Close Communion

Bro. Daniel David,
Originally posted by Frogman on the Theology forum: "Baptism of Jesus"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard for the Christian Baptism is John The Baptist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe this to be true.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he baptized Jesus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The submission of Jesus to John's baptism shows the above statement to be true. Jesus never changed the baptism of John, though he certainly would have had the authority to do so, John 4 says '...he baptized not...'


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did he say the words that all others follow?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know, but he did teach there was one coming after him who would baptize them with the Holy Spirit.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the we teach the Eternal Sonship why could he have not used these words since all were present?... Or since all were present did he need to?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a point I had never considered, the presence of the Trinity at the Baptism of Christ.
Good point.

In Acts 19 it is believed that Paul rebaptizing the disciples shows a 'different' baptism. This is not true. The greater context of the chapter including chapter 18 shows Apollos at Ephesus, the men Paul baptized were at Ephesus; they obviously were instructed by Apllos, what does the Holy Spirit say about this?

vs. 25: "This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John."

Is this enough to say that John's baptism had been overruled by another? No.

vs. 26: "And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly."

Did he reject their teaching and claim he had an authority to baptize simply because he was a believer? No.

If he had rejected their teaching he would have not received letters from them when he departed and went into Achaia. vs. 27.

Thus answers the myth that the Baptism of John is not "Christian" baptism. Unless it can be shown where Christ 're-baptized' any of the disciples, or better where it can be shown that Christ pronounced a change in the baptism he received from John.

God Bless.
Bro. dallas

 

We must also be reminded that almost all early Baptists rejected a successionist view. John Smyth was one of these, as can be seen in his writings: “I deny all succession except in the truth” and “There is no succession in the outward church, but that all succession is from heaven.”[15]


Third, with his newfound position on baptism, a whole new concern arose for these “Baptists”. Having been baptized as infants, they all realized that they would have to be re-baptized. Since there was no other minister to administer baptism, Smyth baptized himself and then proceeded to baptize his flock.

These quotes taken from A Primer on Baptist History The True Baptist Trail

In the first, John Smyth denies all successionism except spiritual succession; In the second it is shown that he baptized himself; The first quote is stated only in a defense of his baptism. This latter being administered by himself, it is not reminiscent of that which Christ received at the Jordan River from John, is it? Consider these other difficulties:

</font>

• If Christ meant to change the Baptism of John into a 'Christian' baptism, why did he submit to John's Baptism?</font>
• If Baptism changed between this time and the time of the Acts of the Apostles, then why did Philip baptize the Ethiopian Eunich? It</font>
• is obvious that the Ethiopian could have baptized himself, even if Philip denied him baptism, right?</font>
• Ok, now look at Paul, why was Ananias sent to Baptize Paul, why did the Lord not say that the baptism had been changed since his ascension, and then command Paul to Bapitize himself?</font>

These are much more difficult questions than the supposed lack of evidence for the succession of the baptism has ever been. In fact, it is the acceptance of a different baptism that has permitted such schism in the church and yet this is said of the view I hold. Truth causes little pain, except where it is refused.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

While I agree with Bro. Vaughn's answer to these I would like to address Exhibit B;

I do not believe Judas was present at the 'institution' of the Supper. I say this from a study of I believe Alfred Edersheim's The Temple: It's Services and Ministries.

In this the Passover/Lord's Supper is dealt with.
Let me find this book and I will get back to the post.

Thanks.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]The following account is taken up after the 'first and second cup' had been drunk. [188 & 190]; it is this section that deals with the giving of the sop and dismissal of Judas from the Supper.

The Breaking of the Bread

Rabbinical authorities distinctly state that this thanksgiving was to follow, not to precede, the breaking of the the bread, because it was the bread of poverty, 'and the poor have not whole cakes, but broken pieces.' The distinction is important as proving that since the Lord in instituting His Supper, according to the uniform testimony of the three Gospels and of St. Paul (Matt. 26.26; Mark 14.22; Luke 22.19; 1 Cor. 11.24), first gave thanks and then brake the bread ("having given thanks, He brake it"), it must have been at a later period of the service.
Pieces of the broken cake with 'bitter herbs' between them, and 'dipped' in the Charoseth, were next handed to each in the company. This, in all probability, was 'the sop' which, in answer to John's inquiry about the betrayer, the Lord 'gave' to Judas (John 13.25, etc; compare Matt. 26.21, etc; Mark 14.18, etc.). The unleavened bread with bitter herbs constituted, in reality, the beginning of the Paschal Supper, to which the first part of the service had only served as a kind of introduction. But as Judas, after 'having received the sop, went immediately out,' he could not even have partaken of the Paschal lamb, far less of the Lord's Supper. The solemn discourses of the Lord recorded by St. John (John 13.31; 16) may therefore be regarded as His last 'table talk,' and the intercessory prayer that followed (John 17) as His 'grace after meat.' (Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services 190-191).

While Judas was certainly present at the introduction of the meal; it is obvious he was sent out prior to the institution of the Lord's Supper.
Bro. Dallas

 

He travelled and shared 3 to 3 1/2 years of his life with Judas Iscariot; yet when he instituted his Supper, which by the way is not 'just' a meal, he excluded Judas Iscariot.

Bro. Dallas