Alien Baptism

[TCassidy]

You ignore the greater, one body

Already dealt with. The body is "fitly joined together. Your "body" is just parts. Part here. Part there. But not together.

You never addressed why Jesus uses the word, "church" singular

Already answered.

not the building

So, when Paul was addressing the church at Ephesus in Ephesians 2:21 (In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord) he was wrong?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Nobody has yet explained to me what an unassembled assembly is.

I trust that you agree that the ekklesia is people, not bricks and mortar. Well on Monday morning, you are not assembled with your brothers and sisters, but you are still part of the ekklesia and you are being built in to the 'holy temple of the Lord' described in Ephesians 2:19-21. So it is with the Universal Church. If you understand Inaugurated Eschatology, you will know that there is a sense in which we are already seated together in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6 etc.). But the full realization comes when we are part of that great crowd of Revelation 7:9ff.

Nobody has yet explained to me what an unjoined body is.

It is sad that that is exactly what you seem to be promoting. The Lord Jesus prayed that His disciples might be one (John 17:20-21). Since it is our Lord who prayed that prayer, we may be assured that it has been answered, not in an organic sense as the Church of Rome claims, but in a spiritual sense, that wherever I am in the world, I can find believers and enjoy fellowship with them. The body is already 'joined' and it is unfortunate that your ecclesiology seeks to wrench it apart. 'What God has joined together, let not man separate.'

Nobody has yet explained to me what an unbuilt building is.

The Lord Jesus is building His Church today, but it goes without saying that until He returns the building must inevitably be incomplete, as there are still more living stones to be added.

Still waiting for answers.

Well now you have them.

 

[TCassidy]

Well on Monday morning, you are not assembled with your brothers and sisters,

Yep, and when we are not assembled, we are not assembled. Perfect logic. The assembly is assembled only when it is assembled.

It is sad that that is exactly what you seem to be promoting.

Then you have utterly failed to understand what I have said over and over and over again. You apply your own incorrect understanding of "body" to my statement, knowing (I suspect) that you are using the word in a different way then I am. (Which seems to me to be just a bit disingenuous.)

The Lord Jesus prayed that His disciples might be one (John 17:20-21).

Yes, we are to be one in him. One in the Spirit. One in the Son.

The Lord Jesus is building His Church today, but it goes without saying that until He returns the building must inevitably be incomplete, as there are still more living stones to be added.

Perhaps your church is incomplete. Mine is not. It is mature, lacking nothing necessary to the whole. It is the assembled company of saints with the pastors and deacons, just as the bible says.

Well now you have them.

Nope, not yet.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yep, and when we are not assembled, we are not assembled. Perfect logic. The assembly is assembled only when it is assembled.

Just so. But when you are not assembled you are still part of the assembly Your church does not cease to be because it is not holding a service at a given time. Likewise the Universal church does not cease to be because it is not meeting, although, as I wrote and you did not answer, there is a sense in which we are already meeting, seated together in the heavenlies.

Then you have utterly failed to understand what I have said over and over and over again. You apply your own incorrect understanding of "body" to my statement, knowing (I suspect) that you are using the word in a different way then I am. (Which seems to me to be just a bit disingenuous.)

You're getting very grumpy these days. I have looked through this thread looking for your definition of 'body' but what I've found mostly is failed attempts at one or two line slap-downs to people who disagree with you. If you have the immense wisdom and experience of which you are constantly telling us, you should maybe be following the example of 2 Timothy 2:24-25.

Yes, we are to be one in him. One in the Spirit. One in the Son.

Amen! But not just in our own assemblies, but one with all of God's people (cf. Romans 16:1-2). If the 'one body, one Spirit' of Ephesians 4:4 applies to each church individually, then does every church have its own 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (v.5)?

Perhaps your church is incomplete. Mine is not. It is mature, lacking nothing necessary to the whole. It is the assembled company of saints with the pastors and deacons, just as the bible says.

Wonderful! Wouldn't it be a shame to spoil it by evangelizing and bringing sinners into it? My church is not complete; there is a whole load of unsaved folk out there needing to be brought in.

Nope, not yet.

That, I think, may be your problem. No ears to hear.

 

[TCassidy]

But when you are not assembled you are still part of the assembly Your church does not cease to be because it is not holding a service at a given time.

And herein lies the primary problem. You fail to understand the word translated "church" (which is a terrible translation, a word with absolutely no etymological connection to εκκλησια which means "assembly." The etymology of "church" is "kirk" and "kirke" rooted in κυριοσ and meaning "the Lord's.").

