Baptism

Not so. If this is water baptism, then baptism has salvific quality. Paul makes it crystal clear that this baptism joins a person to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and thus the person may have victory over sin. If this is water baptism, I am wasting my time preaching and I need to just dunk everyone.

 

So you think that the apostles never carried out the great commission? That is unsound. The book of Acts is the story of carrying out the great commission. This distinction you are making is similar to what "oneness pentecostals" make I believe. The early church practiced Scriptural baptism. </font>[/QUOTE]The book of Acts is the history of the early church. I'm not into anything to do with 'Oneness Pentecostalism'. You have yet to answer why converts were only baptized in the name of Jesus, and not in the triune name of God, as the great commission commanded. If the Apostles were carrying out the great commission, why were they disobedient to the specific way the great commission was instructed by our Lord to be carried out? </font>[/QUOTE]Your theological ideal in this particular area makes less logical sense than you're aware. There are many "Jesus name only" churches in this area, as well as "Yahweh only".

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.

Does not this passage also include "Christ" and not "Jesus only"? Is not this Jesus also the Father as He said, "My Father and I are one"?

Is also this Jesus Christ some how not the One self in the same, the Holy Spirit/Ghost?

Acts 2:38 does NOT comprise the entire Gospel or the instruction for baptism and is NOT mandatory for salvation.

How is it anyone can separate the Father , the Son, and the Holy Ghost into three separate entities, having three totally different names?

The answer is ,You CAN'T!

In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky

 

The problem is, all who believe the "Universal Church theory" must make the scripture say things that it does not say, in order to uphold this false theory.

The problem is that people are trying to make "ecclesia" and "basileia" identical. They are not identical, there is a difference between the kingdom and the church.

New Testament writers never confused the two terms and thus knew nothing of a world church. As best from study, the first formal, official identification of church and kingdom being the same was done so by the Roman Empire became some what Christianized.

It was the Ecumenical Council of Nice, call by Emperor Constantine, that affirmed and projected as its creed the idea of a "Catholic" World church. As a result those of the Reformation period, who let us remember did not want to leave the Catholic Church but was kicked out, brought the universal theory with them.

Out of the Reformation came the new theory of the church, Universal, Invisible Spiritual Theory.

All scriptural Baptism is water Baptism and to say it is spiritual is to twist scripture and produce false doctrine.

Richard

 

Tonya in NH - Right on!

The "seven unities" of Eph. 4 are clearly "one kind" - millions of individuals scripturally immersed (in water, hard or soft, clear or cloudy!), but only one kind of baptism - one kind of true God, one kind of true faith held by millions of individuals, one kind of true Lord, etc. - therefore not 2 kinds. "Baptism of fire" at the cross not to be repeated; Jesus Himself baptized the waiting church in the power of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2; why should that be repeated?
It was a corporate, not individual, experience.

Good discussion all round - I enjoy seeing these.

 

Tonya in NH - I tried to post a reply here to agree with you, but it seems to have shown up on a different page of the board, under "debates." At any rate, if this one gets thru, just know that you have struck a responsive chord in Ky.

 

You assume they were disobedient. DO you realize that the book of Acts never gives us the exact verbiage of these men during the baptismal ceremony? Of course, that is obvious, but you seem to have ignored it. The reality is that these men baptized the way Christ taught them. When we are told that they preached that Jesus was the Christ from hosue to house, it would be ludicrous to assume that they knocked on the door and yelled out "Jesus is the Christ" and then went on to the next door. It is much more sensible to say that "Jesus was the Christ" was the substance of their message. In teh same way, baptizing in teh name of Jesus meant baptizing into the Christian body, using the formula that Christ commanded. It is you who are assuming your position by not realizing the obvious -- that Acts is the ipssisima vox, not the ipssissima verba.

 

No we're not. We take Scripture for what it says. There is only one body.

IU don't believe they are identical. I think they are mutually exclusive and I still believe in teh biblical doctrine of the universal or invisible church. These two are sometimes related but not necessarily so.

Paul answered you (and the poster below you) when he said that we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body. There is Spirit baptism after Pentecost and the only way to get around it is to ignore the text of Scripture. This is simply not legitimate. Our theology must conform to Scripture, not the other way around.

 

Quote from Richard

All scriptural Baptism is water Baptism and to say it is spiritual is to twist scripture and produce false doctrine.

No one ever said water baptism is spiritual, on my part, so maybe you should address the person you're making this accusation to.
Maybe you should re-write Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.

Maybe it is that you don't fully understand the baptism mentioned here in Luke 3. It is NOT what many refer to as that false doctrine that supposedly produces "tongues"/glossalalia.

Perhaps a detailed study of the word baptism should be done to clarify this for yourself.

In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky

 

They were. See above.

But this is exactly what you have them doing ... disobeying Christ.

They didn't "know this." The Great Commission is given in five places (Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20; Acts 1). In all five places it is related ot the mission of the church.

The nations of the earth. I have been to several foreign countries and seen the church in action. In our own churches here in America, we see the vast ethnic diversity. Our webmaster is Hungarian. We have some Fins here. And some others. In church there is Jew and Greek, Barbarian and Scythian, etc. side by side, with equal standing. Your ecclesiology is messed up.

 

Quote from Anja

Despite still not actually answering my question about why they didn't baptize in the triune name of God or being unable to show that they did,

Since you say the disciples didn't baptize in the triune Name of God, then what do YOU say His Name is? Me believest thou pickest ands splittest hairs. That would justify Pastor Larry for saying your "ecclesiology is messed up", unless you can Biblically come up with distinct differing names for the LORD, which would not include the Son or the Holy Ghost.

 

That wasn't rude. It was a statement of fact about how your ecclesiology is out of line with Scripture. "Messed up" is a colloquialism for being out of line with what it should be. You most certainly do not have a NT ecclesiology, as evidenced by the statements you are making here.

I did answer that. I told you that it is inconceivable that the Great Commission, given 5 times immediately preceding and related to the beginning of the church, was not carried out. In the book of Acts we do not have the actual words used in most cases; we have the sense. For instance, I am quite sure that Peter's message at Pentecost is summarized in Acts 2. That is called the ipssissima vox. If you look to my earlier post you will see that I did in fact address this. YOu must have missed it.

To baptize someone in the name of Jesus in the first century was not the statement you made when you immersed them. It was a statement about what their baptism was doing. They most certainly baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that is characterized as being baptized into identification with Jesus. Hence the, name of Jesus is referring to their identification.

Talk about rude. Why is NT ecclesiology carnal mindedness??? Consider the verses you cite. I will repeat several parts here for you. Jews or Gentiles, ... Jew nor Greek, ... Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, ... All of those highlighted terms that I left in are terms of nationality. The church is made up from people of all nations. I can't imagine what line your are going down to say what you are saying. How can you deny that the church is made up of people from nations. Just reading the NT, you can see the vastly divergent ethnic makeup of the church. That is the great commission in action. The church today is made up from people of all nations.

 

Anybody notice that Anja is not Baptist?

 

I wondered about that based on what was being said, but I didn't take the time to look at it just now.

 

I had second thoughts about posting that after I had already posted it because it was a very interesting discussion.

I am very sorry if I have killed the thread.

 

It would be a good place for you to learn and think through some of these issues. This is an important one and having a wrong view on it is a significant problem.

However, the title of this section(see at top) is "Baptist DEBATE Forums (Baptist Only)." Therefore, it is limited to Baptists. Towards the bottom there are some areas for "Other religions," "All other discussions," etc. which is where the non-Baptists post.