed Christ (Acts 8:35-37). Repentance and Faith always precedes baptism (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 41). Baptism came after the house of Corneilus already believed the gospel and already possessed the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The theif on the cross went to heaven without submission to any external divine rites.

Ephesians 4:18 describes the unregenerated condition of men. Do you baptize such persons described in that condition? Or do you baptize persons described with such a heart as in Romans 10:10? The heart in Romans 10:10 is the only heart that gives authentic basis for confession with the mouth and without that profession how do you know who to baptize?

 

[Watermaker]

Watermaker,

I am baptized.

I was baptized via a Baptist minister, immersed in water.

Do you accept my being Baptized by a Baptist minister as being Scriptural, or not?

I know where the coC stands on this. They say it is unscriptural.

It really doesn't matter whether I accept your baptism as Scriptural or not, sir. Did your understanding of your baptism agree with the Scriptural meaning and purpose of it? Did you understand that it was for the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38)? Was it to place you into Christ where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3)? Was it so that you could rise to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4)? Was it to call upon the name of the Lord and have your sins washed away (Acts 22:16)? Was it to be saved (1 Pet 3:21)?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, I'd say you had a Scriptural baptism. But again, it doesn't really matter what I think. I'm not the Judge.

 

[webdog]

It really doesn't matter whether I accept your baptism as Scriptural or not, sir. Did your understanding of your baptism agree with the Scriptural meaning and purpose of it? Did you understand that it was for the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38)? Was it to place you into Christ where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3)? Was it so that you could rise to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4)? Was it to call upon the name of the Lord and have your sins washed away (Acts 22:16)? Was it to be saved (1 Pet 3:21)?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, I'd say you had a Scriptural baptism. But again, it doesn't really matter what I think. I'm not the Judge.

You say you are not the judge, but in order for it to be "Scriptural" we need to answer "yes" to your questions. That sure sounds like you are being the judge.

Praise God it's not based on what you would say!

 

[Dr. Walter]

It really doesn't matter whether I accept your baptism as Scriptural or not, sir. Did your understanding of your baptism agree with the Scriptural meaning and purpose of it? Did you understand that it was for the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38)? Was it to place you into Christ where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3)? Was it so that you could rise to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4)? Was it to call upon the name of the Lord and have your sins washed away (Acts 22:16)? Was it to be saved (1 Pet 3:21)?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, I'd say you had a Scriptural baptism. But again, it doesn't really matter what I think. I'm not the Judge.

You simply do not know what you are talking about. I challenge you to deal honestly and objectively with my last post IF YOU CAN?

 

[preacher4truth]

You say you are not the judge, but in order for it to be "Scriptural" we need to answer "yes" to your questions. That sure sounds like you are being the judge.

Praise God it's not based on what you would say!

I called him out with a direct question that he will not answer for obvious reasons. He sounds angry to me. This usually happens when we approach the real truth of those who think we are heretical and who come under the guise of unity.

He doesn't accept my Scriptural Baptism, nor any other that is not from the coC. To him it is unscriptural unless he or another coC administers it. That's the bottom line. Thus, he will not answer. And you're right webdog, he wants us to answer all of his nonsense. It's not about doing so in light of all the Scritures he presents. It's "...what was the name on the sign?" It's "...who administered it?" And, "...for what reason?" And on and on and on and on.

They call our baptism, "alien immersion" and unscriptural. He wants "unity" while he mocks our baptism as unscriptural. OK.

I already know his answer, but wanted to see how real he would be. I found out.

I have been forthright in all of my dialogue, and truthful. He's hiding. Interesting.

 

[Zenas]

I wish I had an answer for you, Zenas. I'm not familiar with the website. It could be that some don't make as big an issue over the "big C - little c" thing. My view/understanding of the difference between is that the church is subservient to Christ. Christ is the Head. To me, to capitalize the c in church and make it Church is to make it equal to Christ, which it's not. Christ is perfect, the church is not (I'm in it, after all).

I hope that answers your question.

How could you not be familiar with your own church's website? Here is what I'm talking about: http://needmorecoc.org/

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How could you not be familiar with your own church's website? Here is what I'm talking about: http://needmorecoc.org/

I like the picture of an empty parking lot. Anyone planning on taking the last train there by any chance?

 

[Amy.G]

Watermaker,

I am baptized.

I was baptized via a Baptist minister, immersed in water.

Do you accept my being Baptized by a Baptist minister as being Scriptural, or not?

I know where the coC stands on this. They say it is unscriptural.

No siree you ain't saved young man! Baptists are harrytics ya know!

 

[preacher4truth]

No siree you ain't saved young man! Baptists are harrytics ya know!

Is that you Amy, waving your Bible?


LOL...harrytic huh?

 

[Amy.G]

Is that you Amy, waving your Bible?


LOL...harrytic huh?