A much better word, both etymologically and philologically, is "congregation" which includes the idea of "congregated" or "meeting together."

The Lord's assembly is only assembled when it is assembled.

The Lord's congregation is only congregated when it congregates.

If you have the immense wisdom and experience of which you are constantly telling us

I wasn't aware I had made any great claims to wisdom, but if it makes you feel better, pile on!

But not just in our own assemblies, but one with all of God's people

And I have never suggested otherwise. I just know better than to call that uncongregated mass a "congregation."

I call it what the bible calls it (now there is an odd thing, actually using bible terms), The Family of God.

Wouldn't it be a shame to spoil it by evangelizing and bringing sinners into it?

If that is what you are doing, shame on you. The Great commission is paramount! The three-fold command of Christ in the Gospel of John is, 1. Abide in Christ, 2. Love one another, 3. Evangelize the world. That is non-negotiable. If you are not doing that you are not a true church.

No ears to hear.

Nothing worth listening to. The same failure to understand that εκκλησια means "assembly" and that an unassembled assembly is an oxymoron.

 

[Yeshua1]

If someone professes saving faith in Christ, has proof of believer's baptism by immersion, and passes the interview process at the IFB Baptist church they are attempting to join, I don't see how an IFB church can insist that they get re-baptized.

I was baptized when I was 13 years old, I still have the certificate, and I'm a professing believer. If I wanted to join your church and you wanted to re-baptize me, I would leave.

Yes, as the requirement should be believers Baptism, by Immersion, regarding if done by SBC/IFB Baptist church, as that person would meet the biblcal requirements of Christian baptism!

 

[The Biblicist]

Re-baptism of a believer is unscriptural and has no place in the life of a church.

That depends on what they claim is baptism! A believer may be sprinkled but that is not baptism. A believer may have been poured upon but that is not baptism. A believer may have been immersed by a Catholic priest but that is not baptism as authority to administer baptism is given to "discples" of Christ who are like faith and order with Christ in the same gospel, same baptism and same basic faith and order (Mt. 28:19-20).

Another thing, the phrase "in Christ" has several different applications in scripture. The most obvious one is our spiritual union with Christ by regeneration (Eph. 2:10a). However, it is also used to describe the metaphorical body of Christ the local congregation made up of PHYSICAL bodies of the believers (1 Cor. 6:17-19; 12:27). So baptized "in" or "into" Christ with regard to water baptism does not bring us into spiritual union with Christ (baptismal regeneration) but into the congregational "body of Christ".

Another thing, every example in the book of Acts where baptism in water is found is administered by a disciple that is not merely like faith and order with Christ in the Great Commission essentials (Mt. 28:19-20 with Acts 2:40-41) but were administrators within a New Testament Congregation. Philip baptized the Samaritans and the congregation at Jerusalem followed up (acts 8:14) and the results were congregations in Samaria (Act 9:31 interpreted in connection with Gal. 1:22 "churches"). The congregation followed up on the baptism by its members in Antioch and consequence was a New Testament congregation (Acts 11:19-27). Why would the Eunuch be any different? When you have clear precepts (Mt. 28:19-20) followed by clear example (Acts 2:40-41) why would you choose to interpret the Eunuch based upon SILENCE any differently? Can you find anywhere in the conversation between Philip and the Enuch where Philip had mentioned baptism?? No! So the argument based on silence is wrought with difficulty even with baptism.

I agree with our poster that baptism is a congregational ordinance, but not just any congregation, but the congregation that is like faith and order WIITH CHRIST in the gospel, in baptism, and in essential doctrine and practice. The only place where authority to baptize is addressed in Scripture is Matthew 28:18-20 and in that text there are three groups of people identified:

1. "ye"
2."all nations"
3. "them"

Who did Jesus give authority to administer water baptism unto? Not the lost "all nations." Not unbaptized untaught believers ("them") but only to "ye" who are "disciples" which have been discipled or followers of Christ in the same "gospel" same "baptism" and same faith and order, as the contextual "ye" had already been through the threefold process listed in Matthew 28:19-20. They had been gone to with the gospel by John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-22), they had been baptized by John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-22; Lk. 7:29-30). They had been taught how to observe all things commanded by Christ for the past three and half years (Acts 1:21-22) in a congregational body of baptized believers.

