Times of the Gentiles

[David M]

Hello Joseph

Good post from you. I would like to add something that I consider complimentary to your post. I am not good at word etymology but I remember the word baptism (the immersion in water) likened to the process of dyeing a garment to change its color. In the process of dyeing material, the material has to be completely immersed in water hence true baptism is the complete immmersion in water and has nothing to do with sprinkling water on infants.

The scriptural lesson that also comes from baptism is that it is likened to washing our garments in the blood of the lamb. In this case, symbolically we are dyeing our garments in blood, but instead of getting stained with blood, the garments are washed clean. This is the understanding that comes from the Book of the Revelation.
(Rev 7:13) What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? (14) And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

At the time of baptism, having figuratively washed our robes in the blood of the lamb and made them white (and spotless) the aim of those baptized is to keep their washed garment spotless. This is the idea behind what James writes (1:27) Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. It is by having the figurative covering of Christ and the forgiveness of our sins when we confess them before God that Christ is able to present us faultless before God. Jesus is able to present us without spot before his Heavenly Father and just as the animals sacrificed under the old law were to be spotless (perfect) and Jesus was also spotless when he gave himself as the sacrifice for sin, so we have the same principle at work. Only that which is spotless is acceptable to God and without Christ's covering for our sins, we would not be presentable to God.

I think it is very important that we take note of what Jesus said when he went through the process of baptism. John pointed out that Jesus had no need to be baptized and to those who say there is no need to be baptized then as Jesus answered John, so this is my answer to those who say there is not need for baptism by water; (Matt 3:15) Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.
Unless baptism is complied with, I fail to see how "all righteousness" is being fulfilled by the follower of Jesus.

We have warnings against not being baptized and it is evident that baptism is part of the salvation process and having a good conscience having done everything to follow the example of Jesus. (Mark 15:16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; (1 Peter 3:21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us

With these verses in mind, I consider it a risk for anyone to say that baptism is not necessary. For the sake of having a good conscience I submitted to baptism. I might have failed to live perfectly thereafter, which is why I have to continue to request forgiveness and have faith that Christ is able to present me faultless before our Heavenly Father. This is why we should thank God for the provision of His Son and the acceptance of His Son's sacrifice, which has made eternal life in God's kingdom possible.

Israel did wickedly in God's sight and God pleaded with them on many occasions to repent and change their ways in the same way as everyone in every generation will have at sometime heard the message to repent. The goodness and severity of God is spelled out in the following quotation and just as Israel had the choice to obey and receive God's blessing, so we are given the same choice. It is up to us if we want to escape the final punishment that will come to those who refuse to repent and accept God's terms. God is just and it is man who is unjust.

Isaiah 1
15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

All the best,

David

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Here Paul shows that our faith in Christ's resurrection is shown through Baptism. Through our faith in the resurrection of Christ (Romans 10:9-10), we demonstrate our faith (through action) by being buried in the waters of Christ (Baptism), and we are raised to the newness of life when we come up out of the water. Thus, Baptism is a burial and a resurrection; it is also a circumcision of the heart; the removal of that which is unclean. Our sins are remitted when we are buried with Christ through baptism (water) into death for the remissin of our sins, and after being raised, we are thus reborn. This is exactly what Jesus meant in John 3, "born from above of water (baptism in His Name) and Spirit (coming up out of full-emmersion).

Finally, Peter states that Baptism saves us, not by the physical washing of our body (as was the case with John's Baptism), but with the answer of a clean conscious, having our hearts and minds (through out faith) cleaned of all guilt, and thereby setting us right before God; we are re-born afresh, as was the case with the Hebrews after crossing the red-sea. The red-sea is a picture of Christ's blood.

I'll respond to your other posts later.

Have a great night.

Joe

I still am in disagreement with your understanding of it's meaning and of your use of the scripture to codify or legislate a conditional ordinance. I disagree with the underlined and boldened perspectives above but I see that you used the right word "demonstrate' above.

