The 2nd Mark... Baptism of Believers by Immersion... Baptizo!

Originally posted by Tyndale1946:

Ok, then, perhaps here is the statement where some would get the idea that Christ instituted a different baptism. But is this what he has done, even in commissioning the subject be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

I don't think so.

But perhaps the first thing of significance here is the mode of baptism; in speaking of the mode Hassell makes a fine argument against anything but immersion:

</font>

• the word baptizo, from bapto, to dip, being frequentative in form, but not in meaning, having an active or causative meaning, to make or cause another to dip;
  
  First, John has no recorded baptism. If it is supposed the Jews commonly practiced this, was there a difference in the purpose? The Pharisee would immerse the body in a pool after being in contact with unclean peoples; the body was ceremonially washed; but is this the same connection as the purpose of John's baptism? The Brass Laver was between the door of the Tabernacle and the altar of burnt sacrifice, placed here for the purpose of the priest to wash himself before entering into the door of the Tabernacle, was this symbolic of repentance? No. If we limit the Baptism of John to the act of repentance we do two harms to it, IMO.
  
  1. We force upon Christ the need to receive baptism; could John; or did John say of him as he did of the Pharisees to bring forth fruit meet for repentance? This is a forced restriction I am not prepared to make and is the worse of the two.
  
  2. Second is closely related to the next, it involves requiring in man the act of baptism for regeneration. This is similar, but not equal to the damage done in imposing this upon Christ. Though it is damaging to the point of being deceptive; it's false teaching can be undone by the real power of God. That which is imposed upon Christ is one that remains irreconcilable because it removes from the Anointed one of God the impeccability His diety demands.
  
  3. this leaves baptism to be but a mark of identification, a public show of the faith of the subject submitting and being identified with the body of believers and then makes baptism the entry into this body. As the baptism is visible, so too is the body. Where the body is invisible, the baptism too would be invisible.</font>
• John Wesley says: “The ancient manner of baptizing was by immersion.” The “form” of baptism was regarded by all these Protestants bodies as non-essential, as though the term “baptizm” was an indefinite one for the application of water in general, which it is perfectly certain that it is not; or as though man has the right or power to change an ordinance of Christ, which he has no more right or power to do than he has to change the course of nature.</font>

Here shows without doubt that man of himself cannot change the ordinance of Christ, none here would argue this; yet this is what is being argued I think when we assume the baptism of John is different than Christian Baptism; it is evident by John chapter 4 that Christ did not baptize any, and he permitted the disciples to baptize having only the baptism of John; why then do we suppose the commission of Christ at Matt. 28 is a change of the baptism of John? It is due to the presence of the words Christ used '...in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost...' but I would submit for your consideration that the presence of the Trinity was present in the Baptism of John; even as this presence was manifested at the Baptism of Christ. There was no need to make this change, to say it is changed is the attempt we have placed upon it for our own reasons, whatever these may be. If Paul's re-baptizing the 12 'disciples' of John, though really they were students of Appollos, signifies a different baptism then he is effectively changing this baptism.

To argue the Baptism of Christ, and thus the christian Baptism is one that is of the Holy Spirit cannot stand because believers are not baptized by the Holy Spirit, nor into the Holy Spirit, we are indwelt by the spirit. To me at least, these are different things. Note:

From Hassell's:

Was the baptism of John based upon superstition as was commonly practiced baptism among the Jews?

Next:

This speaks for itself and answers to why I believe the 'baptism of the Spirit' is not equal to the idwelling of the Spirit.

This is enough right now.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[ April 12, 2003, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Just trying to generate some interest in this subject with the following quotes from Hassell's 12 marks and a few comments.

Bro. Dallas

I believe Hassell makes a very good point here that he will elaborate at the end of his 2nd mark. I agree with him, as to what he appears to be saying as I read here that the baptism of John and that of Jesus (the first being water baptism and the latter being with the spirit) are not to be considered figures. Or that the water baptism is not to represent the baptism of the Spirit onto the church which is collective. The indwelling of the Spirit of a believer is that which occurs at the moment of salvation. If we are to say the 'baptism of the Spirit' is this action, then we justify every and any doctrine anyone wants to go 'into all the world' and teach, why should they not teach as such? Are they not 'baptized with the same Spirit as the 'supposed' church and thus possess the same authority? I would think the making of Spirit baptism an individual thing and a mysterious cause of being placed into the 'mysterious' church is such a declaration. Tell me why it is not....then tell me I possess the baptism of the Spirit....then tell me I am wrong in doctrine when I claim a new revelation from Christ....for this is most definitely from his Spirit....we may as well extend our communion to any who have over the years who have claimed such new and extra-Testament revelation---historically and at present. What we are effectively doing is granting such authority by accepting such Spiritual baptism to be something other than the historical out-pouring of the Holy Spirit on the assembled church at Pentecost.

