Baptism prior to the 1520s

Hello, Briguy,

bmerr here. I would agree to your point that those baptized in the first century were doubtless subject to more physical persecution than we are today.

However, I would have to say that there was more to one's baptism than simply a public profession of one's faith. For example, to whom did the Ethiopian eunuch declare his faith in Christ when he was baptized? Not Phillip, since he had already heard the eunuch's verbal confession. Not to the on-lookers, for there were none. Not to God, for He knew of the eunuch's faith already.

No, there would have to be more significance to baptism than merely a public confession, or a "signing the dotted line".

If we let the Scriptures speak, we will find that baptism was for the remission, or washing away of sins (you know the verses as well as I do). We also find that it plays a part in our salvation. It is the door by which one enters "into Christ" where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3).

As has already been mentioned, there is but one gospel for all the world. I have heard the idea that the 12 were sent with a gospel including baptism for the Jews, while Paul preached a gospel to the Gentiles that did not require basptism.

I don't think this is what you're advocating, but it reminded me of it.

The term "afar off" is usually used in reference to Gentiles. I'd be hard pressed to find where it referred to anyone else. The gospel preached on Pentecost of Acts 2 was the same as was taken to the Gentiles.

Admittedly, the Gentiles were not as directly involved in Jesus' crucifixion as were the Acts 2 Jews, but their sins, and ours today were no less in need of forgiveness than the sins of the Acts 2 Jews. If my sins didn't require the death of Christ, then His death doesn't atone for them.

The Pentecostians heard the gospel and believed it. As a result, they asked what they should do to be saved. They were told (having already believed) to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. This is the pattern of conversion found throughout Acts, and oft referred to in the Epistles.

Nice to have you in the discussion, sir.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Let's try the wrong answers first.

#1. Because God can not be trusted to really "Guide us into all truth" as HE claims He will do in John 16.

#2. Because God's Word is unreliable - we need tradition to interpret it for us rather then simply reading it and believing it. Certainly we would never use it to SEE "IF Those things told to us by an Apostle are true" as they did in Acts 17!!

#3. Because Person-A does not have a church leader spouting strong doctrinal dogma and person-B has a Pope that does??

#4. Because all Christian groups don't know how to read the Bible.

#5. Because the Catholic church has finally admitted to all their doctrinal errors! Being so fully experienced in the role of introducing doctrinal error and man-made-tradition they alone should be trusted to KNOW error when they see it and tell everyone else what is really truth!

I think that just about covers it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

bmerr, sorry for the delay in my response. The Eunuch did need to "prove" to Phillip that he was serious, i.e He asked to be Baptized. Plus there was a driver of the chariot and perhaps others involved with hin in where he was going. We do not know for sure. The baptism was also a reassurance for the eunuch himself. We also know that Phillip made him say first what he believed.

As for "afar off" please give me scriptures from the new testement that use this term for the Gentiles.

Again, Would you address one group and talk about what they needed to do and the reference a whole differnt groups decendants? What about the gentiles alive right then? If what Peter said applied to Gentiles that were afar off, it would have apploed to the gentiles right at that time.

Peter was addressing Jews and everything he said was meant for the Jewish people. Gentiles things in Acts were not even spoken of until many chapters later. Anyway, this does not really hurt whatv you say, it is just you can't make Acts 2:38 say what you want it to mean.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Bump

 

Matt:
Quote/
Both you and I try to 'test and approve' all things - but we still come up with different conclusions. Hence why we are in different denominations...

You have provided no inspired evidence for your claim. You do not prove all things without inspired scripture. Now, please provide some evidence for your previous post.

Just provide evidence that sustains your claim to the following:
1. I am a part of a denomination.
2. The group of believers with which I associate are a part of a denomination.
3. I do not follow and comply with the authority of Christ.

You seem to know more about me than I do myself. I cannot wait for the maundered bilge that is to follow.

 

Matt:
Quote/
If the teaching of Jesus is all that one needs to follow, I presume therefore you do not condemn same-sex relationships, since neither did Jesus...?

Your statement is false. It shows a a lack of understanding of the words of Christ and the original order of relationships ordained of God.

Jesus authorizes males and females to marry. Have you ever read Mat. 19:1-9 ? JESUS SAID, 1And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; 2And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. cf. Genesis 2:24.

 

Brother Matt Black:
I'm an Electrical Engineer who used to work with a
technician who liked to talk about "the headset
problem". No, he wasn't talking a listening
device which had failed, he was talking about the
state of mind one gets them self into as
"the headset problem".

I see a major headset problem with those who determine
that denominationalism is unscriptural. In fact,
denominationalism is quite neutral, it can be used by
the person using it as good or evil. Using denominationalism
to separate and divide and exclude those whom God
has included is evil. And there are those who practice
denominationalism in that matter, in fact even disdaining
ecumenticalism.

I would be glad, were i ever moved to the
Hampshire area of England, to attend
your church: Locks Heath Free Church. In fact,
I suspect within a year i could be teaching in
that Church. I read the SOF = Statement of Faith, at:

http://www.lhfc.org.uk/belief.asp

and agree with it fully.

