-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is the scope of this statement?
- Thread starter Frogman
- Start date
In Hebrews we find that Jesus was the sacrifice for all sin for all time. Even unknown/unintentional sin. He never sinned, but He took the weight of all.
We must repent in order to be born again, but there is no way we can repent of sins we are unaware of. But righteousness demands full repentance as well as full payment for sin. Jesus did both for us. We repent of all we are aware of, but Jesus fulfilled all righteousness by undergoing John's baptism, which was for repentance, thus taking care of fulfilling all the law and all righteousness.
This is also why He is our righteousness. We can't even repent fully!
This is what I understand it to mean. I will be interested in other responses.
We must repent in order to be born again, but there is no way we can repent of sins we are unaware of. But righteousness demands full repentance as well as full payment for sin. Jesus did both for us. We repent of all we are aware of, but Jesus fulfilled all righteousness by undergoing John's baptism, which was for repentance, thus taking care of fulfilling all the law and all righteousness.
This is also why He is our righteousness. We can't even repent fully!
This is what I understand it to mean. I will be interested in other responses.
thanks Helen,
I appreciate your response. Worded differently than I would have, but in reading it I think I am basically in agreement with you.
Do you think, probably then that the Biblical fact that Christ received physical baptism was related to His statement as baptism may apply to a believer?
Did His baptism, which had nothing to do with his need of repentance, as you point out, fulfill 'all righteousness' for all believers?
Just some more thoughts and questions I guess. I am not meaning to appear to contradict you; just trying to understand the depth of the righteousness Christ has fulfilled in our behalf.
Bro. Dallas
I appreciate your response. Worded differently than I would have, but in reading it I think I am basically in agreement with you.
Do you think, probably then that the Biblical fact that Christ received physical baptism was related to His statement as baptism may apply to a believer?
Did His baptism, which had nothing to do with his need of repentance, as you point out, fulfill 'all righteousness' for all believers?
Just some more thoughts and questions I guess. I am not meaning to appear to contradict you; just trying to understand the depth of the righteousness Christ has fulfilled in our behalf.
Bro. Dallas
Above I have emphasized the statement:
for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.
What is the scope of this statement?
Bro. Dallas
Bro. David
Thanks Brother David,
I am asking this question because I am discussing on another forum whether or not a saved child of God will find what (among landmarkers) is received as scriptural baptism.
For now, I am afraid these are nothing less than Campbellites under the Baptist name. The reject this of course.
I have failed in getting them to particularly identify their specific scriptural baptism that all believers must be submissive to in order to gain assurance of their adoption into the family of God.
They only tell me historic generic concepts such as proper authority, subject, mode, purpose, etc.
Yet, they deny any one receiving any baptism different than their fundamental agreement in the above concepts as being a truly regenerated believer. I continually have shown them they are altering the 'purpose' of the baptism, they continually deny this.
The purpose of baptism as one has told me is that we may receive the full reconciliation with God through the body (the church) of Christ.
This concept, they identify, they fail to see the logical conclusion to their statement, which is apart from the "true" church as identified in submitting to the "true" Baptism there is no reconciliation with God. Anyone failing to find this scriptural baptism (which they consistently refuse to particularly identify, even to myself, who is also a Landmarker) possesses a false profession of faith as the submission to the true scriptural baptism is a necessary evidence (their language) of the indwelling of the Spirit of Truth.
I am about to simply write these guys off as descendants of Alex Campbell and quit answering them, especially since they will not identify this particular baptism.
They have, in other conversations denied the scriptural standing of a church who encourages those seeking Christ to seek Him by prayer, I am baptized in and under the authority of a landmark SG church (Independent) which practices this. When I revealed that to these fellows, they still refuse to admit their reasoning both unchurches myself, but worse, denies my position as believer priest, as I am outside their baptism.
WHEW!!!!
Yet they still claim the name Baptist????
Bro. Dallas Eaton
I am asking this question because I am discussing on another forum whether or not a saved child of God will find what (among landmarkers) is received as scriptural baptism.
For now, I am afraid these are nothing less than Campbellites under the Baptist name. The reject this of course.
I have failed in getting them to particularly identify their specific scriptural baptism that all believers must be submissive to in order to gain assurance of their adoption into the family of God.
They only tell me historic generic concepts such as proper authority, subject, mode, purpose, etc.