It is the historic meaning that the expression of baptism had at that time which is important. Without that, it is just a religious ordinance which Christ came to free from and abolish, not set up.

Baptism is just one means of public expression [and likely the most meaningful and close resemblence] expression. It is a symbolic expression, but there are other means, including verbal confession with the mouth that Jesus's Is Lord/Creator and that his resurrection from the dead verified the truth of his deity and the truthfulness and Authority of his Words. A persons 'changed and positive life' along with a willingness to confess Christ is another means of public expression.

Baptism, in going under the water [like the red sea crossers went under water] is an expression that it's participants were willing to give allegience to Moses and God even unto death. They had abandoned all other hope for their lives and placed all hope in Moses and God. This is part of the weight of Christian baptism that is missed due to it's being reguarded as a conditional ordinance to "OBTAIN" 'salvation' and relationship with God. It is NOT, but rather a public expression of a previous internal spiritual occurance and witness. The things you mentioned [underlined above] occur spiritually and internally with physical baptism being one possible means of expressing and communicationg that change. It represents that the person has placed faith in Christ and no other way and that the person has recieved affirmation and approval during that placement of faith.

'not the washing of water, but the pledge of a good Conscience [with reguard to the truth revealed within you and with regard to the way Christ died] towards God.

No man can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because his life may be put in jeapordy [especially at that time period] because of that confession.

If a group of men are riding through the desert on motorcycles and during camp they share with one another. The one man comes to believe on the Creator of Life, his incarnation and words through Christ and of his verification through resurrection, and of his unconditional favor of life through that faith, and then confesses that faith to his friends and that he has been internally changed... But there is no water? Your saying that he has not been "saved" from the previous absence of supernatural and positive, loving friendship with the living Creator.

Just like 'saved' has a different meaning in Rom 11:26 than being justified by faith, establishing this confirmed relationship with the Father, and crossing over death to eternal life, so also it can have different meanings when used by Peter when he says 'baptism' now SAVES" you. It is a saving from the timidity of making a public confession and saving from relinquishing to the possible fearof persecution that making a public confession would bring. I think it was a publick mark or expression of leaving Moses and hope in Judaism [or other isms] for Freedom in Christ and Grace and truth of Life. It 'saved' them from timidity by publickly announcing their departure from Moses and conditional, corporal, territorial law. They 'expatriated' from national, religious house of judah and from any hope in the mosaic covenant or law.


Recall how John the B was beheaded.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hello Joseph

I think it is very important that we take note of what Jesus said when he went through the process of baptism. John pointed out that Jesus had no need to be baptized and to those who say there is no need to be baptized then as Jesus answered John, so this is my answer to those who say there is not need for baptism by water; (Matt 3:15) Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.
Unless baptism is complied with, I fail to see how "all righteousness" is being fulfilled by the follower of Jesus.

We have warnings against not being baptized and it is evident that baptism is part of the salvation process and having a good conscience having done everything to follow the example of Jesus. (Mark 15:16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; (1 Peter 3:21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us

All the best,

David

Hi David,
Good selection of verses.
Why did Jesus submit to or come to Baptism?
Consider and contemplate the possibility that since it was he himself who had delivered the corporal/conditional law to Moses to a people who were still under the condemned heart and ignorance of God, It was also Jesus who would confirm that the ending of the conditional, territorial, corporal law and the beginning of the kindom of Heaven was here. [through the new teaching of Creations King!!.]

Christianity is not corporal legalism, but an association [body] of individuals of similar experience with the law of faith in the person and character of God incarnate. See Jer 31 and EZ 14. for the individuality. Jesus is contrast against Moses several times including the need for the prophet like Moses [Deut 18] who would be raised up and end the law of Moses by bringing words of life and truth. But the new covenant which he would bring wouild be NOT LIKE that delievered by Moses. [Jer 31] See also John 1:17.