BTW, i use Velcro to hold my shoes on.
I'm just waiting for the anti-terrorist world to
realize that shoe strings are terrorist tools
and the whole world will start using Velcro to
hold their shoes on their feet. But anyway, Velcro
is NOT mentioned in the Bible. However Velcro is not
evil (though I'm sure the evil person can find some
evil purposes for Velcro).
Likewise is denominationalism -- it is inert until
people start to use it. BTW, i note that all
anti-denominationalists are members of a denomination.
I've studied HANDBOOK OF DENOMINATIONS
In the United States, 11th Edition (Abingdon Press, 2001)
/also i have the 10th Edition and used to have
the 9th Edition/. Seems to me about 27% of all denominations
were founded to fight denominationalism
I note that none cured denominationalism.
I don't think denominationalism will be
'cured' until the Antichrist makes one global
denomination during the Tribulation Period.
So I'm in no hurry to end denominationalism.

 

Briguy,

bmerr here. Wow! Has it been almost a month already? Like Andy Rooney once said, "Life is like a roll of toilet paper: the closer you get to the end, the faster it goes!"

Getting back to your post...

Okay, I hadn't thought about the chariot driver.

Concerning any reassurance for the eunuch though, to be baptized would only reassure him if there were an adequate reason for him to baptized right then. If he knew he was lost, and wanted to be free from sin so he could be saved, then he would be reassured, and rejoice, when he knew he was saved. Verse 39 has him rejoicing as he went on his way after being baptized.

His confession affirms that baptism without faith would be ineffective (sorry, baby-sprinklers).

In his letter to the Ephesian saints, who were largely Gentiles, I believe, Paul uses the term "far off" in Ch. 2. Let me back up a couple verses for context.

2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Skipping down to verse 17

2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off and to them that were nigh. (Gentiles and Jews, respectively)

There may be other places where this term is used, but this is what I came up with off the top of my head.

I see what you mean. I'd ask a similar question regarding the idea that Acts 2 was just for the Jews. If the gospel is for every nation in all the world (Mark 16:15; Matt 28:19), would it make sense to begin the preaching of the gospel with a message that only applied to the Jews?

If, on the other hand, the message given at Pentecost applies to all men under the NT, then lots of problems (concerning what Peter meant as opposed to what Paul meant) fade away...

You know, I wish I had a better answer than what I'm about to give, but it's all I've got.

When the Holy Spirit spoke through men, it was the case, on occasion, that the human speaking did not fully understand what was being said through him.

Acts 2 is a good example of this. Here's Peter, proclaiming that the promise was to them that were afar off, meaning Gentiles (my opinion), and yet, roughly ten years later, at Simon the tanner's house, Peter still needs to see the sheet vision three times before he starts to understand that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached to them.

What about the Gentiles living in the intervening years? Man, I just don't know. It could very well be that Cornelius was the first Gentile in that long to actually fear God. Gentiles weren't known for their devotion to Jehovah.

I'd have to say that the meaning of the message in Acts 2 is just what it appears to be. It's the first gospel sermon, with which Peter opened up the kingdom of Heaven with the keys Jesus gave him.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Matt:
1. I was added to the Lord's church, not Matt's. Acts 2:47. Since God added me to his church, there would be no need to attend Matt's. All spiritual blesssings are IN Christ and the church , not in Matt's. Acts 2:47 Eph. 1;3, II Tim. 2:10.

2. The saved ( the church) follow the teachings of the new testament of Christ, no more no less. John 12:48, Hebrews 9:15-17. This makes one a Christian, not a part of any ist or ism, which you cannot find in the pages of the new testament Acts 11:26.

3. You have no knowledge of your claim. You cannnot with rationality provide any biblical evidence of my unfaithfulness or, for that matter, my faithfulness to the teadhings of Christ. John 7:24.

It is unfortunate you choose to make claims you cannot substantiate from God's word. This would be another reason I have no need for " Matt's church". By the way, when did you establsih your church. I cannot find it in the new testament?

 

Matt Black: "It is not Matt's church - just the fellowship I attend."

Amen, Brother Matt Black. Some people have a problem
with SALVATION OWNERSHIP. I know i speak of 'my
salvation' because it pertains to me. But in all
reality, it is God's Salvation - my salvation belongs to
our God, the source and creator of it:

Revelation 7:10 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible):
And they cried out in a loud voice:
Salvation belongs to our God,
who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!

Likewise, there seems to be a confusion here (not Matt's
confusion nor God's confusion) between little 'c'
'church' and capital 'C' 'Church'. Little 'c' church
is each local group. I go to where the Alameda Baptist
church meets. Just a half-mile down the street is
where the Alameda church of Christ meets. Another
half-mile down the street is where the Trinity Luthern
church meets. These are all local churches (each is
associated with a 'denomination' which is neither
a church nor the Church. "The Church" with a capital "C"
is the group which is called 'the Body of Christ' AND is
called 'the Bride of Christ. Needless to say,
the Trinity Luthern 'church' on the corner is NOT
'the Church of Christ' but is 'a church of Christ'.

