Baptism and the existence of a church

Absolutely not! It is not inconsistent with anything that I have said. The doctrine and practice of church constitution of unbaptized believers comes straight out of hell. It is Satan's attempt to confuse and divide Christians and undermine the authority of Scriptures whether he is using the lost or the saved to do it. It is an attack upon the churches of Christ and therefore an attack upon Christ himself and His word. It is the usurpation of the authority of Jesus Christ.

 

I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that Matthew must have been baptized with the baptism of John in order to be called a "disicple" much less an "apostle" of Jesus Christ. I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that the baptism of John does not mean that John himself must be the administrator (Lk. 7:29-30; Jn. 4:1-2). I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that Matthew could not possibly be recognized as a "disicple" of Christ if he "rejected the baptism of John" (Lk. 7:30). I have given you irrefutable biblical evidence that Matthew could not be called a "disciple" of Christ if he refused to "justify God" by being baptized with the baptism of John (Lk. 7:29). I have given you irrrefutable Biblical evidence that the apostles "HAVE" already been taught to observe all these things by Christ including the observance of baptism as the very wording of the Great Commission demands it- Mt. 28:20. The word "HAVE" is past tense not future.

You have not even attempted to answer one single line of Biblical evidence. I have told you the truth about your arguments and about those who justify such an unbiblical practice. The truth hurts when you don't believe or practice it.

All you have been able to do is get personal and make personal insults. Try answering the arguments instead of throwing insults.

 

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Now, I have discussed things with those who isolate related texts from each other and deny necessary inferences and overall context as you clearly do. This method can tear apart any truth and deny it very effectively and is almost impossible to counter because of the very nature of this kind of approach to scripture.

Apparently my words above were taken by you to be a personal attack upon you. This was not a attack upon your person but a description of your hermeneutical procedures.

You took the case of Matthew and ISOLATED from all other pertinent scriptures and statements that would easily demonstrate he as well as all the apostles submitted to what was called "the baptism of John." For example, passages that demonstrate the standard practice of Christ and His disciples (Jn. 4:1-2). For example, the passages that demonstrate that only those who refused to follow Christ rejected to submit to the baptism of John (Lk. 7:30). For example, the passage that demonstrates that submission to the baptism of John was the prescribed "counsel of God" and you could not "justify" God by refusing to be baptized with the baptism of John (Lk. 7:29-30). For example, the fact that Jesus claims that all the apostles "HAVE" already been taught how to OBSERVE ALL THINGS CHRIST COMMANDED before He gave them this commission and no one can deny that baptism was observed by Christ and by His disciples. For example, the very meaning of "disciple" is to "follow after" and unto Matthew he was bidden to come "follow" Christ. For example, that the very fact that the apostles would not permit anyone to fill the office of Apostle that was not present "from the baptism of John" regardless if you think they acted under divine direction or not.

By ISOLATING an example such as Matthew due only to SILENCE in the immediate context when you have all the above and MUCH MORE evidence I have not presented, is a method that can tear apart many truths in God's word. If I or any other expositor submitted to that kind of hermeneutic it would be impossible to defend obvious truths where there are necessary inferences found throughout the scriptures that would teach otherwise.

So, you took what was not at all any kind of personal attack and made it a personal attack. When you responded with that charge and then made personal accusations I responded in sarcasitic arguments to show how utterly bankrupt your arguments were. However, I never made a single attack on your person just on your arguments and there is a difference.

Why don't we simply drop all this personal rhetoric and deal with the evidence. You may not like my conclusions but that does not mean I am attacking your person.

 

I can offer one other book that is online to read that presents the Biblical position in a definitive and expository way in regard to Matthew 28:19-20. You can find it at:

http://s.webstarts.com/victorybaptistchurch/uploads/In_Search_of_New_Testament_Churches2.pdf

 

You live completely in your imaginary world. I tell you it is the doctrine and practice that is Satanic not the believers and you tell me I don't mean what I say. I tell you unbaptized = non-immersed, non-sprinkled and non-poured and you respond I mean only "non-immersed."

You give NOTHING in response but misrepresentation of what I say and personal insults. When someone is wrong that is the only way they can respond, as the only other choice is accept the truth.

 

No sir! My assertions are not founded only upon the inference that Matthew must have been present at the baptism of Jesus or that he had been a disciple of John. I explicitly stated two times thus far that one did not have to be baptized by John the baptist to have the baptism of John. Both John 4:1-2 and Luke 7:29-30 prove my point and Matthew was called prior to both of these texts.

