Baptism and the existence of a church

It is not recorded that John the baptist used the Trintarian formula in his baptism.

Jesus Christ is the author of the Trinitarian baptism in water by immersion.

If folks want to rely on the works of dead men, fine.

How many lost were added to the rolls of membership of local churches by men (some of whom perhaps lost themselves) using the Trinitarian formula by mode of immersion?

How many of those whom Christ baptized in the Spirit were saved?

Admittedly, biblical local churches need to obey this element of the Great Commission. But IMO (from scripture), it is an act of obedience, a public witness to and an identification with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, nothing more.

It is not a sacrament and has no sanctifying grace or power over sin whatsoever.

Membership in the Church of the Firstborn is determined by the administrator of the the New Covenant in blood, not powerless water.


HankD

 

First because of the make up of the crowd.

Which btw wasn't every nation under heaven bible lingo for every nation known about. And certain nations were spelled out.

Note also what Peter mentions here

Now this does not dismiss the fact that

So that those who had the time left would seek and be taught by the apostles the faith and the practices there of but How long the passage doesn't say and we have this further thing to consider The confusion by those who didn't know the fulness of teaching at Ephasus. And Paul had to educated them properly.

 

I'm not flaunting it. I'm saying that it is important.

I don't care if something is a turn off to many if the bible says it is important. Church lineage is important, because if we aren't the true church we need to find it.

 

in the things they were taught over the time period they were taught. And it didn't matter what part of the empire they came from they were all Jews.

 

Granted, the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus, that is by His authority as recorded in Matthew 28:19.

But if John baptized in the name of the Trinity then why did his disciples not know what Paul was asking about concerning this matter?

KJV Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.​

HankD

 

That text didn't say they were baptized by John, but with the baptism of John.

 

It's as I said. I never joined the Old Baptists due to their lineage. It was never part of the deal with me.

It's odd. I became aquainted with the Primitive Baptists through a non-denominational Bible class many years ago that Christians from several denominations were attending. It was some of the things in the discussions after class with them that rang true in my heart that brought me to the Old Baptists. And it certainly was not Baptist successionism or Church lineage that was discussed.

 

the word for unto is eis (often translated into or in).

In Romans 6 We are baptised into (eis) His death, we are buried with Him into (eis) His death. The picture portrayed by Christ's baptism is the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which is not what the Baptism of John which was unto (eis) repentance of which Christ had no need.

Future tense means it has not yet happened and indeed John admitted to that.

John Himself said that we would be baptised by Christ in the Spirit not in water itself which is a symbol or picture. And in fact we are told that Jesus did not baptise anyone in water. He left that to His apostles.

Similarly we do not eat the actual body and drink the actual blood of Jesus Christ at the Lord's table as claim Roman, Greek, Russian and some anglo-catholic churches in the act of transubstantiation.

In fact we dont even eat the flesh or drink the blood of an animal at the Lord's Table but bread and wine (or grape juice) as memorials of what He did in the Blood Atonement.

Both of these ordinances speak of His death burial and resurrection.
Again water baptism by immersion is a believer's identification with the death burial and resurrection of Christ.

According to Dabney's theory it would seem that we would have to be baptised everytime we identified with a new local church.

Also, what if the mortal man (pastor) who baptised us in the proper manner turns out to be a tare or a
worker of iniquity as those in Matthew 7:21-22

What then? Is the church he pastored a legitimate local church?

What of cultists such as Mormons and others who baptise by immersion using the Trinitarian formula? According to Dabney they would be a legitimate church.

In addition many pado-baptist local churches allow for baptism by immersion in the name of the Trinity at the request of the believer.
Does one properly baptised believer make the entire pado-baptising local church a legitimate church?

A local church is comprised of all of the born of the Spirit believers in that "local church" whether baptised in water in a proper manner or not.

Admittedly, proper water baptism it is the way (humanly speaking) along with a profession of abiding faith that we determine church membership.

But I personally disagree with Dabney and do not see water baptism as the "initiatory rite" (Dabney) into the "local church".

The new birth being membership determination into the church of Matthew 16:18, the church of the firstborn.

Neither do I see John's baptism in water unto repentance as Christian baptism. John was a prophet under the law preaching repentance not an apostle sent to proclaim the gospel of grace.

I don't like protracting these kinds of debates and wish to leave it here and let the readers decide.

Again, I will cede to the point that it is the best way undershephards have in determining local church membership as water baptism is, after all, the first step of obedience for the believer though he is a blood-bought child of God and a member of the church of the firstborn with his name written in heaven.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.​

However there are difficulties (as recounted above) when one makes water baptism the "initiatory rite" into the church local or otherwise (which brings in another debate as to the actuality of the so-called "invisible" or "universal" church).

Thank you for your patience with me Dr. Walter.

HankD

 

BTW Dr. Walter, you seem to have left out a very powerful Scripture for the Baptism of John as Trinitarian:

All three members of the Trinity were visibly/audibly present at Jesus baptism:

Matthew 3

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

However, this IMO does not prove that John spoke the words:
"I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

Thanks again for a good debate.

HankD​

 

Dr. Walter

Thanks for the discussion. Perhaps you could clear up a couple of things for me.

You claim no one can be part of a church, or perform any ministries of the church, if they have not been baptized by immersion.

Could you show me from scripture where John the Baptist was baptized in water? Is not John the Baptist part of God's church?

Could you show me from scripture where the 12 Apostles (not counting Paul, of course) were baptized in water? I understand that two of John's disciples left John to follow Jesus, and that you might assume they had been baptized by John (though that is an argument from silence), but where does scripture specifically say that any of the 12 Apostles were baptized in water?

If the people in Acts 19 were not authentic Christians, why does Luke record them as "disciples"?

If you can't demonstrate these were not true disciples (though they were called disciples) then why did Paul baptize the "disciples" again if John's baptism was the same as Jesus's baptism of Matt. 28?

I understand your argument that they didn't understand the nature of John's baptism (as pointing to Jesus), but doesn't that disprove your assertion that a person cannot be a part of the true church if they haven't been properly baptized?

peace to youraying:

 

The above statement crystallizes why the absolute revulsion that I have towards Landmarkism.

It was not the priest nor the Levite who stopped to help him who had fell among the robbers, no, they passed on by, but it was one of the Samaritans, with whom the Jews had no dealings, that was moved with compassion to help the man.

Thank God those of the other 'spiritual source' don't stand or fall to religionists like you Dr. Walter. It's to their own master that they'll stand or fall to.

 

Apart from the landmarkist stance on the pamphet Trail of Blood are you also saying they are elitist? I find the historical fabrication of history from the Landmarkist as odoius as the communist attempt to re-write history. Now to find that they are elitist sends them down further on my list.

 

TS, I don't know what you mean by elistist. I call them religionists. They revel in their 'correctness' and consider everyone else of no account.

There was no other religionist of the day that had any more authentic credentials than Paul, and he considered it all as dung.

 

Yes, your term religionist and my elitist in this case seems to be the same thing.