Conversion-Immersion

Here is Young's literal translation which backs up what Dr. Walters is saying. It is easy to see here:

Matthew 28:19-20 having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them--to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days--till the full end of the age.'

Notice the verb "disciple" is the command in verse, while the others, such as "baptism," are participles which are subject to the primary verb "disciple." The person first has to be discipled--that is led to the Lord and then taught some before he is baptized.
BTW, that is what happened to Saul, the Ethiopian Eunuch, the Philippian jailor, and many others. They trusted, and were taught, and then were baptized. In the Bible you can't always read a timeline. For example, from the time that the jailor trusted Christ, just after Paul told him how to be saved, how long did it take him and Paul to clean up a bit, get out of the jail, and that very vicinity, get all the way to the jailor's quarter's, be welcomed by the family, etc., etc., There was a lot of time that passed before the actual baptism took place. In that time the jailor no doubt heard a lot of teaching from Paul. That is just one example.

 

Hmm, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from Isaiah 53. Philip ran up to him, asked the eunuch if he understand what he was reading The eunuch said no, and asked Philip about it. Philip then exegeted the passage, preaching Jesus to him.

As they were riding they came to a pool or pond and the eunuch asked Philip if there was anything that would hinder his being baptized.

Philip replied, if you believe with all your heart, you may.

The eunuch said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Philip baptized him. After the eunuch's expression of trust in Jesus. He believed and Philip would not baptize him until he had believed.

I have this image in my mind. Philip says to the eunuch, Now I'm gonna dunk you, but in order for all this to be right you have to have faith at the same time. You have to believe with all your heart. Ready? Okay, I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

The eunuch says I believe that Jesus Christ is glub, glub, glub....

I'm sorry. I know this is a serious discussion, but I just couldn't resist.

 

When I was in Ohio we had six baptisms within the first couple of months and with each I sat down and talked to them. Jokingly I told them what would happen in the baptistry. I told them I would give the normal expression in Matthew 28:19 and they would overlap their hands with a kerchief on top and I would plunge them under and while they were completely submerged (because we are Baptists) I would preach a short 15 minute messsage and if they survived everyone would know only God saved them. As I told them the story their eyes got wider and wider until it dawned I was just joking.

 

I don't think we ask enough questions about what happened.
After the Eunuch said, "I believe..." then what happened?
How long did it take to get the chariot "parked", and for them to dismount? They were in the middle of a desert. I am sure that they still had to find a suitable place, as the place the Eunuch saw was one that was simply in sight. How long did it actually take them to get there?
The eunuch was a rich man. Did he have a change of clothes? Crossing the desert in that time period I am sure that time meant nothing to them. It still doesn't mean anything in most of those countries. Not even Paul wore a watch.
What I am saying is that the time it took to baptize the eunuch could have been a considerable amount of time considering the circumstances. Even in that extra time, there was still time for Philip to be teaching the eunuch, answering his questions, etc.--unlike today where the pastor goes straight to his office to change, never seeing a baptismal candidate until he or she enters the tank.

 

This is one of those problematic passages where we don't really know what Philip said to the eunuch. The KJV includes Acts 8:37. The NASB and others put it in brackets. The NIV and ESV omit it altogether. It depends on which Greek manuscript is actually closest to the autograph and that is something we cannot know. For what it's worth, I think Philip said something like what we read in v. 37 of the KJV.

 

What would make you doubt?

Acts 8:35-38 And Philip, opening his mouth and beginning from that scripture, announced the glad tidings of Jesus to him. And as they went along the way, they came upon a certain water, and the eunuch says, Behold water; what hinders my being baptised? - And he commanded the chariot to stop. And they went down both to the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptised him. (Darby)

Previous to this event, this is what happened:
Acts 8:30-31 And Philip, running up, heard him reading the prophet Esaias, and said, Dost thou then know what thou art reading of? And he said, How should I then be able unless some one guide me? And he begged Philip to come up and sit with him.

So what happened.
1. The Eunuch begged Philip to come into the chariot to help him understand the Scriptures. He wanted to know the truth.
2. Philip took the book, and from that very place in Isaiah preached to him, Jesus (the gospel).
3. After hearing and understanding the gospel, they come upon a body of water.
4. The eunuch says: What is hindering me from being baptized.
5. Verse 37 gives a confession, but even without it the story is clear.
6. What hinders me from being baptized? Then he commands the chariot to stop. And they both go down into the water. Philip baptizes him. They come up out of the water. And Philip goes on his way.

Question: Would Philip baptize someone who was not saved?
Would he baptize someone who had not yet put his faith in Christ.
The Eunuch had just trusted Christ. Philip had just preached Christ to him. The Eunuch had just expressed a desire to be baptized. Why? He had just trusted Christ. The truth of the story remains the same.

 

Well, DHK, this is something I haven't seen you do often. You're using your ability to reason and supplying by inference those things that were not put to paper. You have criticized me and others for doing this in other threads (arguing from silence), so I'm glad you're coming around. Incidentally I agree with your inferences in steps 1-6, supra.

I would take issue with your retorical question: "Would Philip baptize someone who was not saved?" Since being baptized is part of being saved, Mark 16:16, we can be sure that Philip never baptized anyone who was already saved. Believers, yes. Saved, not until after baptism.