Water baptism was already present, what was lacking was the '...being imbued with power from on High...' this is what happened to the church on the day of pentecost. Were all members present? We must rightly answer, I don't know...if not, were the absent members likewise baptized? No, why you ask? because this was an action upon the body of believers, the church, local and visible at Jerusalem.

Baptism is Baptism. It figures the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and the believer participant's identification with Christ as being dead, buried, and resurrected with Him. Was the church 'baptized' on the day of Pentecost as such? True they were overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit, but was this a figure likened to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? No. It was and is likened to the resurrection power of Christ, having '...ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.'

This last quote ends the 2nd mark. Hoping for some discussion.

I have placed in italics what I believe to be a statement biblically correct concerning the historical perpetuation of the church.

Hope this stimulates some discussion of these points. Even in disagreement discussion is better than merely talking to oneself. (There is only so much of looking at myself in the mirror I can handle.)

God Bless all and have a great and wonderful day in the Lord!!!

Bro. Dallas

 

I did not grow up in a "Baptist Bride" church but I joined one for a couple of years(not knowing fully what they believed). I ended up leaving that church over the issue of the Universal Church and Baptismal Authority.

I don't believe "We are baptized into a local church" as was stated many times. This has no scriptual merit whatsoever. Certainly it is Biblical to say believers baptism should precede membership in a local visable body, but we are not Baptized into ABC church.

Also on the issue of Baptism while I see people being ordained and what not - I do not see any command in the New Testament that someone must have "authority" to Baptize.

Any believer may Baptize and I am not so sure that self Baptism is wrong. Believer's baptism is something between himself and God.

Now over they centuries we have added all kinds of literical things to Baptism, even we as Baptists say "it is an outward confession of a inward change" and that Baptism must be done before the church.

Was the Ethopian unichs Baptism done before a local visible church? Did anyone vote on it? These are all traditions of men.

I already know some passages some may throw at me and I am prepared - give me your best shot.

The Baptist Bride church I attended felt you needed church authority to do anything - even evangelistic endevours. Non-Baptist churches
and organizations did not have "the authority" to preach the Gospel let alone Baptize people.

I will leave you with one passage.

Galatians 1:15-19(NIV)
"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother."

The reason I bring this passage up is that I have been challenged many times by Baptist Briders for my website and my feelings of a mission toward my fellow IFB brothers who are deceived by things like KJVOnlyism and Baptist Bridism.

They say "By what authority are you doing this - what local church is supporting you and sending you out to do this? If you are not doing this under the authority of a New Testament church than it can not be of God".

IFBReformer

[ April 14, 2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: IfbReformer ]

 

It is interesting that you end your citation before you get into ch. 2 which indicates that Paul did communicate with these apostles to determine whether he had been pursuing his work in vain.

It is also interesting to note that you fail to mention that Paul is not recorded to have baptized any in the N.T. until after Acts 13.

Now, back to Galatians Ch. 2 check out vs. 9.

Then you do bring up a very good point, that of the Ethiopian Eunuch. Certainly he was not baptized in the presence of a local body, but at this time there was but one local body and that was in Jerusalem.

BTW, I do agree that you are able to do activities such as your web-site apart from church authority, you may even preach without having this authority, but I do agree with the 'briders' that performance of baptism requires an ordained member of the church. As I said above, Paul did preach as soon as he was called, but he is not recorded in scripture to have baptized any until after having been sent or "ordained" by the church in Antioch, who ordained Barnabas at the same time.
RSR, I do not have time right now to answer your post, but I will. Thanks for posting guys.

God Bless.
Bro.Dallas

 

Yes Paul did communicate with the other apostles "14 years later" in Jerusalem. Apparently he was going through some doubt about his ministry. But getting council from Christian brothers and getting "authority" are two entirely different things.