Yes. I've not aged very well. Some get better with age. I just turned into an old curmudgeon. :laugh:

 

[Salty]

I just looked at the COC website and and this block in it: God's Plan of Salvation:
************
God's Plan of Salvation:

Hear: Romans 10:17
Believe: John 3:16
Repent: Acts 17:30
Confess: Rom. 10:9-10
Be Baptized: Acts 2:38
Be Faithful: Rev. 2:10
************

I was under the impression that the COC did not considerd you saved until baptism. Now this church, I suppose, adds faithfulness as a condition of salvation.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

---Snip---
Now this church, I suppose, adds faithfulness as a condition of salvation.

I suppose Faithfulness comes in when you think that *you* have to maintain your own salvation, and any lack of faithfulness means you *automatically* backslide to perdition...

I've been among some Pentecostals that were *that* scared away from God's Grace...

1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Under a works based system, you have to be perfect, but you live under a continual fear that you aren't and can't be perfect, which is the truth in the natural.

Which means that if you have to be perfect to be saved you are automatically not saved in a works based system because you have fear and are therefore not perfect!

The Amplified says this:
Eph 2:8 For it is by free grace (God's unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ's salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;

Eph 2:9 Not because of works [not the fulfillment of the Law's demands], lest any man should boast. [It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it or take glory to himself.]

Eph 2:10 For we are God's [own] handiwork (His workmanship), recreated in Christ Jesus, [born anew] that we may do those good works which God predestined (planned beforehand) for us [taking paths which He prepared ahead of time], that we should walk in them [living the good life which He prearranged and made ready for us to live].

It goes on to say:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were [so] far away, through (by, in) the blood of Christ have been brought near.

Eph 2:14 For He is [Himself] our peace (our bond of unity and harmony). He has made us both [Jew and Gentile] one [body], and has broken down (destroyed, abolished) the hostile dividing wall between us,

Eph 2:15 By abolishing in His [own crucified] flesh the enmity [caused by] the Law with its decrees and ordinances [which He annulled]; that He from the two might create in Himself one new man [one new quality of humanity out of the two], so making peace.

We are brought nigh to God by the Blood of Christ. Solely by the Blood of Christ.

And, He annulled the Law with it's degrees and ordinances.

The Gospel of Jesus is what brings Unity.

We are a diverse group.

And, when we divide asunder that which God intended to be made one in His Body, by insisting on adding to the Gospel Jesus, we do Jesus, not to mention ourselves, a disservice.

I love a good debate as much as the next.

But, when we get to a high level of contention we really need to decide whether that difference is worth the division, or if Peace in Jesus and His Finished work is *really* our hearts true desire?

Might want to reread Titus 3:1-5?

 

[windcatcher]

The unity of our faith lies in the acceptance of the scripture to be as it says.... and to use the word of God when teaching others or bringing the knowledge of Jesus Christ to them. The division occurs when we entertain a private interpretation and then politic to persuade others: we pick the scripture of our own choosing and then link them according to what pleases our motives (if we're not careful), add our spin... our own private interpretation to it.... then back away to see who approves, who opposes, .....chose the group we want to belong to...and then debate over nuisances which have more to do with our pride.. & flesh... & the appeal of man's approval & powers of persuasion.

It is sad & offensive to God... that we are so divisive... that we claim His word & then use it to abuse others with out any humble consideration: my opinion doesn't matter to God; our opinion doesn't matter to God. Where is His grace in these matters? Where is His spirit when we use our reasoning to persuade others? Where is our humbleness to study His word & rely on His persuasion & His spirit... & our yielding to Him anew each time we open the Bible?

Do we enter into His presence each time we open the word to read or to study? "Lord, speak to me afresh & speak to me through your word that I may be drawn closer to you!" Do we allow ourselves liberties & then deny the same to others?

One may come to a discussion board hoping that through our interactions with each other we ourselves may grow deeper in our understanding, surer in the persuasion of our conscience, exercised in the opening of the word.... both to others and by others: a mutual respect is accorded both ways...til there is evidence that there is no longer the respect accorded believers because discussion has moved beyond that to persuasion of doctrine & essentials of faith.

God is spirit & those who worship Him do so in spirit & in truth. Jesus told Nicodemus "ye must be born again"...then of two births... a distinction .... one of water... one of spirit: One temporal .... one spiritual and eternal. Nicodemus already had the temporal one...and wondered how he could be born again, temporally, to which Jesus had given this answer.

How is one saved? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ ...& you shall be saved." is the simpliest & most straight forward answer. All else which follows are either acts of the Holy Spirit which leads one to trust his finished work, to want to conform in obedience to the word in love with Jesus & adoration of Him as Lord & Savior... or following the teachings of man.