The difference between just getting wet and being baptized is that baptism is administered "in the name of Christ." That does not refer to mere verbalization as in "I baptize you in the name of......" followed by immersion. That means the baptism is administered in keeping with the commands of Christ or how Christ authorized it to be performed and he never authorized unbelievers ("all nations") or unbaptized believers ("them") or believers who do not identify with a teaching observing assembly that is like faith and order with Christ ("them"). The authorized administrator is one that goes with the same gospel Christ preached, administers the same baptism that Christ administered and teaches the same faith and practice Christ commanded to be observed - or congregations of like faith and order AS SEEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Notice it is the same kind of "ye" that goes with the gospel that is authorized to administer baptism.
Notice it is the same kind of "ye" that teaches them how to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded that is authorized to administer baptism. Christ does not want believers in him to publicly identify with any other kind as all other kinds are APOSTATES from the faith (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17).

If you claimed to be saved and then invited us to the Roman Catholic Church in order to be sprinkled, poured or immersed what does that public identification with that administrator loudly proclaim? It proclaims you are a Roman Catholic in doctrine and practice or why else choose to publically identify with that particular denominational administrator??? If you chose a Methodist or a Prebyterian, etc., Christ does not want any of his people to publicaly identify with any public institution but his kind, which are identified by the same gospel, same baptism and same faith and order he commanded and which are illustrated throughout the new Testament.

To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be baptized so that person identifies with Christ in the gospel, Christ in baptism and Christ in congregational observance of all things commanded.

Beleif in the gospel gets one into heaven, whereas water baptism is the prerequisite that gets one into the church. The former has to do with salvation while the latter has to do with service.

The plural "ye" authorized are identified in acts 1:21-22 as the congregational body of Christ wherein each member has already been through the same threefold process outlined in the Great Commission with regard to the SAME gospel, SAME baptism and SAME faith and order. That threefold process is how one is MADE A DISCIPLE of Christ and that is ONLY KIND of disciple that are authorized by Christ to be produced by his congregations.

 

[The Biblicist]

Another thing, the "baptism of repentance" is simply a baptism that are requires both faith in Christ and repentance toward God as prerequisites for baptism. John demanded "fruits of repentance" prior to baptism thus making it a "baptism of repentance." John demanded faith in the coming Christ as prerequisite for baptism (Acts 19:4). John believed in the TRIUNE God and baptized in the name or by the authority or as directed by that TRIUNE God. John's baptism was the "counsel of God" (Lk. 7:29-30) which Jesus submitted unto (Mt. 3:15-17) and administered to others through his disciples (Jn. 4:1-2) and it is was the only possible existing baptism in water when the Great Commission was given. There is no record of Christ being rebaptized and to claim to follow Christ in baptism while rejecting the baptism of John as "Christ"-ian baptism is oxymoronic. There is no record of the apostles or any of the 120 listed in Acts 1:15 ever being rebaptized.

Acts 19 occurs over 20 years later and is about those baptized by an unauthorized administrator - Apollos, who himself had proper baptism and was not rebaptized. However, he did not have authority to administer baptism, much less administer it in the name of John - which these were baptized in the name of John or "unto John." John the Baptized baptized in the name of Christ or with reference to faith in Christ - Acts 19:4.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That depends on what they claim is baptism! A believer may be sprinkled but that is not baptism. A believer may have been poured upon but that is not baptism

I refer you to my post #60.

 

[The Biblicist]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought the O.P. was asking whether someone who has been scripturally baptized should be re-baptized if he joins a certain type of church.

However, my definition of 'scriptural baptism' is that the baptism is done by immersion in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that the one baptized should have openly and credibly professed repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Beyond that, I think every church should examine new applicants for membership to ensure that they are truly regenerate and that they are in sympathy with the church constitution, but I see no scriptural warrant for re-baptizing people every time they join a church of a different denomination.

Can you find any example in the book of Acts or the epistles where the verbal formula "in the name of the Father; Son and Holy Spirit" occurred? Did the disciples under Christ baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as a verbal formula (Jn. 4:1). Was the counsel of God a baptism that was not administered in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Lk. 67:29-30)?

 

[TCassidy]

Can you find any example in the book of Acts or the epistles where the verbal formula "in the name of the Father; Son and Holy Spirit" occurred?

A proper understanding of synecdoche gives us:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 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.

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

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

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

 

[The Biblicist]

A proper understanding of synecdoche gives us:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 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.

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

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

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

A synecdoche is a possible interpretation. However, I wanted Martin to go deeper. Look at Acts 4:7 and notice how doing something "in the name" of someone was understood in New Testament times to mean as authorized by someone or by the authority of someone.