However, that two disciples of Jesus had been previously discipled by John and one was Andrew who had gone back to his fishing business with Peter before Jesus said to them exactly what he said to Matthew "come follow me." They left their nets just as Matthew left his work. We know Andrew had been previously prepared by John the Baptist to look for and follow Jesus (Jn. 1:37-51)when he came and there is no reason to believe that that Matthew had not also been previously prepared to do the same thing as he just got up and left his business just as Peter and Andrew did. People do not just get up and leave their business without some kind of forethought and mental preparation to do that.

Luke has Matthew following Jesus before Luke 7:29-30 and Luke 7:29-30 sets forth the standard that separates those who opposed "the counsel of God" versus those who "justified God." Your position would have Matthew rejecting the counsel of God but still called a "disciple" and then chosen as an apostle yet unbaptized. Both John 4:1-2 and Luke 7:29-30 present a standard operation in making disciples by Jesus and His disciples. There is no other standard given either by John the Baptist or Jesus in the Gospels. If this was not standard operating procedure than please point out some other way disciples were made by John the Baptist and Jesus????????? Again you have nothing but silence.

Jesus clearly states that all the apostles including Matthew "HAVE" already been taught how to observe ALL THINGS he had commanded and nobody can say that Jesus did not submit as well as defend the baptism of John as the "counsel of God" and in addition claim that all who refused to be baptized with the baptism of John refused to justify God and were in rebellion against the "counsel of God." However, you have Jesus not merely claiming Matthew as his "disciple" but choosing him as an "apostle" yet in open rebellion against the "counsel of God."

You have no evidence to prove that Peter did not set down inspired credentials to fill the apostolic office in Acts 1:22-23. He claimed to have scripture as the source of his actions and quoted it from the Old Testament. You may not agree that he did, but you cannot possible argue that in the mind of the apostes present (which included Matthew) that this was what they regarded as necessary to qualify for that office. You cannot logically demand qualifications for others what you do not meet yourself if it is the same office you hold. Your position simply rejects any common sense interpretation of those qualifications regardless if they are inspired or not.

Again, the meaning of "disciple" is one who follows after another and learns their doctrine and practice. Baptism is always inseparable linked with making disciples in the gospel in regard to John's ministry and the ministry of Jesus. Discipleship begins with embracing the gospel and publicly confessing it in baptism. Even Jesus relates the two as inseperably linked with each other (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15) when he commands them to "make disiciples."

There is no Biblical evidence that any of the apostles were ever baptized after the giving of the Great commission. It cannot be refuted that an unbaptized believer, much less an "apostle" is living in open violation of God's command.

You may try to pick apart one of these arguments but together they make an irrefutable case that Matthew had been baptized before he was called a "disciple" and before he was appointed to the office of apostle.

If you will just honestly evalute your own argument it is easy to see that your argument is based purely and only on silence and refusal to objectively regard scriptures that are not silent and provide necessary inference that he was baptized. If you will just honestly evaluate my arguments they are not based upon silence but on the overall context of scriptures and necessary inferences by scripture. Luke 7:29-30 is a necessary inference as it divides all people into one of two camps. You are unbaptized and have therefore not "justified God" by submitting to the baptism of John and therefore "rejected the counsel of God against" yourself or you have submitted to the baptism of John. There is no other option provided.

 

Most expositors from all denominational perspectives understand this as a metaphor for being immersed into suffering to the extent of death for righteousness. You admit that the subject of suffering is in view and especially the depth of suffering Christ knew he would suffer. Even you admit that some among them were already baptized in water and therefore he cannot possibly refer to water baptism.

It is merely your assumption that the baptism of John was not designed by God to "fulfill all righteousness." As I said before the gospel are given as a biography of Christ not a theological textbook. Where you draw this truth about baptism is from those books in the bible designed by God to be a theological textbook (Romans especially).

 

I think anyone reading our debate realizes that you are not only arguing from pure silence but your arguments in response to the evidences I have given are simply unreasonable and empty. My arguments are not built upon silence but specific statements and necessary inferences from scripture.

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Peter said "with us" and Peter included Matthew because Matthew is listed in verse 13.