But, how in your mind would Jesus fulfill all righteousness by being baptized, knowing that Johns baptism in the Jordan was a baptism of repentence? What did Jesus need to 'repent' from?

Mark 15:16 could also equally refer to the inner baptism of the witness of the Holy Spriit or [sealing in truth]

In contrast we read Rom 10 where Paul says:

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name [person and character] of the Lord shall be saved.

Baptism is'nt mentioned, but confession with mouth [publick expression] is. AND note the mention of not being 'ashamed'. Can you make a connection between making a public expression with pledging a 'good conscience' towards God and not being ashamed?

Weather it's baptism by immersion or confessing to a SS teacher, I believe both confessions should be accompanied by documentation.

and in John 1:12-13 we read.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 6: 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

He doesn't say in either of these to believe and be baptized.

Some church doctrines assymilate and subjugate new 'members' via making an obligation to baptim as part of and a pre-requisite for 'salvation' and/or church membership. I question this process. In effect, in some cases, they are baptized into the church and the doctrines of that particular corporal 'church'. If the baptism is used as one of the means of a public confession, then it may seem justified.

But people can get the false idea [just as you both have presented] that one comes to an eternal, personal, experiential relationship with the Living God, [are 'saved'], through baptism and/or possibly church membership. That is not the case.

[TheForgiven]

I still am in disagreement with your understanding of it's meaning and of your use of the scripture to codify or legislate a conditional ordinance. I disagree with the underlined and boldened perspectives above but I see that you used the right word "demonstrate' above.

It is okay to disagree as long as you are able to understand the opposition. And because you are not a crazed Futurist, I'll make an exception of your disagreement.

Baptism is just one means of public expression [and likely the most meaningful and close resemblence] expression. It is a symbolic expression, but there are other means, including verbal confession with the mouth that Jesus's Is Lord/Creator and that his resurrection from the dead verified the truth of his deity and the truthfulness and Authority of his Words. A persons 'changed and positive life' along with a willingness to confess Christ is another means of public expression.

This is where I disagree. Baptism is not a symbol; it is an act of faith and obedience. The flood of Noah is a symbol of what Baptism actually represents. I've shown you through scripture that Baptism is a burial and a resurrection (Colossians 2). I've also shown that Baptism without faith is pointless (Romans 10:9-10 + Colossians 2). And finally, Baptism is an act of obedience, and hence required, (Matthew 24 Great commission). We are commanded to be Baptized; choice is not an option. Just as when Nahum was commanded to dip himself 7 times into the Jordon river. Not one ounce of his leprosy was healed until he came up out of the water on the 7th time.

And consider also this. Baptism was a proudly practiced act of faith as established by Christ unto the Apostles, and hence to us. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation, particularly those of the Calvinist belief, that Baptism became a question of necessity or rejection. While it is true that Catholics later adapted the idea of sprinkling many centuries before then, they at least understood the importance of Baptism, although I reject the idea of infant Christening.

Baptism, in going under the water [like the red sea crossers went under water] is an expression that it's participants were willing to give allegience to Moses and God even unto death. They had abandoned all other hope for their lives and placed all hope in Moses and God. This is part of the weight of Christian baptism that is missed due to it's being reguarded as a conditional ordinance to "OBTAIN" 'salvation' and relationship with God. It is NOT, but rather a public expression of a previous internal spiritual occurance and witness. The things you mentioned [underlined above] occur spiritually and internally with physical baptism being one possible means of expressing and communicationg that change. It represents that the person has placed faith in Christ and no other way and that the person has recieved affirmation and approval during that placement of faith.

Not required for salvation? Can this command from Christ be any more clear? "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, Baptizing them in the name of Jesus (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)." Did Peter misunderstand this command in Acts 2:38? I know the Anti-Baptists like to say that the great commission was not about water baptism, but spiritual baptism. If that were case, then Peter got it all wrong because he clearly distinguished between Jesus name baptism, and receiving the gift of the Spirit.

