Baptism and the existence of a church

Very simply Dr Walter, as you endorse BOTH water baptism and Spirit Baptism (regardless of the surrounding and historical circumstances), so do I without violating the Scripture that there is "one" baptism we have all entered into, However, I believe it speaks of the one baptism not made with hands, whether a fulfilled historical event or not, a baptism made by out timeless and eternal great God and Savior Jesus Christ. A baptism in which we all participate.

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

ASV Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.​

Dr. Walter please do not tell me what I believe AND/OR do not believe.
You are not me. You may have the opinion that I am inconsistent in my interpretation but you can not tell me what I do or do not believe.

I do accept "believers" baptism in water and have been baptized in this manner myself as a public act of obedience to the Great Commission.

I prefer to identify the "one" baptism in Ephesians 4:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 as the fulfilment of Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16, and John 1:33.

Therefore I am no more inconsistent than anyone else who endorses both water baptism and Spirit baptism.

HankD​

 

Ah Doc, the more you post the more we see of you.

 

Nonetheless Dr Walter, you by your own writing endorse both Spirit baptism as well as water baptism. You have your reasonings and I have mine for the meaning of "one" baptism and which is the "one" baptism spoken of in Ephesians 4:5.

You yourself said have admitted to Spirit baptism (howbeit as a fulfilled historical event).

My membership in and my name written on the roll of any local church is secondary to having my name written in the Lamb's Book of Life which happened before the foundation of this world.

So, it is perfectly in line to say that the baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is the "one" baptism in the Spirit which we (Jew and Gentile alike) and we only (the children of God) all have participated in whether we have made our entrance into this world or not. Ephesians 4:5 is therefore a timeless statement being worked out in the passage of time until He come.

On the other hand, some or many of those though having been baptised or are being baptized or will be baptized in water in the proper manner by mortal men have not the guarantee of Ephesians 4:5 and have not have their names written in the eternal Lamb's Book of Life as He works all things to His will through this process of time.

As I said before, I don't like prolonged debates although I have participated in them.

I felt another voice was needed again.

Let the readers decide for themselves.

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

ASV Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.​

This is the one baptism of all true believers in this age, Jew or Gentile, male or female.

Water baptism guarantees nothing except the making of a public profession of an individual in the belief of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life.

Hopefully it is a legitimate profession, an act of obedience done in Spirit and truth.

HankD

 

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Mk 16

You keep bringing up and tying water baptism in with 'the great commission' as you call it, which He gave to ' the eleven' (Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles was absent).

Luke records it this way:

But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1:8

Take note Christ said, 'ye shall' receive power, 'ye shall' be my witnesses unto the end of the earth. Period. He didn't say I want you to, He told them that they indeed would do it. Period.

In the very next chapter Luke records (paraphrase mine):

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit [RECEIVED POWER].......
5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven [UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH].
6 .........every man heard them speaking in his own language [WITNESSES OF CHRIST].

Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God. Acts 2:9-11 [...Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.... Acts 1:8]

What do you think that those 'Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven' in Acts 2 did when they all went back home from the feast of Pentecost, after hearing and believing the gospel and themselves having received power from the Holy Spirit?

You can bet they didn't keep that 'lamp under the bushel'. No, they 'put it on the stand' so that 'it shined unto all that are in the house'. They preached the gospel in all those nations under heaven that they were from. The day of Pentecost was literally in every sense a 'gospel bomb'.

The 'great commission' as you call it, given to those 'eleven', was accomplished on the day of Pentecost. Paul verifies this here:

So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth, And their words unto the ends of the world. Ro 10:17-18

and here:

if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister. Col 1:23

and here:

Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith: Ro 16:25-26

You ever wonder why Peter was called onto the carpet in Acts 11 for preaching to Cornelius, a Gentile? I'll tell you why. Those 'eleven', to whom 'the great commission' as you call it was given, clearly understood that they were still operating under the confines of Mt 10 'Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

Why would Christ want them, the eleven, to continue under the dictate of Mt 10 with 'the great commission' as you call it? Because the gospel was to 'the Jew first', and for good reason. There was a very serious time line involved for every Jew of 'that generation' alive on the planet. The urgency of the message to the Jew was 'Save yourselves from this crooked generation' (Acts 2), and 'Every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people' (Acts 3).

Consider what was coming upon 'that generation':

upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Mt 23:35,36

God made sure that every Jew on earth was given the chance to 'hearken to that prophet' before the wrath came. All the Jews of that generation on earth heard the gospel, and were given the chance to repent and avoid the wrath and the curses of the OT that were to come on the nation of Israel. Therein lies the fulfillment of 'the great commission' as you call it.

You pre-mils totally miss the magnitude of the significance of the events of 'that generation', and woefully misapply passages to the covenant of grace that pertain only to 'that generation'.