 

I can clearly see why you would "prefer" to spread it out but the fact is that your precise soteriological position denies you that pleasure. You cannot demand that Romans 10:10 occurs IN baptism and at the same time include anything in Romans 10:10 preceding the act of baptism.

For example, there can be no VALID confession with the mouth unto salvation prior to baptism. There can be no VALID belief with the heart prior to confession.

Equally, you have the utterly impossible problem of reversing the very characteristics that define the unregenerate state in Ephesians 4:18; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14 in the act of baptism, all of which, forbid the candidate understanding or submission to baptism, much less the gospel.

Just as equally impossible you have to find examples in Scripture that deny repentance and faith occur BEFORE baptism.

 

It is simply telling the story and filling in the gaps. You find the same thing in any children's storybook, or even in more descriptive expository preaching. However, what is being done? I am going from one truth to another truth. The truths are that Philip preached the gospel to him. The truth is that he believed (even if supplied by other MSS). The truth is that he was baptized). It was in that order. What I supplied is other detail to make it more believable. There was nothing unsciptural. It was not an argument out of silence since I was not presenting a truth not already known.

That is contrary to the RCC who, for example, will argue from silence that infants were baptized in the household of the jailor.
First there is no record of any infant ever being baptized in the Bible.
Second, it is a totally unbiblical doctrine.
Third to argue this heresy they must argue it out of silence. There is no other way that they can defend it.

This is far different from what I was doing.

Take issue if you wish. Your stance is one which is against the Bible. Baptismal regeneration is against the Bible. Believe, and then be baptized is what the Bible teaches. You can't just take a couple scriptures out of their context and hang your hat on them, ignoring the totality of what the Bible says. That is the most ridiculous way to "rightly divide the word of truth."

 

Benjamin Coxe as the official representative of those (John Spilsbury, William Kiffin, etc.) who published the 1644 Confession faith wrote an appendix to further clarify what they meant by several articles of faith due to the distortion by their opponents.

In his explanation of baptism, he clearly stated they believed that a person could be regenerated, saved WITHOUT baptism. Now, I have this quotation on file if anyone wants to challenge its existence OR its contextual meaning.

So to say that Dr. Gill was the first to teach the truth of justification by faith without works among Baptists is a distortion of the facts.

 

The Apostle Paul taught it far before Gill did.
Now here is a quote that sounds similar to what I hear you preaching:

http://www.therestorationmovement.com/highers01.htm


It sounds like Alexander Campbell was one who made the change in baptism, and that you are his follower. Gill lived in the early 1700's Campbell was born into a Presbyterian family, his father being a Presbyterian preacher. Studying the Bible he rejected infant baptism. He further believed that baptism ought to be by immersion. That, for a time, brought him into fellowship with the Baptists--but not for long. They did not his syncretistic view of baptism--adult by immersion, but salvic at the same time. He was rejected by both denominations, claiming he rejected all creed and followed only what the Bible teaches. It was a return to NT times.

Sound familiar?

 

Please, provide one example in scripture where baptism was administered to anyone who had not previously repented and believed in the gospel! Until you do, your position, understanding of the scriptures and interpretations are false.

 

Yes, Romans 10:10 is carried out in baptism, during which a sinner repents, believes, and confesses Christ - adisciplelearner


A human being is either Lost or saved - there is no third option.

A human being is either unregenerated or regenerated - there is no third option

A human being is either a child of Satan or a child of God - there is no third option.

Therefore, if as you insist Romans 10:10 ("with the heart man believeth unto righteousness") occurs in the waters of baptism then prior to stepping into those waters that person is in the HEART condition described in Ephesians 4:18

Eph. 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

The words "being alienated from the life of God" demands this is the unregenerated state of the heart - "blindness of their heart" and demands this is state of understanding - "the understanding darkened."

Therefore, we should NEVER find precepts or examples in Scripture that place repentance and faith BEFORE baptism if Romans 10:10 does not occur until in baptism.

However, EVERY precept and EVERY example shows repentance and faith in the gospel PRECEDES baptism.

This is conclusive proof that your interpretation of Romans 10:10 is wrong and your whole view of baptism and salvation is equally wrong.

 

Please explain how a person can be a "penitent" sinner with an unbelieving heart (Rom. 10:10)??? The Romans 10:10 context has to do with the heart believing IN THE GOSPEL. How can a person be "penitent" when they are still do not believe the gospel "with the heart"?????

Are you now going to separate gospel repentance from gospel faith???????

What you are teaching is "penance" not repentance as long as you place Romans 10:10 IN the waters of baptism.

 

Your inept responses expose your doctrine as heretical and unbiblical as there is not ONE PASSAGE in all of Scripture you can show or produce where either repentance or faith did not occur BEFORE baptism.


Your doctrine, your interpretation requires, demands, necessitates that both gospel repentance and faith occur IN baptism and not before and you admit it:

Yes, Romans 10:10 is carried out in baptism, during which a sinner repents, believes, and confesses Christ - adisciplelearner

However, the most significant admission of your error is your own inability or unwillingness to tell the truth about YOUR OWN TESTIMONY given before that pastor/church for you to be considered for baptism! The proof is in the pudding, isn't it??