'not the washing of water, but the pledge of a good Conscience [with reguard to the truth revealed within you and with regard to the way Christ died] towards God.

Your definition here does not fit the context of his example. Noah's flood killed all sinners. In the same way, when you are buried in the waters (think flood of Noah), sin is destroyed forever, but ONLY through the blood of Christ. Once you come up out of the water, every act of sin is gone and buried, never to be found again. Just as the sinners perished in the flood of Noah, the same with the sinner who is buried in Baptism into death, through Jesus Name. All of this is within context of Peter's discussion and explanation. Plus you changed/altered the grammar of the text. I heard a Southern Baptist do this in the past, but again, doing so does not fit the context of Peter's use of Noah's flood. And this is very easy to disprove. If Peter was saying, "Not the water Baptism, but the internal Baptism through confession and belief", then he contradicted himself 35 years prior in Acts 2:38. Did Peter make a mistake when they asked, "What shall we do to be saved?" He said, "Repent and be Baptized".

Now here's where you are in error. You are basing Romans 10:9-10 as the foundation for initial salvation (believe and confess), and this is completely wrong. Paul was not explaining HOW to be saved; he was distinguishing the difference between those of the law (Moses must come down from the mountain to declare to us the law), to those of faith (those who profess the name of Christ and have His law in their hearts). That is why Paul said that asking Christ to come down out of heaven to deliver the law (as was the case with Moses) is not based on faith, but on eye-sight. Nay, Paul shows that a Christian (not an unsaved sinner) does not required for Christ to come down from heaven, nor to rise up from the earth, to declare the law. Why? Because the "word", which simply means "law or command" is within you, mind and heart, that is, the word of faith. An unsaved sinner does not have this word within him, so how can Romans 10:9-10 apply to an unsaved sinner; it only applies to the saved.

Those who relied on the law show that God must come down and deliver the law to them, to be heard with the ears. But Christians who proclaim the name of Jesus as their Lord, and who also believe in Christ's resurrection (as all Christians do), we who understand this faith, know that the laws of Christ dwell within our hearts. Thus, Romans 10;9-10 is proof of a Christians faith that His law abides within our heart, so we do not need a Prophet to deliver the law to us; it's already within us.

So, you should be able to see that Romans 10:9-10 is now HOW to be saved, but how we ARE saved.

No man can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because his life may be put in jeapordy [especially at that time period] because of that confession.

I wouldn't quite say this. Peter called Him Lord well before any of them were delivered. Even so, only a Christian can claim Jesus as Lord. This further proves my point that Romans 10:9-10 applies only to Christians, and not sinners.

If a group of men are riding through the desert on motorcycles and during camp they share with one another. The one man comes to believe on the Creator of Life, his incarnation and words through Christ and of his verification through resurrection, and of his unconditional favor of life through that faith, and then confesses that faith to his friends and that he has been internally changed... But there is no water? Your saying that he has not been "saved" from the previous absence of supernatural and positive, loving friendship with the living Creator.

This is a weak argument and one that should not be the basis for determining doctrine. God led the Hebrews out of Egypt (where there was plenty of water and meat), and into a wilderness that was dry and deserted. How can someone have faith if they believe it possible to be trapped in a desert with no water, where all of a sudden, someone begins to witness to the lost? This is not reality my friend, and we all know that God does not work in this way; He always provides a way. And since God commanded sinners to be Baptized for salvation, it is only true that God would supply the water. Even so, realistically speaking, I believe you'll never see this kind of hypothetical situation happen.

Consider the Eunuch? Phillip witnessed to him, and sometime later, they came to some water. What did the Eunuch ask? "Look! Here is water! What prevents me from being Baptized?" Phillip then replies, "If you believe with all of your heart (In Jesus), you may". And Phillip then stopped the chariot, and they went into the water, and the Eunuch was Baptized. Acts thus records the Eunuch running in full joy.

