Baptism and the existence of a church

First, John the Baptist was never baptized but also was never part of the church as he was "the friend of the bride" (Jn. 3:29). His mission as the final Old Testament line of the prophets was to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord' (Lk. 1:17). It is the apostles that were set first in the church (I Cor. 12:28).

Jesus took materials that John had prepared (Lk. 1:17; Jn. 1:38-51). The qualification to be chosen as an apostle was that this person had companied with Jesus "from the baptism of John" until his resurrection (Acts 1:22-23). The apostles were identified as "disciples" in Matthew 28:16 and were commissioned by Christ to "make disciples" (Mt. 28:19) through a process they "have" already been through (Mt. 28:20). Jesus defined disciples as baptized persons. Jesus taught that all who refused to be baptized with the baptism of John rejected the counsel of God against themselves (Lk. 7:29-30) and those who submitted to the baptism of John "justified God." Jesus baptized others through his disciples (Jn 4:1-2) insomuch that they baptized more disciples than John. There is nothing in the scriptures that even hints the apostles were ever baptized after Pentecost or the hundreds baptized by John and Jesus disciples were ever baptized after Pentecost.

For your objection to have any validity Jesus would have to call persons unto him and make them apostles who sided with the Pharisees in refusing to submit to the baptism of John, thus rejecting the counsel of God against themselves. They would be authorized by Christ to baptize others but refuse to justify God themselves. They would be authorized to "make disciples" through a process they "have" not submitted to themselves. They would demand that any person filling that office start with "the baptism of John" but they themselves are unbaptized. If you can believe such a nonsensical inferrence more power to you.

In regard to those in Acts 19. They were part of no church because the person who baptized them was no part of any church and that is why their baptism was invalid. I never said they were lost. I never said they were without some kind of baptism. The evidence I put forth was that they were without the kind of baptism they claimed. They were not baptized by John the Baptist nor did they have the baptism of John. Whoever baptized them was ignorant of the Holy Spirit and particularly the promise of the Spirit and His arrival on Pentecost. They were ignorant of the Biblical purpose for baptism. They were baptized to identify with John the Baptist. John the Baptist administered baptism for the purpose to identify a person with repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 19:4). It is when they heard this they submitted to baptism under Paul (Acts 19:5) and sign gifts were conveyed to them through the laying on of apostolic hands (Acts 19:6). Similarly, Apollos had some of the same problems as these disciples. He knew the way of salvation according to the Old Testament gospel of Christ but did not know that Jesus of Nazeth was the fulfillment of the promised Christ. He knew the baptism of John and there is no mention of him being rebaptized but did not know about the baptism in the Spirit or the divine accreditation of the authorized administrator of the ordinances or the new house of God.

 

Well, I thought this text was so obvious that I didn't need to use it. However, thanks for bringing it into the discussion. You are very welcome

 

You make the stupid assumption that simply because we believe the scriptures place limitations upon a teaching that this makes us an elitist!!!!!! Your argument is the very same argument used by pantheists against monotheist. It is the very same argument used by other world religions against Christians who believe in "one" way and through Jesus Christ alone. It is the very same argument used by other world religions against the final authority of the Bible as opposed to other holy books of other religions.

If we took the limitations of "one" in Ephesians 4:4-6 those who oppose that Biblical limitation of only "one hope" or "one Spirit" or "one faith" or "one baptism" or "one God" or "one Lord" and "one body" would use your exact argument of elitism simply because we believe there is only "one" and all others are false and derived from Satan.

You see, when the scriptures place a limitation such as "one body" and "one baptism" it draws a circle that excludes all who are not in agreement with that limiation. In your mind that makes all who side with the scriptures on such a limitation that draws a circle that condemns and excludes all outside that circle as elitists!!!

Landmarkers simply believe there is "one body" for the Christian and that is the kind we find in the New Testament and it is further limited by "one baptism" for the Christian and that is the one in the Great Commission and there is but "one faith" for the Christian and that is the one that was "ONCE delivered" that we should contend for. However, all who would side with the Scriptures on this narrow limits of "one" by the Scriptures you call an elitist!!!

When we say there is only "one hope" this excludes all human beings as Christians as saved, as going to heaven other than those who are within that circle of "one hope." Your type of reasoning would call them elitist.