The key phrase is "not recorded" - we do not know that he he did not Baptize anyone before this.

Even for sake of conversation - if Paul did not baptize anyone before this, there is no command of the New Testament that a person must be ordained to perform Baptism.

It does not matter if at that time there was one local body or 50 local bodies. Here we see what Baptism is really for - it is between the individual and God. It does not have to be done before a local church assembly.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying it is wrong to be baptized in front of a church or to be baptized by an ordained minister - but these things are not required in the New Testament.

It is amazing once we peel away the layers of tradition how simple things really are.

IFBReformer

 

For example:

In fact, a church would be well within her prerogatives and responsibilities to question as valid a baptism as outline in the second set of circumstances. </font>[/QUOTE]Squire,

What New Testament command would prohibit the Grandfather from baptizing his grandson in the backyard pool? Or as my father taught me growing up -book chapter verse?

Lets face it - having clergy baptize or being baptized in front a church is tradition. It is not rooted in Biblical command.

IFBReformer

 

Squire,

That was my point! He was not a clergy man. I am saying you don't have to be a clergy man or be authorized by a church or perform the baptism in front of church. The New Testament does not make any commands about who administers or where baptism is administered.

IFBReformer

 

I think the historical Baptist position is that the ordinances should be administered by the elders, with the understanding that what was assumed was a multiplicity of elders. </font>[/QUOTE]rsr,
I would say you are correct in saying it is the historical position of modern Baptists(at least from 1600's on) that the person who baptizes must be a "preaching" disciple. But even most of them did not believe he had to be ordained and most rejected an successionist idea that he had have authority passed down.

Having said that, before that 1600's there are reported cases of self baptism. I personally do not have a problem with it because I believe Baptism is between the individual and God, just like Salvation is.

It it true that Jesus was baptized publically but then the ethopian eunich was not baptized before a church. In fact he was not even baptized by a Pastor(preaching disciple) but by a deacon.

Even with the position of Baptists from the 1600's who say it must be a preaching disciple I say where does the New Testament specify the qualifications for the administer of Baptism? The answer is it does not.

IFBReformer

 

Regardless of the issue we take concerning this question we should recognize that the Apostles and men such as Steven were operating from the Jerusalem church, they did not have the heresies to deal with etc. that plague our modern day churches.

Having said this it is also noted in Scripture that Steven was a deacon and not a 'preaching brethren' yet God no doubt worked in his 'message' of which Saul was a member of the audience.

I believe as I do not because of the witness of history, though history is important it is a convenience as well. It can hardly be said that a clear or distinct example can be given because for centuries the majority view worked to stamp out any opposition to their teaching on baptism etc.

Baptism early became a point of contention and remains so today. Why? Because we fail to note that Christ never baptized, he left this as it is today among the Baptists, an ordinance of the church. If Christ had baptized then certainly he would have re-baptized the apostles. This would not mean he would require a second baptism, but to change the baptism would imply the disapproval of God concerning John's Baptism, then because God the Father and God the Son are one, could the Son have submitted to the Baptism of John while the Father did not approve it?

Then there is the Biblical testimony of the presence of the Trinity in Christ's baptism; would the Godhead not have been present also in all of John's baptism?

You are welcome to believe as you are able to see from the Scripture to be true. But I cannot but believe the baptism is the tie to NT authority; I believe all other doctrine can be true and yet the baptism be wrong.

If we place baptism in the hands of men as some suggest we declare the baptism of many heretics and the resultant denominations they have formed as valid, thus making the truth that God is not the author of confusion to be untrue.

A prominent case that comes to my mind is the Campbellite error.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

I would have to agree with Bro.Dallas,baptism is a commission of the church not individuals.Not one person has the right to baptize without the authority of the local body.I am a pastor and do not have that authority to baptize out side the church. Just because grandpa wants to baptize jr. doesn`t cut it.Our problem is we think to much without considering Gods direct word and bible principle. Some things are not spelled out in chapter and vs. Bible principle may only be found by studying the subject and not just one vs. The book of ACTS is a great missionary outreach under the authority of the JERUSALEM church until chp.13 and then the outreach comes from ANTIOCH. BOTH of which were led by "ORDAINED MEN OF GOD",who under the authority of the church did the baptizing. We as individuals need to submit to that authority (church) and the word of GOD. MAY GOD RICHLY BLESS!!!