The problem with your hypothetical situation is that you presume the possibility that God would not give two people trapped in a desert enough time to be baptized. Tell you what. Let's use another hypothetical situation. Let's suppose that a deaf and blind person were walking, and someone tried to witness to him/her. The deaf and blind person is unable to see, nor hear, so how can he/she believe or understand? Knowing that the "faith only" believers put so much weight an emphasis on "hearing the word" and "believing the word" and "confessing Jesus as Lord with their mouth", how can a deaf and blind person accomplish this? This hypothetical situation is nearly as absurd as the two men in a desert without water.

Case in point. God always finds a way, or where else would our faith be?

Just like 'saved' has a different meaning in Rom 11:26 than being justified by faith, establishing this confirmed relationship with the Father, and crossing over death to eternal life, so also it can have different meanings when used by Peter when he says 'baptism' now SAVES" you. It is a saving from the timidity of making a public confession and saving from relinquishing to the possible fearof persecution that making a public confession would bring. I think it was a publick mark or expression of leaving Moses and hope in Judaism [or other isms] for Freedom in Christ and Grace and truth of Life. It 'saved' them from timidity by publickly announcing their departure from Moses and conditional, corporal, territorial law. They 'expatriated' from national, religious house of judah and from any hope in the mosaic covenant or law.

Again, you are using a symbol to define another symbol. But that is not what Peter states. Peter states that the flood of a Noah is a "figure" of what Baptism is; a way for salvation. To be baptized is to be saved, just as the earth was once baptized by water in the great flood, your body is baptized by water in Jesus name, thereby causing your death. It is not a symbolic death; it is an actual death whereby the old person is gone, forever, never to be found again. The person that arises out of the water is no longer the old person; he/she is a new person filled with the mind of Christ. This is explained throughout the New Testament. So if you assume you are correct, then this contradicts everywhere else where Baptism is explained.

In summary, Baptism is an act of obedience, faith, death, resurrection, rebirth, circumcision, remission, cleansing, and salvation. It is not a symbol; it is an act. And all actions PROVE our faith. Anything else is a waste. You cannot have faith in the resurrection without proving it. How do you prove your belief and faith in the resurrection? By being baptized.

Joe


Recall how John the B was beheaded.[/QUOTE]

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I've shown you through scripture that Baptism is a burial and a resurrection (Colossians 2). I've also shown that Baptism without faith is pointless (Romans 10:9-10 + Colossians 2). And finally, Baptism is an act of obedience, and hence required, (Matthew 24 Great commission). We are commanded to be Baptized; choice is not an option. Just as when Nahum was commanded to dip himself 7 times into the Jordon river. Not one ounce of his leprosy was healed until he came up out of the water on the 7th time.


In summary, Baptism is an act of obedience, faith, death, resurrection, rebirth, circumcision, remission, cleansing, and salvation. It is not a symbol; it is an act. And all actions PROVE our faith. Anything else is a waste. You cannot have faith in the resurrection without proving it. How do you prove your belief and faith in the resurrection? By being baptized.

Joe

Again, we'll remain in disagreement.
But I find myself repeating statements already made.
Here are a few new perspectives.

How do you prove your belief and faith in the resurrection? By being baptized.

Being baptized doesn't 'prove' your faith. It can rather 'prove' an indoctrination similar to what you present. It can 'show' or profess what you believe, which is what I was saying. A gradually changed life, internal witness of peace, and the witness of the fruits Holy Spirit proves ones faith through justification by faith in the person and his words, just as it occured to Jacob/Israel. He wasn't baptized.

Just as when Peter was told that the internal revealing, confirmation and witness of Jesus as son of the living God would be the "rock" and foundation for his church, so also this type of internal witness and quickening of the spirit occurs when one calls out in faith.