When we say there is only "one baptism" this excludes all Christians as baptized Christians if they were sprinkled, poured or even immersed for the wrong purpose by the wrong administrator and to you that makes those who believe in "one baptism" elitists.

Your thinking and reasoning is warped and certainly does not originate with the Spirit of God as God is a very narrow minded God. He thinks He is right and all who disagree with Him are wrong. He has one way of salvation and all who disagree with Him He condemns to hell. He says that Jesus is the only way and all who disagree with him and go other ways he condemns. By your definition God is an elitist IF He claimed to have but ONE WAY of service as well as you think anyone is an elitists if you draw a circle that might exclude other ways of service.

Your reasoning applied to anything you believe would force you to embrace relativism and never absolutism on any subject. You can never draw circles that eliminate anyone by your reasoning or that is elitism.

My challenge was simple - Can you find any precept or any example in Scripture of any visible church institution made up of unbaptized believers?

I did not say they were not "believers" (although many are probably not by Biblical definition).

My position is that both Biblical precept and Biblical example restrict a true church of Christ to a membership scripturally baptized professed believers and all churches that do not fit that description are not true churches of Christ and are therefore without authority to administer the ordinances, ordain ministers or constitute churches.

You would make a perfect politician because when they cannot respond with substantive reasons they simply make personal attacks upon the person presenting the evidence. This is what you have done from the start. You have no substantive response so you make personal attacks on all who believe what you cannot disprove.

 

Your welcome.

 

The answer to your question is found clearly in the Scriptures. The term "baptizo" and its associations ("buried" - Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12) clearly and unmistakenly limit scriptural baptism to immersion. This unbaptizes the vast majority of Christendom who sprinkle and pour.

The Scriptures clearly and unmistakenly over and over again limit immersion to those who are already repentant believers as faith always precedes baptism in the scriptures (Acts 2:41; Mt. 28:19; Acts 8:35-37; etc.). This eliminates all who were baptized as infants which again eliminates the vast majority of professing Christendom.

The Scriptures clearly and unmistakenly teach that the purpose of baptism is public identification with Christ, His gospel, His authorized administrators and their doctrine rather than to be literally regenerated, saved or born again (Mt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:41-42; I Pet. 3:21). This eliminates all who are immersed in order to be regenerated.

The Scriptues clearly and unmistakenly teach that authority to administer the ordinances is given by God (Jn. 1:31; Mt. 18:17-18; 28:18-20). Jesus went to the man authorized and "sent" (Gr. apostolos) by God (Jn. 1:30; Mt. 3:15-17) when there were Jewish authorities that performed immersion. Jesus identified the authority behind his own ministry with that baptism (Mt. 21:23-25). Christ authorized and commission those contextually defined as "ye" in contrast to those defined as "them" in Mt. 28:19-20. This plural "ye" are further defined in Acts 1:15-23 and 2:1, 41,47 as "the church." Anyone who studies the "keys of the kingdom" (Mt. 18:17-18) and the phrase "house of God" (I Tim. 3:15 with Deut. 12) realize it is the public institution for worship and administration of the ordinances with a qualified ministry as clearly seen in I Tim. 3:1-13 which leads up to I Tim. 1:15 and the expression "house of God."

Hence, scriptural baptism is by immersion only. It is of believers in Christ only. It is for public identification with Christ not for regeneration. It is administered by the church as "the house of God" and custodian of the "keys of the kingdom" (Mt. 18:17-18) through its membership set apart to administer the ordinances. This is not merely the clear and explicit Biblical pattern but the historical position of ancient Baptists.

Just the first two essentials listed above define the vast majority of professing Christians as unbaptized persons. Where there is no scriptural baptism there cannot possibly exist any scriptural church as there is no such church to be found in the New Testament that consists of unbaptized persons.

 

Because the universal invisible body of Christ theory and its "in Christ" interpretation permeates the minds of so many Baptists in thinking to be in this kind of church is to be saved and to be outside is to be lost many Baptists cannot divorce the church from the salvation in their thinking.

That is our problem here and it is reflected in Hank's words above when he said,

Those that I have read who are opposed to some of the details of Dr Walter's propositions have even said that they believe pado-baptists and non-immersionists to be wrong. Sincere but wrong, however Christians nonetheless.