Now it makes no difference whether Peter acted under inspiration or not, what you have to prove is that Peter LIED because he included Matthew in the words "with us" who had "companied..ALL THE TIME.. From the baptism of John."

Not only do you have to prove Peter LIED but you have to prove the rest of the audience including Matthew are stupid enough to apply to Matthais and Joseph qualifications that were not true of all the rest of the apostles.

Finally, you have to prove that Peter DECEIVED all 120 including Matthew as he quotes scripture directing them to fill that office:

Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.......For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Paul was called to be an apostle to THE GENTILES (Gal. 2:9) not to the Jews and Jesus told the twelve they would sit on the twelve thrones and rule over the tribes of Israel:

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Luke records Acts 1:15-26 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit with NOT ONE WORD OF REBUKE.

Last, I provided you evidence that Andrew went back to his business after being baptized by John the Baptist and Jesus came by and said the exact same words to Andrew and Peter that he said to Matthew and all three of them responded in the same exact way - they immediately got up and followed.

Chronologically you are in error. Matthew was already an "apostle" and with Christ with the rest of the apostles BEFORE the event of Luke 7:29-30 occurred as Matthew was called out from among the rest of the disciples in Luke 6:15 to apostleship. John the Baptist was still alive but in prison at this time and so Luke 7:29-30 refers to the ministry of Christ administering the baptism of John and John 4:1-2 says that he administered it through his disciples and therefore his disciples were present in Luke 7:29-30.

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly opposed to your argument of silence. The explicit statements of scripture overwhelming oppose your argument from silence. All you have been able to do is nit pick at my arguments but not a single one of your objections is sustantial to overthrow any argument I have given you that Matthew was baptized with the baptism of John before he was called to be an apostle.

Acts 1:21-22 is absolute explicit eye witness evidence that Matthew companined "with us" ALL THE TIME "from the baptism of John.

 

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.

The KJV does not use the term "Jesus" in the above verse for good reason. One of the things that Apollos was ignorant about was that Jesus was the "Christ" he preached. Apollos was still preaching the unfulfilled version of the Old Testament gospel of Christ (see Acts 10:43). How do we know this? Because after Apollos was corrected one conclusion of the correction is:

For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

A second thing he was corrected about in regard to "the baptism of John" was not that it was an invalid baptism because there is no record of Apollos being rebaptized, but that the church assumed the role as the proper administrator of the ordinances as the Spirit baptized house of God. How do we know this? Because prior to this correction he was a free lance ministry unafilliated with the churches of Christ but after this correction he worked through the churches of Christ:

And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
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,

If he continued in his free lance ministry why would the brethren at Ephesus need to write the brethren at Corinth to receive him? We know a church of Christ existed at both places and I Corinthians 1:13 lists Apollos as coming there to the church.

Apollos had no authority from God to admnister the baptism of John as that had been given to the Great Commission "ye" or the Spirit baptized church of Christ. He knew only the baptism of John but he did not know the baptism of the church in the Spirit that John had foretold had actually come to pass. He was out trying to carry on the ministry of John but WITHOUT AUTHORITY. Hence, he ceased his independent unafilliated ministry and worked through the church of Christ from that point forward.

Now you won't accept the above obvious evidence because of your theological mind set but it does not change the truth of it at all.

 

Just for the record number of baptisms for Christians listed in Ephesians 4:5 is "one" and it is water baptism as no other baptism is promised to be administered "until the end of the world" - Mt. 28:19-20.

 

My friend your argument is absurdly rediculous. If there is but "one" baptism for Christians as Paul says in Ephesians 4:5 and the only baptism that Jesus promises to be administered "until the end of the world" is water baptism (as that is the only baptism in existence when he uttered those words) then obviously that "one" baptism must be water baptism.

All scriptures concerning the baptism in the Spirit found in the gospels point forward until Acts 1:5 places a time definition on its occurrence "not many days hence." All references after Acts 2:1 in the book of Acts, the history of the churches, looks backward to Pentecost (Acts 11:15-16).

If the baptism in the Spirit were individually applied to all believers the nearest reference point by Peter would not have been "AT the beginning" but rather "SINCE the beginning." This demonstrates it was a historical institutional baptism/accreditation of the church as the new house of God thus completed.

Neither does I Corinthians 12:13 if interpreted by its immediate and overall context of the book of I Corinthians support another baptism than water. Since, I know this last statement will be challenged I will stop at this point and wait to meet that challenge.