The Great Commission could also be understood to immerse in the teaching of the reality of the entities and teachings of the father, son, indwelling Holy Spirit through justification by faith, etc.. They are the immovable "laws" of Psalm 105:1-10. Father/Abraham, Son/Isaac, Holy Spirit indwelling change, Jacob/Israel. Justification by faith in the character/life of God, unconditional adoption, acceptence through his promised Son and the subsequent indwelling of the Spirit to accomplish good, positive life.

I do not know that I've ever heard of anyone going through a country or village saying, let me dunk you and say these majic words so you can be 'saved' while instructing them in 10 commandments or something similar.

It is also this meaning that I glean from Col 2. See vs 11 for context. He's not talking of a physical baptism but of the deadening of their fleshly actions to be changed through the truths of the reality of God and thankfullness of life that is resurrected within them [quickened he calls it] !!!! A similar topic is in chapter 3.

I am hoping to stretch your mind to consider the spiritual occurance and meaning apart from the physical occurance.

I am not disreguarding baptism [by immersion] to be an available practice but neither do I declare it to be a right of passage before one expereinces an unconditional relationship and forgiveness from the living God and his Spirit. Personally, that occured at about 7,8 and was accompanied by a gradual change in life, through answered prayer, a desire and will to 'glorify' and manifest him and followed eventually with a Public expression and testimony of my allegience to that person, his teachings and way at about age 22.

I think I'll leave this alone for awhile. I don't have time for more discecting or additional commentary at this time.

[TheForgiven]

Again, we'll remain in disagreement.
But I find myself repeating statements already made.
Here are a few new perspectives.

Again I say, it is fine if you wish to disagree. But consider this; you are not only disagreeing with me, but more than 2,000 years of Church faith and practice of Baptism. If Baptism were as non-essential as you seem to suggest, then why didn't the Church stop conducting rebirth services (Baptism into death) when this all began? Not one single Apostle ever denounced Baptism, or taught anything against Baptism. The Great Commission spoke of only one kind of Baptism; the very same Baptism that Jesus taught the Apostles. Remember how John's disciples asked of John, "Why is this Jesus baptizing in the Jordon, and more are going to Him"? What kind of baptism was Jesus and the Apostles performing? Water Baptism in the Jordon. That's because Jesus was not teaching them a Baptism of repentance (as was the case with John the Baptist); He was teaching to be Baptized for the remission of sins. Although the sins would not be remitted until His Passion, it prepared the way. Peter and every single Apostle, thus continued this practice; they followed it; understood; love it; and preached it. We Churches today object to standard early church practice is beyond me. In a sense, it is a rebellion. That is why I say that those who object to Baptism, or denounce it in any way, are unfortunately doing so because they do not understand what rebirth actually is. Yes it is all done by the blood of Jesus, but the blood of Jesus symbolized death, and death leads to forgiveness. This is only done at the cross, and we are joined with Christ on the cross through Baptism into death.

Being baptized doesn't 'prove' your faith. It can rather 'prove' an indoctrination similar to what you present. It can 'show' or profess what you believe, which is what I was saying. A gradually changed life, internal witness of peace, and the witness of the fruits Holy Spirit proves ones faith through justification by faith in the person and his words, just as it occured to Jacob/Israel. He wasn't baptized.

But it does my friend. My faith in the resurrection is proven through Baptism. I know that my old former self was crucified on the cross, and buried in the waters of Christ for the remission of my old sins. And know that when I came up out of the water, my old self was dead and buried, and I was thus resurrected. This is/was an actual occurrence that took place when I was Baptized in Jesus Name more than 20 years ago. After being provided the mind of Christ after my resurrection, I thus made it my goal to live and walk by His Counselor; the Spirit (or Inspiration) that teaches me right and wrong.

Just as when Peter was told that the internal revealing, confirmation and witness of Jesus as son of the living God would be the "rock" and foundation for his church, so also this type of internal witness and quickening of the spirit occurs when one calls out in faith.