Yet, they deny any one receiving any baptism different than their fundamental agreement in the above concepts as being a truly regenerated believer. I continually have shown them they are altering the 'purpose' of the baptism, they continually deny this.
The purpose of baptism as one has told me is that we may receive the full reconciliation with God through the body (the church) of Christ.
This concept, they identify, they fail to see the logical conclusion to their statement, which is apart from the "true" church as identified in submitting to the "true" Baptism there is no reconciliation with God. Anyone failing to find this scriptural baptism (which they consistently refuse to particularly identify, even to myself, who is also a Landmarker) possesses a false profession of faith as the submission to the true scriptural baptism is a necessary evidence (their language) of the indwelling of the Spirit of Truth.
I am about to simply write these guys off as descendants of Alex Campbell and quit answering them, especially since they will not identify this particular baptism.
They have, in other conversations denied the scriptural standing of a church who encourages those seeking Christ to seek Him by prayer, I am baptized in and under the authority of a landmark SG church (Independent) which practices this. When I revealed that to these fellows, they still refuse to admit their reasoning both unchurches myself, but worse, denies my position as believer priest, as I am outside their baptism.
WHEW!!!!
Yet they still claim the name Baptist????
Bro. Dallas Eaton
I always thought that Jesus was giving a picture to the people of what was coming (His death, burial, and resurrection). And He was giving us an ordinance to follow.
And what was coming was to be the fulfillment of righteousness...not the baptism itself.
If His baptism itself covered our sins or made us righteous, then Jesus would not have had to die.
Here's my line of thinking....
1. God killed animals to provide skins for Adam and Eve. (Shed blood)
2. God said in Leviticus 17:11 that life is in the blood and that blood was given to His people on the altar for atonement for the soul. (shed blood)
3. Lambs were slaughtered everyday for the sins of the people collectively. (shed blood)
4. John the Baptist called Jesus the "Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world". You can be rest assured that those Jews, whether they believed in Jesus or not, understood fully the context of that powerful phrase.
5. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
6. When he says in Matthew 3:15 that his baptism was to fulfill all righteousness, I feel that he was saying that He was the Final Sacrifice. The Ultimate Atonement. The Old Covenant Fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the objective (the righteousness) of the Old Covenant.
7. Jesus said on the cross, "It is finished." What was finished? The necessity to continue with blood sacrifices upon an altar. Jesus fulfilled the plan.
8. Hebrews, chapter 9, says that Jesus' blood is purges our consciences or souls while the slain animals only purged the flesh. (verses 13 and 14)
Jesus baptism, to me, did not purge our soul or cover up for any unknown sins we did not repent of.
His blood did that.
His baptism was to give a picture of the fulfillment of righteous that was to come in his death, burial, and resurrection.
And our baptisms do not cover our sins, but is an outward sign that we believe in Jesus as being the ONLY fulfillment of God's plan and our laying down our lives with Him.
We rest our souls in His death. We rise, being made new, in His resurrection.
Just my ramblings.
Peace-
Scarlett O.
<><
And what was coming was to be the fulfillment of righteousness...not the baptism itself.
If His baptism itself covered our sins or made us righteous, then Jesus would not have had to die.
Here's my line of thinking....
1. God killed animals to provide skins for Adam and Eve. (Shed blood)
2. God said in Leviticus 17:11 that life is in the blood and that blood was given to His people on the altar for atonement for the soul. (shed blood)
3. Lambs were slaughtered everyday for the sins of the people collectively. (shed blood)
4. John the Baptist called Jesus the "Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world". You can be rest assured that those Jews, whether they believed in Jesus or not, understood fully the context of that powerful phrase.
5. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
6. When he says in Matthew 3:15 that his baptism was to fulfill all righteousness, I feel that he was saying that He was the Final Sacrifice. The Ultimate Atonement. The Old Covenant Fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the objective (the righteousness) of the Old Covenant.
7. Jesus said on the cross, "It is finished." What was finished? The necessity to continue with blood sacrifices upon an altar. Jesus fulfilled the plan.
8. Hebrews, chapter 9, says that Jesus' blood is purges our consciences or souls while the slain animals only purged the flesh. (verses 13 and 14)
Jesus baptism, to me, did not purge our soul or cover up for any unknown sins we did not repent of.
His blood did that.
His baptism was to give a picture of the fulfillment of righteous that was to come in his death, burial, and resurrection.
And our baptisms do not cover our sins, but is an outward sign that we believe in Jesus as being the ONLY fulfillment of God's plan and our laying down our lives with Him.
