Debate for "Beliefs on Baptism."

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DSteele:
"Clearly, Philip was not an apostle."

GE:
Never denied nor supposed otherwise. And there were others as we both know. All these were ordained without mediation through the Apostles, and were apostles of the last generation themselves. They were the beginners of the Church. Are you another? For no other foundation can be laid but the one the Apostles laid. If you insist you have the authority to baptise you are an imposter. People like Philip received authority from the Apostles. You nor anyone else did.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No generation after the apostles can make out the foundation of the Church laid by the Apostles - they have NO authority to. That is the answer to the genuineness of Mark's second ending - why do you want to avoid its discussion on this thread?

 

[Darron Steele]

Regarding a post by me over Matthew 28:19-20

DS:
"Let us notice the parts in color. The purple commands that PEOPLE baptize. This is not Holy Spirit baptism. It is water baptism."

GE:
No, It's not 'PEOPLE' 'commanded to baptize' - it's THE (ONLY) APOSTLES 'commanded to baptize'.
And they are not commanded to baptise in water or with water, but to "baptise IN THE NAME ...". When an embassador is presented before a monarch of another kingdom he introduces himself 'in the name of ...' his own king. Only the embassodor may speak for his monarch. No one of us lesser 'people' have the authority the Jesus hereby gave His Apostles. It would be audacious.

After pointing out yet again the Philip of Acts 6:1-7, Acts 8 including a water baptism at 8:35-8, and Acts 21:8, this was the reply

DSteele:
"Clearly, Philip was not an apostle."

GE:
Never denied nor supposed otherwise. And there were others as we both know. All these were ordained without mediation through the Apostles, and were apostles of the last generation themselves. They were the beginners of the Church. Are you another? For no other foundation can be laid but the one the Apostles laid. If you insist you have the authority to baptise you are an imposter. People like Philip received authority from the Apostles. You nor anyone else did.

No generation after the apostles can make out the foundation of the Church laid by the Apostles - they have NO authority to. That is the answer to the genuineness of Mark's second ending - why do you want to avoid its discussion on this thread?

The discussion of manuscript evidence on the lack of authenticity of what is after Mark 16:8 in the KJV would be a substantial distraction from the subject of this thread. Quite possibly, you know that.

Now, I am tired of this whole discussion, to be honest. You have now acknowledged, at long last, that someone other than the apostles were baptizing in water with Scriptural approval. You still maintain that the Lord's command is not to be followed; you have simply changed the speculation upon which you base this.

The apostles are not good reason to suggest doing the opposite of what Jesus taught. Paul reported at 1 Corinthians 4:17 “principles of behavior| in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church” (NBV|ESV). Paul taught to do the things Jesus Christ taught.

Now, you asked who I am. I will tell you who I am. I am a Christian. I follow Jesus Christ. I live my life trying to do the things Jesus Christ taught, exampled, and called for. This includes baptism. I do NOT go on the Internet to Christian websites and tell people not to do what Jesus Christ taught.

Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus says “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
---NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB.

Behold Luke 6:46-9:

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Every one that cometh unto me, and heareth my words, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who digged and went deep, and laid a foundation upon the rock: and when a flood arose, the stream brake against that house, and could not shake it: because it had been well builded. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that built a house upon the earth without a foundation; against which the stream brake, and straightway it fell in; and the ruin of that house was great" (ASV).​

I am tired of the time I am wasting with this. I am also unwilling to dignify this discussion any further. As far as Scripture goes, there is evidently no discussion to be had. All that has been offered against baptism is speculation -- which you shifted. A Christian is someone who follows Jesus Christ's teachings.

The numbers do not lie that I am certainly not alone on this:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=31991
The fellowship poll that I created this debate thread for demonstrates that people who do not believe water baptism is commanded are only a small minority. This argument is unnecessary.

 

[hillclimber1]

So when Jesus said, "teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you" he really didn't meant all? He had just commanded them to go teach and baptize. Therefore, by your own admission, those who were taught and baptized and then taught to obeserve all things (which included going and teaching all nations, baptizing them...) has to be water baptism, since that is the only type of baptizing they could perform.