This is called "faith only". Remember Nahum? He too thought that the Prophet could simply call out of faith, and heal him of his leprosy; this is the very same attitude you are suggesting, and it is false. The reason Nahum refused to dip in the water is because he didn't understand its purpose. It was an act of obedience and faith, and when his faith was demonstrated by obeying the command to be dipped and washed, his leprosy was healed.

So, no baptism? No salvation. Is this considered legalization? It sure does because it was commanded, not suggested. Jesus didn't say, "if you wish to be Baptized, you may". He specifically commands, "Be baptized..."

The Great Commission could also be understood to immerse in the teaching of the reality of the entities and teachings of the father, son, indwelling Holy Spirit through justification by faith, etc.. They are the immovable "laws" of Psalm 105:1-10. Father/Abraham, Son/Isaac, Holy Spirit indwelling change, Jacob/Israel. Justification by faith in the character/life of God, unconditional adoption, acceptence through his promised Son and the subsequent indwelling of the Spirit to accomplish good, positive life.

It could, but if that were so, then the Apostles (who built the Church) would have said so, and would not have placed so much emphasis on Baptism. But Peter, even after preaching to the house of Cornelius and them having received the gift of the Spirit, even afterwards commanded that they be baptized in Jesus name. Of course, this was a lesson to the Jews to prove that God has accepted the Gentiles into the Kingdom despite certain objections by the Jews.

I do not know that I've ever heard of anyone going through a country or village saying, let me dunk you and say these majic words so you can be 'saved' while instructing them in 10 commandments or something similar.

I hope you're not serious my friend. In Ethiopia a few years ago, more than 8,000 were saved through ministers of the Church of Christ; they were all Baptized. Someone from the 7th Day Adventist objected to this, and I debated with him via email. He too misunderstood Paul's comments on him not being sent to Corinth to baptize but to plant seeds by preaching the initial word.

It is also this meaning that I glean from Col 2. See vs 11 for context. He's not talking of a physical baptism but of the deadening of their fleshly actions to be changed through the truths of the reality of God and thankfullness of life that is resurrected within them [quickened he calls it] !!!! A similar topic is in chapter 3.

No once again that is not what Paul was saying. If that were so, then he would have never Baptized the house of Stephenus, Crispus, and Gaius in Corinth. His primary purpose was to plant seeds (preaching the Gospels) throughout different cities; he left Baptism, communion, and spiritual growth to the Bishops/Elders (Apollos). There's not a single time in early church history where Baptism was questioned; not even by the Early Church Fathers. This is, unfortunately, a Protestant error.

I am hoping to stretch your mind to consider the spiritual occurance and meaning apart from the physical occurance.

I already know this. Baptism is an act of rebirth, and not spiritual growth. The Spirit is provided at your resurrection; from then on, the infant that arises out of water is given a new Spirit; a new heart, and from that moment on, the child of God learns to become a mature Christian; this is similar to a seed growing into a wonderful tree.

I am not disreguarding baptism [by immersion] to be an available practice but neither do I declare it to be a right of passage before one expereinces an unconditional relationship and forgiveness from the living God and his Spirit. Personally, that occured at about 7,8 and was accompanied by a gradual change in life, through answered prayer, a desire and will to 'glorify' and manifest him and followed eventually with a Public expression and testimony of my allegience to that person, his teachings and way at about age 22.

Here you are referring to Spiritual Growth; that is not what Baptism is, and I'm certain you understand this. Baptism, once again, is not a Spiritual growth; it is a death and resurrection; your old spirit dies with Christ in Baptism; your new Spirit is revived with Christ; baptism into death, receiving the Spirit (mind of Christ) for Spiritual growth.

Here's another point for you to consider about Paul. Paul explained of the Resurrection, "If you say there is no resurrection, then what shall they do who are Baptized for the dead? If there is no resurrection, when then are we baptized for them?" What did Paul mean by this? Early Church history records that some who had already died before the Church began under Christ, were substituted by Christians alive during the days of the Apostles, who were baptizing in place of their lost ones. How did they do this? Be being Baptized for those who had already died; this was their way of showing their faith in the resurrection, as that is what Baptism is; a death and resurrection.