The argument is often made that the baptism of John was not administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and therefore was not "Christian" baptism. However, John did believe in the Triune God and did administer baptism as authorized by God = baptizing "in the name" of the Triune God. To baptize "in the name" of Jesus was to baptize as authorized by Christ or in keeping with his instructions, thus to baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

 

[TCassidy]

Look at Acts 4:7 and notice how doing something "in the name" of someone was understood in New Testament times to mean as authorized by someone or by the authority of someone.

Yes, that is what "in the name of" means. As in "stop in the name of the law!"

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Can you find any example in the book of Acts or the epistles where the verbal formula "in the name of the Father; Son and Holy Spirit" occurred?

Why do you ask? Have you found one?
It seems to me that we have a very clear command in Matthew 28 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I would be very reluctant to second-guess the Lord Jesus Christ. Wouldn't you? I would tend to agree with TCassidy and various commentators that the baptism 'in the name of the Lord' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' would be a synecdoche, which for those who don't know is a figure of speech where the part is named but the whole is understood, or vice versa. eg. 'I employ two hired hands.' 'I have just bought myself some new wheels.'

Did the disciples under Christ baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as a verbal formula (Jn. 4:1).

I don't think we are told how the disciples baptized before the Great Commission.

Was the counsel of God a baptism that was not administered in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Lk. 67:29-30)?

Unfortunately my Bible has only 24 chapters of Luke, not 67. I assume you mean Luke 7. Clearly, God's will was that people should undergo John's baptism at the time when John was preaching. It was a baptism of repentance (Luke 3:3), but was not likely to have been Trinitarian. Therefore one assumes that many of the people baptized in Acts 2:41ff would have previously been baptized by John but needed a Trinitarian baptism. Likewise the men in Acts 19.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't think we are told how the disciples baptized before the Great Commission.

Unfortunately my Bible has only 24 chapters of Luke, not 67. I assume you mean Luke 7.

lol, no, my Bible doesn't have 67 chapters in the book of Luke either and yes, I did mean Luke 7:29-30.

Clearly, God's will was that people should undergo John's baptism at the time when John was preaching.

No, not just during the time John was preaching but there is absolutely no evidence that any other kind of baptism was administered after he was imprisoned and put to death all the way up to Acts 2.

It was a baptism of repentance (Luke 3:3),

Tell me, does your church administer baptism to unrepentant people? John refused to baptize those who did not manifest fruits of repentance (Mt. 3:6-8). John didn't have one standard for baptism for the pharisees and another standard for the common folk. Paul explicitly states that John preached Christ and baptized those that believed in Christ (Acts 19:4). John 3:36 proves he preached Christ. So John baptized repentant believers in Christ - that is the baptism of repentance. What kind of baptism does your church preach and administer as John's baptism can be preached (Acts 10:37; Mt. 3:1) as well as administered?

but was not likely to have been Trinitarian.

What kind of God do you think sent and authorized John to baptize? John clearly believed in a Triune God (Jn. 3:33-36). John clearly confessed that this kind of God sent and authorized him to baptize (Jn. 1:30-33). Acts 4:7 clearly explains how the person living in the day of Christ understood what it meant to do something "in the name" of another person. It simply meant to act under their authority or as authorized. Do you think Jesus administered baptism through his disciples "in the name" of some other god other than the Triune God? In Matthew 28:20 he told his disciples to teach what "I HAVE" commanded you. Are you saying that Jesus never commanded them to baptize in the name of the triune God when they baptized repentant believers? The implications for all these questions deny your view which you provide nothing but silence for support.

Therefore one assumes that many of the people baptized in Acts 2:41ff would have previously been baptized by John but needed a Trinitarian baptism. Likewise the men in Acts 19.

How do you figure? That would mean Jesus did not have "Christ"ian baptism and stands in need of proper baptism! That would mean that 3000 souls on Pentecost were baptized by people who were without Christian baptism themselves. Acts 19 occurs 20 years later and the context does not support your view at all. They claimed they were baptized "unto John" but Paul says John baptized unto Christ (acts 19:4). They denied they knew about the Holy Spirit but John preached the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11) and was filled with the Spirit from birth and was told that he would see the Holy Spirit come upon the Christ. There is NOTHING to support the idea that 120 disciples in Acts 1 were rebaptized and if so, BY WHO? An unbaptized person? Matthew 28:19-20 identifies unbaptized believers as "them" and Christ never authorized "them" to administer baptism to anyone. He authorized only those who already "HAVE" been through this three-fold process (1) evangelized; (2) baptized;(3) already instructed and observing "disciples."