I've met with all three of these local body churches
and find people there the Holy Spirit impresses upon me
are part of the Body of Christ/Bride of Christ Church.

 

Hi bmmer, you made some good points. After my last post I did run into the "afar off" in Ephesians but have not had time to see if the Greek word is the same in both places. It could just be that that term "afar off" is just what the interpreters put in but the Greek may be different. Can you check that out? I will try as well.

You made a good point for me in what you said about Peter not accepting the Gentiles, even much later in the book of Acts. I think to say that God wrote the Bible and put words that even those speaking did not get is a slippery slope to go down. It opens up far too many other ways of looking at verses and would give people a right to claim that any Bible concept could mean anything because God of course meant it differently. I think it best to stick with direct context. Direct context and audience in this case points that the baptism in Acts 2:38 was to get the jews to a new status, that being a move away from being an ememy of God.

Baptism in the early church was important. The reason the Enuch rejoiced was that he proved to himself he was a child of God. I believe in the early church everyone around knew that baptism = commitment. You would not be baptized and open yourself up to that great of persecution unless you really believed and were "transformed". So, In the early church and for the Enuch, Baptism was a needed element to confirm salvation, but not then or now is it the means of salvation.

Acts a little later says that when the gospel was preached to the Gentiles, "those who God ordained, believed" Hmmm what if one is Baptized but God did not ordain them to believe?? I will let you ponder that.

Thanks again for your response. Hope you are well. I know how fast life can go. It seems like just the other day my son was crawling, and now this fall he will be in high school (we homeschool so it is not as hard as it could be but still I am feeling old)

Take care, In Christ,
Brian

 

Matt:
Quote/
It is not Matt's church - just the fellowship I attend. It is as much 'the Lord's church' as the congregation you attend - unless you can prove otherwise. i cannot find proof the church you attend is listed in the New Testament either...

You said it was your church. Now, you say it is the one you attend. Which is the correct statement?

It is as much the Lord's church as the one you attend. This is unsubstantiated. You make claims without scripture. I cannot find any refernece to the church you linked in the bible. It seems to me if your statement were true the new testament would at least mention it.

Quote/
i cannot find proof the church you attend is listed in the New Testament either.
Proof:
1. The church is the saved . Acts 2:47.
The church by description belongs to Christ. Romans 16:16, I Thes.1:1. Christ is the exclusive owner of the saved. Acts 20:28.
2. Members of the church are called Christians,( belonging to or of Christ) brothers or sisters. Acts 11:26, Gal. 6:18.
3 There are no Reverends, fathers, or Pastors( in the ecclesiastical sense).

4. The church is organized by the pattern of I Tim. 3:1-11, Titus 1:1-9. Pastors and deacons must meet thee qualifications to serve in this office. In short, a single man cannot be a pastor as he has no believing children and is not the husband of one wife.
5. The church of the Lord worships in five specified ways.
a. Lord's supper. I Cor. 11: 24-26.
b. Giving as one has beeen prospered. Christians do not tithe as a matter of faith. cf.I Cor. 16;1,2.
c. Preaching. Acts 20:7.
d. Singing. Hebrews 2:12, Eph. 5:19, Col.
3:16. Chrisitians sing without the aid of the mechanical instrument. Acapella was the original form Christ specified for his people.cf. Mat. 26:30.
e. Praying, I Thes. 5:17, I Tim. 2;8.

Salvation requires one believe, Romans 10:17, Hebrews 1:6; Repent, Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30; Be Baptized, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Remain Fauthful, Revelation 2:10.

I am more than willing to compare what " your church" teaches to the new testament of Christ. I have provided the scripture from the new testament of Christ that the faithful of Christ teach and practice. Now, let me make it easy for you. Please provide " your churhes" teaching on the following:
1. Church organization
2. Qualifications of pastors and deacons
3. Worship
4. Salvation

A brief summary in these areas will suffice at this point. I look forward to your response.

 

Never try to teach a pig to sing.
It is a total waste of your time
and it annoys the pig.

 

Frank, Acts 2:38 is not for me and you and should not be used as proof of anything in regards to Gentiles.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Briguy:

Acts 2:38 is for both Jew and Gentile. If you check the who's who list of nations present on Pentecost, you will find Proselytes vs. 10. Furthermore, in verse 39, the same promise is made to those who are afar of. These passages harmonize with Paul's declaration of Ephesians 2: 17-19. Once again, Paul uses the phrase afar of in reference to Gentiles. All men are brought nigh by the blood of Christ as we are washed in it. Rev. 1:5. There are no exceptions under the gosple dispensation. Romans 1:16.

Our Lord had Gentiles in his family linage. See Rahab Joshua 2, Mat. 1:5. The Old law allowed gentiles in the land to practice as Jews. A proselyte would be anyone who practiced the jewish religion. The Eunoch was from Ethiopia. Acts 8. He became a Christian before Peter preached to Cornelius. I disagree with the idea the Gentiles did not obey the gospel until Acts 10. It is true Peter was reluctant to change. It is true that Gentiles were for the most part denied the blessings of Christianity until Acts 10. Acts 2:38 was spoken primarily a Jewish audience. However, to say it was exclusively for them is in correct.