I think I'll leave this alone for awhile. I don't have time for more discecting or additional commentary at this time.

I understand.

Great conversing with you my friend. I'm at least glad you're on our side with Preterism.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Jesus name Baptism:

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Again I say, it is fine if you wish to disagree. But consider this; you are not only disagreeing with me, but more than 2,000 years of Church faith and practice of Baptism. If Baptism were as non-essential as you seem to suggest, then why didn't the Church stop conducting rebirth services (Baptism into death) when this all began? Here you are referring to Spiritual Growth; that is not what Baptism is, and I'm certain you understand this. Baptism, once again, is not a Spiritual growth; it is a death and resurrection; your old spirit dies with Christ in Baptism; your new Spirit is revived with Christ; baptism into death, receiving the Spirit (mind of Christ) for Spiritual growth.

Isn't this similar to how people talk about PReterism. Your substantiating the ordinance by some historical continuance. Isn't that what the non-preterists do?

Here's another point for you to consider about Paul. Paul explained of the Resurrection, "If you say there is no resurrection, then what shall they do who are Baptized for the dead? If there is no resurrection, when then are we baptized for them?" What did Paul mean by this? Early Church history records that some who had already died before the Church began under Christ, were substituted by Christians alive during the days of the Apostles, who were baptizing in place of their lost ones. How did they do this? Be being Baptized for those who had already died; this was their way of showing their faith in the resurrection, as that is what Baptism is; a death and resurrection.

There may be several instances where it is mentioned as a physical act, and as as noted, I'm not casting it off, just indicating that if it is to be practices, it is as a public profession of, not a condition for union with. and salvation from the absence of. a relationship with Him.

I was thinking of the Colossians passage a little.
To me it's so obvious that in this example, he's referring to 'baptism' as a deadening to self as an example of means to spiritual and supernatural growth. In the same way that he would say that he is crucified with Christ. AS Christ went to the cross he had prayed not his will but his Fathers. Similarly, we Grow and change through the act and work of the Spirit, not by self attainment. We 'bury' our hopes and prayers with Him according to his will.... and yet act in the realistic realm also. In the colossians example, this is confirmed by the preceeding context of disussion. Just as you recieved Christ, so also Grow in him. A person recieves Christ by abandoing all other hope to trust in him..... Again, note vs 11.

Perhaps we'll do an inductive on Col and this section soon... incorporating Col 3 and it's association with the lessons from Gen against complaing but advocating those of faith and mortifying the 'flesh'; the negative man, through faith.

[duxrow]

Jesus name Baptism:

Was just teasing about the 3 dunks -- tho have sometimes done it that way for agreeable subjects..

Acts18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

18:25 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.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

[David M]

Talking about baptism has gotten us off the subject of "the times of the Gentiles" so I will be brief.

When Jesus was baptized he said; "..thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness". What does "fulfilling all righteousness" mean? I leave that to answer for yourselves.

"All" equates to everything, and "all righteousness" must include everything that pertains to righteousness. Jesus made various requests which are not included in the two great commandments, but if we love Jesus and love God we will do anything and everything that pleases them and is righteous in their sight. Since the two great commandments are not spelt out like the lengthier Ten commandments, we are left to examine our motives.

If you do not think it is necessary to do something and you are convinced that your motives are right and acceptable to God then that is your decision. Unless you are absolutely correctly, and if there is any shadow of doubt, I suggest we get baptized. If Jesus has shown us what is necessary to do, I will follow Jesus's example.

If we reject baptism (full immersion) in water and say that it is unnecessary, I ask you; "what else are you ignoring concerning your salvation?" Jesus gave instruction to; (Mark 16:16) Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


Because Jesus showed by example what was necessary and was baptized and what he said about the consequences of not getting baptized, then for no other reason, I suggest it is better to play safe. It is not as though we have not been told what is required.


David