Martin, your view has NOTHING to support it - NOTHING!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you for your reply. I will reply in full in due course, but I'd just like to ask you one question first.

That would mean Jesus did not have "Christ"ian baptism and stands in need of proper baptism!

Who do you think baptized John the Baptist?

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you for your reply. I will reply in full in due course, but I'd just like to ask you one question first.
Who do you think baptized John the Baptist?

I know where you are going with this question but it will not work. John the Baptist was personally selected by divine prophetic revelation to originate this ordinance. The Great Commission is a reproductive cycle guaranteed by the promise of Christ's presence to literally continue "all the days" or as one Greek scholar translates it "day in and day out" until the end of the age. Those who IMAGINE that the authorized "ye" would disappear between the earthly ministry of Christ and His second coming are forced to have those identified as "them" in Matthew 28:19-20 become authorized administrators when Christ never authorized the unbaptized or untaught to administer baptism "until the end of the world."

If you are going to IMAGINE another man like John the Baptist could arrive on the scene, that man will have to provide equal credentials to prove he is personally authorized and sent by God to reoriginate baptism all over again. Again, you are venturing into IMAGINATION without substance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

.

I don't think we are told how the disciples baptized before the Great Commission.

I'm glad that we are agreed on that.
I was preparing a great long screed on this subject when it suddenly came to me what you are about in this discussion (I'm a bit slow sometimes). You want to claim that every Baptist (or Fundamentalist Baptist) can trace his baptism back to John the Baptist. Well with the greatest respect, so what? I don't know whether that's true or not, and, frankly, I couldn't care less. Is the aim to be able to say that the Baptists are older than the Romanists? Again, so what? Why would we be bothered about that? I know Anglicans who are so proud that they can trace their Bishops all the way back to Augustine of Canterbury. Again, so what? All that sort of thing is nothing else but sacramentalist one-upmanship, and I rather suspect that God hates it because it has to do with pride. 'But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ....' (Galatians 6:14).

I actually can't remember who baptized me. There were four elders in the Brethren assembly at the time, so it would have been one of them, but I can't remember which one it was, and I don't care. It doesn't matter a row of beans. I remember the couple who ran the Bible study group were I came to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and I shall always be grateful to them, but that doesn't matter either.

So what matters? Christ matters. All that matters is that He has saved me and that I have placed my trust in Him. Anything else is icing on the cake. 'For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in Him' (Colossians 2:9-10). It's great, and important, to have been baptized scripturally on profession of one's faith, but that did Judas Iscariot, Simon Magus, Alexander the coppersmith and Demas no good. It's all about Christ and His Gospel. 'For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel' (1 Corinthians 1:17).

Therefore I shan't be contributing any further to this thread or any similar ones because they don't matter. I shall never have to deal with some guy who has received the baptism of John so I'm not going to worry about it.

 

[The Biblicist]

.
I shall never have to deal with some guy who has received the baptism of John so I'm not going to worry about it.

Oh, and that is where you are so very wrong. If you didn't receive the baptism of John (as did jesus, as did the apostles, as did all the members of the church of Jerusalem, as did all they baptized and formed into congregations) you simply got wet and you are simply a saved but wet child of God still in need of scriptural baptism.

Martin you were saved in an moment of time - and that is wonderful. However, serving God continues for a lifetime. The great Commission includes much more than salvation, although that must be its starting place. But for you, you make it the beginning and the end, but the Lord does not, the apostles do not, and the churches of the New Testament do not.

Grant it, you can go to heaven and never be baptized, but you can never be a member of a true New Testament congregation without the baptism of John - New Testament baptism. There is no such thing as a true church of Christ that can be found in the pages of the New Testament that does not consist of scripturally baptized believers - it simply does not exist, and does not presently exist, nor ever will exist except in the vain imagination of men. No, baptism is not all there is to being a true church either, but without it one does not exist.

 

[Josh the Baptist]

See, those are the kinds of things we find out as we meet and speak with people who are seeking membership. It's not a "show up once Sunday and BANG you're a member" kind of thing but it's a process at our church. The baptism issue is taught to the prospective new members (what baptism is, it's mode, it's purpose, etc.) and then we listen to what they say. I'd say maybe about 40% of our new members have either not been baptized as an adult or they feel that their baptism occurred before they were truly saved (maybe it was just something they were expected to do and they went along for the ride, so to speak) but now they really want to make a profession of faith publicly. Then they will be baptized in our church (or at the beach if it's the summer) and then they become a member after that.

How long does it usually take for the prospect to learn what proper baptism is? Is this taught in a new member's class? Thanks