Since you cannot baptize with the Holy Spirit, then Matt 28:18-20 is obviously water baptism. It was water baptism in Mark 16:16, water baptism in Acts 2:38, water baptism in Acts 22:16, water baptism in Acts 8, it was water baptism in Eph 4:5, it was water baptism in Rom 6, and it was water baptism in I Pet 3:20-21. That was the ordinary meaning of the word as used in the New Testament, that is undeniable, regardless of how long you refuse to accept it.

Philip was not an apostle and he baptized people in water. He preached Jesus which included instructions for water baptism (Acts 8).

Do you peach another gospel that does not include instructions for water baptism?

Acts 22:16 Paul is just beginning his ministry and is beginning his ministry under the old covenant, and as yet hasn't received his "new revelation" that is the mystery: Jew and Gentile in one body. (The Body of Christ) The same can be said for all the other verses except Eph 4:5 which is of the Body Church. ie Baptism by the Holy Spirit upon conversion. (no water) We find very few baptisms happening after about this time and they've totally ceased in the next very few years, if that long.

If you view Christiandom today as part of the Kingdom (prophecy) church, you will never be able to see the fullness of Pauls ministry, which was to us today. We are stuck in the prophetic Kingdom philosophy, that has been set aside for 2000 years. If not, where is Jesus, and His reign from David's throne?

 

[hillclimber1]

Let me make a post similar to his. Matthew 28:19-20 reports Jesus saying:
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
---NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB.Yes the great commission.

Let us notice the parts in color. The purple commands that PEOPLE baptize. This is not Holy Spirit baptism. It is water baptism. It certainly is. You are right. It was introducing and beginning to institute the great commission, and preparing for the Lord's ascension to David's throne.

Now, Jesus told His hearers to teach disciples to obey EVERYTHING He taught. This includes His command to baptize. Jesus commanded this of all people, including those who lived in areas where there were no Jews at all. Jesus mandated that His commands were to be taught and obeyed. In full accordance a strict obedience with His great commission command.

Now, some thoughts of my own:
Paul taught the same things that Jesus did. He indicated this at 1 Corinthians 4:17 when mentioning “principles of behavior| in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church” (NBV|ESV). What Paul taught and what Jesus taught were the same, and they should not be set against each other. I certainly agree as far as it goes here. Paul is slowly revealed the full extent of the revelation given to him.

Peter was rebuked for improper behavior. He was never rebuked for his teaching. Therefore, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 1:9-11 His bad behavior was in continuing in Jewish traditions in spite of understanding that there was now no difference between men.

he rebuked the Christians at Corinth for claiming loyalty to any one of these ministers or Jesus Christ Himself at the disparagement of the others. Hence, I believe it is unbiblical to take Paul's teachings and put them above Peter's, or Peter's above Paul. I take the whole New Testament. Then take it as it's intended. Take that that is addressed to Israel and read it for your increase in understanding. Take that that is addressed to you personally, Pauls instruction, to heart.

Paul baptized people. At 1 Corinthians 1:14 he wrote “I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one could say that you were baptized | in my name” (TNIV|ESV). Paul did baptize, and because Holy Spirit baptism is automatic, this means the water baptism that people can administer. Paul should not be used as a reason to set aside Jesus' command to baptize in water. Then why is Paul glad he baptized no one else? And why chronologically did all water baptism stop about this time?
We never again here of Paul baptizing again. It actually has been practiced off and on, mostly on ever since, but wrongly

I believe that it is simply best to obey the Lord's command to baptize, and as a disciple, be baptized by another disciple. And I believe this to be adding to God's Word, and that is serious.

...........

 

[Darron Steele]

Paul baptized people. At 1 Corinthians 1:14 he wrote “I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one could say that you were baptized | in my name” (TNIV|ESV). Paul did baptize, and because Holy Spirit baptism is automatic, this means the water baptism that people can administer. Paul should not be used as a reason to set aside Jesus' command to baptize in water.

Then why is Paul glad he baptized no one else?

I already answered that question
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=907830&postcount=38 .

And why chronologically did all water baptism stop about this time?

WHAT? Jesus indicated that baptism administered by people -- which is water baptism -- was to continue forever! There is no record of baptism ever being stopped -- it was to continue forever, as the Lord Jesus Christ commanded.

Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus says “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
---NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB.
If we are no longer to baptize, then we are no longer to make converts, and we are no longer to teach people to do as Jesus taught. Jesus said "always, even to the end of the age."

I believe that it is simply best to obey the Lord's command to baptize, and as a disciple, be baptized by another disciple. And I believe this to be adding to God's Word, and that is serious.

And I believe this to be adding to God's Word, and that is serious.

I believe that you are taking away from Scripture, but that it is more serious to get on the Internet and tell people not to do as the Lord Jesus Christ commanded.

Let me refer you to Acts 11:26 "the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch" (NASB). The ICB translates the Greek word under "disciples" as "followers."

Behold Luke 6:46-9:

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Every one that cometh unto me, and heareth my words, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who digged and went deep, and laid a foundation upon the rock: and when a flood arose, the stream brake against that house, and could not shake it: because it had been well builded. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that built a house upon the earth without a foundation; against which the stream brake, and straightway it fell in; and the ruin of that house was great" (ASV).​

I am going to say the same thing to you as I did the other individual who advocates doing different than what Jesus taught. I am tired of the time I am wasting with this. I am also unwilling to dignify this discussion any further. As far as Scripture goes, there is evidently no discussion to be had. All that has been offered against baptism is speculation. A Christian is someone who follows Jesus Christ's teachings.

The numbers do not lie that I am certainly not alone on this:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=31991
The fellowship poll that I created this debate thread for demonstrates that people who do not believe water baptism is commanded are only a small minority. This argument is unnecessary.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darren Steele:

"I am tired of the time I am wasting with this. I am also unwilling to dignify this discussion any further. As far as Scripture goes, there is evidently no discussion to be had. All that has been offered against baptism is speculation -- which you shifted. A Christian is someone who follows Jesus Christ's teachings."

GE:

You subtly say I'm not a Christian because I deny I'm an Apostle - the only ones ever 'commanded' to baptise. Its alright; I still believe I'm a Christian - I CAN only be a Christian by faith. Some people may think one must be baptised and do baptising or he is not a Christian. Fortunately Christ is judge - be the Christian you are the way you want to be it. Just don't tell me your opposite party in debate according to your interpretation of the Scriptures, isn't The knife cuts both ways. I say your not an Apostle; you say I'm not a Christian. Mabe we represent two kinds of Christianity altogether!

The worth of this discussion to me is single: Is the Scriptures honoured and done justice? I seek no further satisfaction.

Said you:
"All that has been offered against baptism is speculation -- which you shifted."

First, I never offered anything against baptism; I showed what baptisms there are spoken of in the Scriptures: The baptism of Jesus with Spirit and fire; the baptism of the Apostles - sometimes indicated with water, sometimes not.

Lastly, you say I shifted my arguments against water-baptism by disciples of Christ. I have not - I have held my position since long. I did not with my first posts exhaust the subject. But let me expand yet a little further, by saying that even the Apostles were NOT the first to spread the Gospel. The converts of Pentecost went out first and made disciples in far lands the Apostles long after would hear. We Know for certain these first missioneries never baptised with water. It wasn't meant for even them, but for the Apostles who could authorise others to represent them if they wanted - we have definite precedents of this. But we have NO indication any of such Apostolic representatives who ttransferred their received authority to a next 'generation' so to speak. When these three 'generations' had done their work, the Christian Church was established, and it was the end of any Apostolic sign.

The Roman Catholic Church would later on claim Apostolic Succession and thereby and therefore, retained water-baptism. If they were right in their arrogance, they were in the right with their doctrine that only ordained priests aught to aminister water-baptism.

So the subject is quite a bit more complicated to dismis of so quickly.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darron Steele:

"If we are no longer to baptize, then we are no longer to make converts, and we are no longer to teach people to do as Jesus taught. ...."

Do you read yourself? Are we to stop Christian witness because we no longer should baptise? That, is all we can do, seeing we are neither Apostles who were obliged to baptise, nor the Holy Spirirt who alone can 'make converts'. We, converts ourselves by solely the Holy Spirirt and without water-baptism, sometimes may be gifted enough to teach, but that also seems to be a scarse commodity among believers.

 

[Darron Steele]

Gerhard Ebersoehn and Hillclimber1: I am done. My reasons have already been explained to each of you.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darron Steele:
"WHAT? Jesus indicated that baptism administered by people -- which is water baptism -- was to continue forever!"