We rest our souls in His death. We rise, being made new, in His resurrection.
Just my ramblings.
Peace-
Scarlett O.
<><
HI Scarlett! It was NOT a matter of purging sins. You are absolutely right. His death on the cross did that. And the idea that the baptism was simply a form of prophecy may well be completely right. I'm certainly not going to argue, for, as Paul says in Romans 6:3, we are baptized into Jesus' death.
I was simply trying to see or explore, if you will, a possible further ramification of the baptism of Jesus. For John's baptism was the baptism of repentance. And I was thinking that Jesus had no more to repent of than He had, of His own, to die for, so that maybe there was a connection.
But it was His death which cleansed us of our sins. No argument about that at all.
I was simply trying to see or explore, if you will, a possible further ramification of the baptism of Jesus. For John's baptism was the baptism of repentance. And I was thinking that Jesus had no more to repent of than He had, of His own, to die for, so that maybe there was a connection.
But it was His death which cleansed us of our sins. No argument about that at all.
This is Mt. 3:14-15 from the Weymouth’s NT in Modern Speech:
"John protested. “It is I,” he said, “who have need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
“Let it be so on this occasion,” Jesus replied; “for so we ought to fulfil every religious duty.” Then he consented;"
I don't believe that this act of Christ's had anything to do with the atonement. NT doctrine speaks only of the cross of Christ. (1 Cor. 1:18-31; 15:1-4; Gal. 6:14).
At the time of Jesus' baptism it was an example to the Jews to repent and receive Him as Messiah. But all that changed at their rejection of Him. Acts 19:1-5 is telling on this matter.
"John protested. “It is I,” he said, “who have need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
“Let it be so on this occasion,” Jesus replied; “for so we ought to fulfil every religious duty.” Then he consented;"
I don't believe that this act of Christ's had anything to do with the atonement. NT doctrine speaks only of the cross of Christ. (1 Cor. 1:18-31; 15:1-4; Gal. 6:14).
At the time of Jesus' baptism it was an example to the Jews to repent and receive Him as Messiah. But all that changed at their rejection of Him. Acts 19:1-5 is telling on this matter.
DeafPosttrib
New Member
Scarlett O,
Amen! Preach it!
Amen! Preach it!
QUOTE]Originally posted by Frogman:
for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.
What is the scope of this statement?
Bro. Dallas
[/QUOTE]
Hello Frogman. This says to me the most likely meaning here is that of a private conversation between He and John the Baptist. The wording “it becometh us” says a lot. John had just informed Jesus this should be just the opposite, which would make sense to all of us. But Jesus came for a purpose, and it was not to water baptize any one. He has a better Baptism for us, as John says. Jesus came to fulfill prophecy, to become the High Priest of the nation that He came for; to be their Messiah, their King. This will come about, as God was prepared for their rejecting their King, and also the rejection of the Holy Ghost.
It was necessary that Jesus be baptized (washed), and God chose Jesus’ forerunner to do the honors. Things had drastically changed with the birth of John the Baptist, and his kinfolk Jesus. John came from the “wilderness” preaching a new gospel, that gospel not of the “wilderness church”, but the Kingdom is at Hand. And that message for God’s nation was to “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”.
So the way I read it is Jesus said, “John, just do it, and I’ll explain later”. Christian faith, ituttut.
Above I have emphasized the statement:
for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.
What is the scope of this statement?
Bro. Dallas
Hello Frogman. This says to me the most likely meaning here is that of a private conversation between He and John the Baptist. The wording “it becometh us” says a lot. John had just informed Jesus this should be just the opposite, which would make sense to all of us. But Jesus came for a purpose, and it was not to water baptize any one. He has a better Baptism for us, as John says. Jesus came to fulfill prophecy, to become the High Priest of the nation that He came for; to be their Messiah, their King. This will come about, as God was prepared for their rejecting their King, and also the rejection of the Holy Ghost.
It was necessary that Jesus be baptized (washed), and God chose Jesus’ forerunner to do the honors. Things had drastically changed with the birth of John the Baptist, and his kinfolk Jesus. John came from the “wilderness” preaching a new gospel, that gospel not of the “wilderness church”, but the Kingdom is at Hand. And that message for God’s nation was to “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”.
So the way I read it is Jesus said, “John, just do it, and I’ll explain later”. Christian faith, ituttut.