I have never denied or disputed that a person could be saved who was not a baptist, or who is without scriptural baptism. I am not talking about the state of one's individual salvation but the church as a visible institution as presented in the scriptures. There is no such thing as a church of Christ consisting of unbaptized BELIEVERS. Where there is no scriptural baptism there is no scriptural church. All the improperly baptized members of an institution such as Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Lutheran, etc., etc. may be saved but their individual salvation does not make them a New Testament church.

I grant you that a correct profession of salvation is one essential for constitution of a New Testament church but since the church has nothing to do with saving anyone but with serving Christ acceptably then the essentials of a church has to do exactly with acceptable service and it begins with baptism. It does not begin and end with baptism but it must begin there.

The Masonic lodge in America requires all members to believe in a god and in the deep south most Masonic lodges are made up of professed Christians who meet regularly and administer Masonic rites but would anyone claim that this regular assembly of Masonic Christians is a New Testament church simply because they may be saved and regularly assemble????? Get my point?

 

Read Luke 1:17b and you will see John's mission was to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord". The "Lord" in question is Jesus Christ (Mk 1:1-4). How did he make read a people prepared? This requires study of the overall context of the gospels in how John carried out his mission. He preached the gospel and called on his hearers to repent and believe in Christ (Jn. 1:29; 3:36; Acts 19:4). He baptized those who responded in this manner. As such they were "prepared for the Lord" to take and use in building the church as they are the first officer set in the church (I Cor. 12:28) and this happened very early in the gospel accounts.

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.

First, my position is not built upon silence because the scriptures are not silent about how Jesus took unto himself those baptized by John in the first chapter of John's gospel as you even admit. You are the one arguing from silence. You are insisting that unless it can be shown that each and every apostle followed the order we are given in scripture of the first apostles then it must be assumed on silence that the rest did not follow the stated order and that some other kind of order may have applied to other apostles. You do this with Acts 1:22-23. Why would Peter even say this if it were not true of the rest of the apostles? Why would he suggest something NEW or not true of some of the Apostles but insist upon it for a replacement? Your argument makes no sense.

Your denial that Matthew 28:19-20 is commissioned to those who "have" already been through the same process (gospelized, baptized and instructed how to observe) presumes that non-disciples can make disciples as this is the very process given by Christ to "make disciples" (main Greek verb). The ungospelized would be sent to gospelize others or the unbaptized would be sent to baptize others or the untaught would be sent to teach what they were never taught? Based purely upon silence you assume that some other baptism than the baptism of John existed in the pre-Pentecost Great Commission. Based purely upon silence you assume that some of those called "disciples" in Matthew 28:16 were unbaptized when all available evidence and I might add common sense dictates completely otherwise.

Luke 7:29-30 demonstrates that John himself need not baptize anyone for that person to have the "baptism of John" as Jesus baptized more than John (Jn. 4:1-2) and it was not a competitive baptism. Hence, those called later by Christ to follow him could have received the baptism of John through Jesus and His disciples (Jn. 4:1-2). Since baptism was the visible sign of acceptance of John's Messiah message then it is assumption based upon pure silence on your part to suppose that one could be a disciple of Christ and yet not submit to the same baptism that Jesus Himself submitted to!!!

Apollos had an active preaching ministry attempting to make disciples. He was not deficient in the way of salvation but he was deficient in the way of service. John did not authorize Apollos or anyone else to continue his ministry or to administer his baptism. Those commissioned by Christ to administer the ordinances was the church he built and set apostles in and gave the keys of the kingdom to (Mt. 18:17-18; Mt. 28:19-20) and this new "house of God" was divinely accredited to be God's house by the baptism in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost and thus the authorized administrator of the ordinances. Apollos, just as those disciples in Acts 19 knew nothing of the baptism in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. He was a fee-lance preacher who had no authority to carry out John's commission or the commission of the church. THERE IS NO RECORD THAT HE WAS BAPTIZED AGAIN. However, from that point forward he worked with New Testament churches instead of outside them.

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:

 

Have you ever read the introduction to the Masonic Edition of the Holy Bible? I have. They claim to be a SUPERIOR light to Christianity and thus a superior religious institution under God (even though they deny they are a religious institution). In America the Holy Bible is open upon their table.

However, suppose they did claim to be the real "true" churches of God, would it make them so?