GE:
Not 'people' ordinary but Apostles; not followers, but Founders; not baptism in water, but "in the Name".

Darron Steele:
"There is no record of baptism ever being stopped -- ".

GE:
There is no record of water baptism ever being instructed. But there certainly is word for word assurance water-baptism would stop -- John the Baptist said so.

Darron Steele:
"... it was to continue forever, as the Lord Jesus Christ commanded."

GE:
Where? Never!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Gerhard Ebersoehn and Hillclimber1: I am done. My reasons have been explained to each of you.

GE:
Pray it might become apparent to yourself!

 

[hillclimber1]

I already answered that question
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=907830&postcount=38 .


WHAT? Jesus indicated that baptism administered by people -- which is water baptism -- was to continue forever! There is no record of baptism ever being stopped -- it was to continue forever, as the Lord Jesus Christ commanded.

As long as the current administration was in effect. And that was Christ, in bodily form, on earth, ready to take His throne in Israel. That administration was set aside, and a new revelation, given over time through Paul was instituted.

Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus says “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Yes to the end of the age. That age ended at Stevens stoning and Christ the Lord, Israels Messiah, sat down at the right hand of God the Father. He had been standing, ready to take his rightful place on David's throne. ---NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB.
If we are no longer to baptize, then we are no longer to make converts, and we are no longer to teach people to do as Jesus taught. Jesus said "always, even to the end of the age." That is substantially correct. Jesus was ministering to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. He promoted Saul of Tarsus, who was a chief persecutor, to carry the message of Jew and Gentile in one Body, to everyone, until such time as He was ready to take up the Kingdom program where it left off. That will be soon, IMHO, but not till after the rapture and the terrible tribulation
I believe that you are taking away from Scripture, but that it is more serious to get on the Internet and tell people not to do as the Lord Jesus Christ commanded. Agreed, if I'm wrong I'll have a lot to answer for.

Let me refer you to Acts 11:26 "the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch" (NASB). The ICB translates the Greek word under "disciples" as "followers."

Behold Luke 6:46-9:

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Every one that cometh unto me, and heareth my words, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who digged and went deep, and laid a foundation upon the rock: and when a flood arose, the stream brake against that house, and could not shake it: because it had been well builded. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that built a house upon the earth without a foundation; against which the stream brake, and straightway it fell in; and the ruin of that house was great" (ASV).​

Good scripture but irrelevant here.

I am going to say the same thing to you as I did the other individual who advocates doing different than what Jesus taught. I am tired of the time I am wasting with this. I am also unwilling to dignify this discussion any further. As far as Scripture goes, there is evidently no discussion to be had. All that has been offered against baptism is speculation. A Christian is someone who follows Jesus Christ's teachings. No a Jew looking for a Messiah, 2000 years ago is.

The numbers do not lie that I am certainly not alone on this:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=31991
The fellowship poll that I created this debate thread for demonstrates that people who do not believe water baptism is commanded are only a small minority. This argument is unnecessary. Care to re-state that portion?. You know as well as I, that a majority means nothing. Truth is everything.

..........

 

[Darron Steele]

Hillclimber1: there are some people who will simply not be convinced that they should be baptized. The polls demonstrate that most people recognize that Scripture commands us to baptize in water and be baptized in water, and that "always" means just that. I do not need to argue the point here. I have better things to do with my time.

When it is alleged that non-`baptismal regeneration' Christians `do not believe in baptism,' I can point to the poll numbers from the fellowship thread I created this debate thread for. That was the point of that poll to begin with.

 

[hillclimber1]

Hillclimber1: there are some people who will simply not be convinced that they should be baptized. The polls demonstrate that most people recognize that Scripture commands us to baptize in water and be baptized in water, and that "always" means just that. I do not need to argue the point here. I have better things to do with my time.

When it is alleged that non-`baptismal regeneration' Christians `do not believe in baptism,' I can point to the poll numbers from the fellowship thread I created this debate thread for. That was the point of that poll to begin with.

Your fellowship poll says so? So what does that have to do with the truth? I'm not doubting the sincerity of your pollsters, but I am saying they are wrong.