I propose that too often man pushes doctrine before scripture: Too often we move the new convert into doctrinal teaching and 'how to belong to this group' instead of Bible study designed to exercise his faith and the move of the spirit upon his heart to direct his life: We trust our persuasion instead of displaying our examples & being present with answers when questions arise through the supernatural work of the holy spirit in their growth. Preach and teach the word... and trust God to do that work within the heart of those who have sincerity of faith.

We live in a world where the evidence we look for is temporal...& our reasoning & judgment is often bound by our own limitations of flesh: But, the work of God is spiritual, drawing us & holding us into relationship with Him. There is no way to merit God's grace or to earn salvation: It is by His spirit we are kept & sealed in that cleft of the rock of safety.

I followed Jesus in the act of baptism as the result of his act of salvation and the change in my heart which caused me to want to be more like him in obedience to my Heavenly Father..... a desire which has yet to be perfected.

 

[preacher4truth]

Yes. I've not aged very well. Some get better with age. I just turned into an old curmudgeon. :laugh:

CURMUDGEON. 1. archaic: miser. 2: a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man

You turned into a DUDE?

Now you can PASTOR, Scripturally even!!!!



I'm certain someone has a proof text against this. :smilewinkgrin:

The amazing thing about this whole thread, to me is, watermaker refuses to admit that he feels my baptism is unscriptural, and that he in turn deems all other Baptists baptisms unscriptural, (yours, mine, everyones) because of who administered it, and under what church sign, basically because it was not him or the coC.

Falsehood hides it's true intent when confronted with truth.

 

[Amy.G]

CURMUDGEON. 1. archaic: miser. 2: a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man

You turned into a DUDE?

Now you can PASTOR, Scripturally even!!!!



I'm certain someone has a proof text against this. :smilewinkgrin:

The amazing thing about this whole thread, to me is, watermaker refuses to admit that he feels my baptism is unscriptural, and that he in turn deems all other Baptists baptisms unscriptural, (yours, mine, everyones) because of who administered it, and under what church sign, basically because it was not him or the coC.

Falsehood hides it's true intent when confronted with truth.

I should have said curmudgeonette. :tongue3:


I'm so thankful my salvation rests on the work of Christ and not my own!

:jesus: SAVES

 

[preacher4truth]

I should have said curmudgeonette. :tongue3:


I'm so thankful my salvation rests on the work of Christ and not my own!

:jesus: SAVES

You have a new nickname!



I am glad, also.

:thumbs:

 

[Watermaker]

I called him out with a direct question that he will not answer for obvious reasons. He sounds angry to me. This usually happens when we approach the real truth of those who think we are heretical and who come under the guise of unity.

No sir! I'm not angry, I promise! You might be reading some emotions into my posts that aren't there, and that's okay. I feel like you guys are angry with me, too sometimes. I'm sorry if you thought I was angry with you.

He doesn't accept my Scriptural Baptism, nor any other that is not from the coC. To him it is unscriptural unless he or another coC administers it. That's the bottom line.

As I've said before, I'm less concerned with who administers or aids in baptism than with what the subject of baptism believes about it. What did you believe you were being baptized for? I can't answer that question.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No sir! I'm not angry, I promise! You might be reading some emotions into my posts that aren't there, and that's okay. I feel like you guys are angry with me, too sometimes. I'm sorry if you thought I was angry with you.



As I've said before, I'm less concerned with who administers or aids in baptism than with what the subject of baptism believes about it. What did you believe you were being baptized for? I can't answer that question.

He should have been baptized for public identification with the gospel of Jesus Christ as he repented and beleived in the gospel of Christ and confessed it with his mouth PREVIOUS to baptism. It is based upon that profession with the mouth of what occurred in his heart that he is even recognized as a proper subject for baptism.

Here is your problem - the unregenerated heart is described in Ephesians 4;18 and it is not a believing heart. Moreover, it is in a darkened understanding because it is SEPARATED FROM THE LIFE OF GOD - spiritually dead. THIS IS NOT THE HEART IN ROMANS 10:10. The heart in Romans 10:10 is a CHANGED heart from that in Ephesians 4:18 and it does not take a genuis to see that.

Repentance is a "CHANGE" - (1) Change from unbelief to belief in Christ; (2) change from the love of darkness and sin to a love for righteousness; (3) change of unwillingness to willingness to obey God. This CHANGE is something only God can do INSIDE you and its described in Ezekiel 36:26-27 and in 2 Cor. 3:3-6 called a CHANGE of heart or regeneration. The unregenerated heart will not believe (Rom. 8:7) and when a man believes with the heart it is because it is no longer SEPARATED FROM THE LIFE OF GOD - no longer is the understanding darkened - no longer unregenerated.

One must first have a BELIEVING HEART before they can confess with the mouth and therefore such a believing heart precedes baptism.

Baptism, like the Lord's Supper, like all the ceremonial exteral rites God ordained previously are but a "shadow" or a "sign" or a "seal" of something already performed by God alone inside man - change of heart = regeneration.