The 'great commission' to the Church is simple:

“Feed my lambs...tend my sheep...feed my sheep”

“Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.”

 

First, Dr, Walters, this is a debate forum, not an argument forum. I am not arguing with you brother. Second, technically speaking it hasn't ended in my mind until the alleged point that the baptism in the Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16, John 1:33 is not the baptism that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 4:5 and that, as I previously mentioned and that water baptism is a picture representing this baptism of the Spirit has been made.

The ordinance of the Lord's Table uses the symbolism and imagery of bread and wine to show forth the Lord's one past tense atoning death, burial and resurrection til He comes. It is a present tense picture not the actuality. As Christians this we do as often as we see fit.

The ordinance of water baptism in like manner is a public demonstration, a present tense picture not the actuality of the result of His atoning death: He has placed us (both Jew and Gentile) as one entity in the Spirit and His spritual Body, the one Body of Christ, through faith in and identification with His death burial and resurrection.

As Christians this we do once witnessing that we have been made participants of the baptism in the Spirit promised by John the Baptist and fulfilled by Jesus Christ almost 2000 years ago.


HankD

 

"no such thing as 'one body' in number (one in kind)"

The Scripture indicates that there is only one Spirit and there is only one body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
...
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.​

Christ has only one body both in number and kind.​

Whether I endorse the notion of a "universal" or "invisible" Body of Christ, or not, please take note that I personally did not use those words concerning my own belief. In fact I do not like those terms although I see some merit in the underlying reason behind them. i.e. the unity of the Body of Christ particularly in the eternal state.​

Which leads into the next logical entity in this debate: The Bride of Christ specifically revealed in these last days in the Book of Revelation.​

Revelation 21
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.​

Revelation 22
9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
...
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.​

Christ has only one bride both in number and kind.​

HankD​

 

Very well, however I believe it is related.

Also, I did make note that there are several local churches in the Book of Revelation of which nothing is said of a baptised membership either in the Book of Revelation or anywhere else in the Bible.

Hank

 

Now, you have already stated that Andrew, Peter, John, James went back to their jobs as a fishermen; and you are maintaining that Matthew went back to his job as a Tax Collector after becoming a disciple of Jesus.

How then can this passage mean that the replacement must have been just like the disciples and followed Jesus "ALL THE TIME" from the baptism of John, ....when, by your own admission, the Apostles themselves did not did not follow Jesus "ALL THE TIME"?

And John 1:35+ records how Andrew and another are still following John (obviously after the baptism of Jesus) and then leave John to follow Jesus. Can you acknowledge that this passage of scripture directly contradict your theories?

And how do you explain Andrew going to Peter and saying "we have found the Messiah" if Peter was already following Christ? In 1:42, Peter is introduced to Jesus (apparently for the first time), and Jesus changes his name from Simon to Peter (Cephas). What an odd event... if Peter was already following Jesus since His baptism.

And then Phillip finds his brother, Nathanael, and tells him he has found the Messiah... Jesus of Nazareth. Nathanael replies "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

What an odd thing for Nathanel to say if he were already a disicple of Christ and had witnessed His baptism. Please explain why Nathanael would say such things about Jesus if he were already following Jesus? Nathanel doesn't appear to know who Jesus is at that point.... but then again, this is just more scripture, in context, which contradicts your theories.

Really? If Matthew was accompaning them "ALL THE TIME" from the baptism of Jesus forward... what in the world was he doing sitting in that tax collector's booth when Jesus came back across the sea to Capernaum?

Scripture, in context, does not support your theories.

peace to youraying:

 

Scripture does use the name of Jesus in this verse.

Of the many times the word "Lord" is used in Acts, it almost always is a direct reference to Jesus.

The word "way" is used several times to refer to Christianity. (9:2, 19:9, 22:4, 24:14, 24:22)

It is certain that Luke used the phrase "the way of the Lord", in Acts 18:25, to refer to Christianity.

But even if what you said was true, it is clear from the context that the area where Apollos needed further instruction was baptism. Why? Because he was only aquainted with the baptism of John. Despite all your mental gymnastics, that is clear from the text.

If John's baptsim and Christian baptism were the same, there would be no need for further instruction for Apollos.

And there you have it from your own mouth. Apollos knew the baptism of John.... but he did not know the baptism of the church.... two different baptisms.... they are not the same.

Even you can see the text shows there is a difference.

peace to youraying:

 

I do agree that immersion is the proper way to baptize, but that does not go far enough. The Church of Christ immerses, and believes that a person going under the water is an element of salvation. What use is that? It is a total waste of time and an exercise in futility.

What I am not understanding is what being a Reformist, Calvinist, Catholic, Puritin, or Congregationalist, has to do with this subject.

I would never join either type of church, but will say this. If I was forced to choose between immersion as a requirement for salvation, or sprinkling that followed salvation, I would take sprinking any day of the week.