Baptism vs. The Sinner's Prayer

[GrayPilgrim]

It is my contention that Baptism was the initiatory rite into the New Covenant. Hence when the Ethiopian Eunuch put his faith in Christ he did not say the sinners’ prayer (SP) he instead looked for some water so that he could be baptized. This post will chart the historical development, later I will make a Biblical Argument.

However, since C.G. Finney and then D.L. Moody this practice has been replaced in modern Evangelical circles with the SP. In Finney’s “Revivals” the emphasis was upon method/technique. The prayer was seen as a way to count souls one—which to me is the problem. In the older method of doing evangelism of say Wesley and Whitefield, instead of “souls won” you will read of transformed lives over a period of time. In Whitefield’s writings you will read of him returning to a region that he had visited the year before and he’ll write, “X has persevered and displayed genuine transformation in his character so that I think that there has been a genuine work of the Spirit in his life.” This method prevents one from claiming large successes in their ministry and thus keeps the focus on the Lord. [I am not implying or stating that those who use the sinners’ prayer are seeking their own glory by this statement].

Christ established baptism as the initiatory right into discipleship and the People of God. The SP is a different method that has tended to minimize the importance of baptism.


More later,
GP

[undead]

03-06-2003 @ 10:20 PM
GrayPilgrim:
Christ established baptism as the initiatory right into discipleship and the People of God. The SP is a different method that has tended to minimize the importance of baptism.


A problem is the large amount of confusion over infant baptism. What happens if you did not believe till you were an adult, but you got baptized as an infant. Is your baptism valid?

I guess to baptize people after conversion wholesale would be to simply ignore infant baptism, and treat it as of no effect. This could be objected to by the likes of Calvinist & Lutheran churches which practice infant baptism.

However, I think it is right to ignore infant baptism in such circumstances. Infant baptism is not specifcally evidenced in the bible and quite impossible to reconcile theologically with believer's baptism.

[PuritanD]

GP,

I think that you hit the nail on the head. You could go a step further and note that when we are asked for our testimony that many individuals state, "I asked Jesus into my heart..."

Funny thing, when the 3,000 at Pentacost asked Peter what they should do, Peter's reply was not, "Simply ask Jesus into your heart."

I am looking forward to the rest of your posting to this thread.

PuritanD

[GrayPilgrim]

Just a quick book reccomendation on this thread. Iain Murray in The Forgotten Spurgeon argues at great length on this particular topic by restating Spurgeon's view.

Gp

[Socrates]

GP raises a good point. This reminds me of this article http://www.answersingenesis.org/australia/newsletters/pn-aus_10-2000.asp, which reports on a native Jamaican pastor saying, ‘I don’t want any more American missionaries coming here! ... They come here, they make these emotional appeals, huge numbers of people come forward. The evangelists go back home armed with accounts of "revival", and stories of huge numbers of "conversions". But three months later I can’t find any of these "converts" attending church or going anywhere near a Bible.’

[jason]

But what about the possiblity of people turning baptism into a work ?

"I'm saved because I have been baptised" type mentality :eek:

I agree that it sounds like some of the missionaries from the states are doing the wrong thing.

But where do you draw the line. The same could easily be true with large numbers of baptisms as well. It might be a little more difficult to do, but the result could be the same.

Then the question is what type of baptism is required ?

What is it about baptism that makes it a good thing ?

I was under the impression it was a public declaration of faith. Would another similarly public declaration suffice ? :bow:

I have never been baptised does that some how invalidate my salvation ? What if I place my faith in it instead of in Christ ?

Jason

[GrayPilgrim]

Good post Jason,

Only faith in Christ is efficacious unto salvation. So if you view baptism as a work then it is like circumcision. It is the biblically mandated public declaration of faith. So I figure if it ain't broke don't fix it.

As to how, with water. Other than that I don;t think it really matters.

GP

[jason]

Only faith in Christ is efficacious unto salvation. So if you view baptism as a work then it is like circumcision. It is the biblically mandated public declaration of faith. So I figure if it ain't broke don't fix it.
But if I am tempted to treat it as a work then surely it is best avoided ? How do you decide with such conflicting purposes ?
As to how, with water. Other than that I don;t think it really matters.
But if the exact form of baptism (full immersion vs sprinkling etc) is not important then why is the act itself important ?

I look forward to hearing your biblical justification for this GP

Jason

[George Blaisdell]

jason:[/i] writes:

> But what about the possiblity of people turning baptism into a work?
"I'm saved because I have been baptised" type mentality :eek:

If anyone approaches the holy mysteries of Christ's body, His Church, from any merely human accounting of its purpose, then their understanding will utterly miss the mark. In terms of baptism, if we understand it to be but a public announcement of something that has happenned privately, inwardly, then we are best off not being baptized. If the reality lies only in the inwardness of the individual, then going through the public motions of baptism is little more than window dressing and ego.

Christ established His Church at pentecost, and He established the mystery of baptism in the Jordan, and his commandment to the apostles, who were to go forth and establish His Church into the whole world, was clear. Baptism is not an option for anyone who wishes to become a member of the Body of Christ... It is the sacred door unto salvation. It is ones initiation into the mystery of Christ's faith, which we are to hold in a pure conscience.[1 Tim 3:9]

I am recently baptized [a week and a half ago] into this ancient faith, and I can tell you straight that there is a radical difference between me before and now after - For by it, one is transformed from an embryo in the womb of our Mother, the Church, into being birthed as a newborn child of God, and everything changes...

We are by baptism entered into the mystery of the faith through a process of purification of the heart [repentance], and the enlightenment of the nous in baptism, and the seal of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation... I can say but little, except that baptism was the most awsomely holy event I could have never imagined, and my life is changed, and explanations only obscure the simple, profound truth...

> Then the question is what type of baptism is required?

Again, if you approach this matter as a matter of human option, then it really doesn't matter. But if you approach it as a matter of entry into the Church that Christ established in the flesh upon the earth, then you will be baptized according as how this Church determines it for you, for it is not YOU who are baptizing, but instead it is you who are RECEIVING baptism from those who are giving it to you, and you do not control them - Christ does... The Church does... And they help you to prepare, and determine when you are ready... This is the ancient way, and it is practiced to this day...

Outside the sacred mysteries of the Church, baptism is nothing but the creation of traditions of men. We but consecrate ourselves to Christ, and are not entered into His Body, the Church, as Christianity was practiced undividedly for the first thousand years...

> What is it about baptism that makes it a good thing?

Entry into the Body of our Lord, and the descent and abidance of the Holy Spirit within us, is a good thing...

> I was under the impression it was a public declaration of faith.

Kind of like two people living together and sharing the same bed? Who then decide to make it legal? And then get married as a public declaration of what they had already established? You won't find scripture that will say anything even remotely connected to this. You don't shack up with God and then get married...

> Would another similarly public declaration suffice ? :bow:

Sure, if that's all you want... Public declaration...

> I have never been baptised does that some how invalidate my salvation?

Well, it places you outside His one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which He founded 2000 years ago upon the earth, and which is still in the holy service of the Lord... And it places you alone as an individual in relationship to God under the aegis of your own individual understanding...

The ancient way, the safe way, is under the aegis of the Christ-established communion of His Church...

> What if I place my faith in it instead of in Christ?

You won't be able to do that in my Church [Eastern Orthodox] and then get baptized - You would be shown how to understand - You would be given understanding - Catachesis... Instruction in the faith...

geo

[jason]

If the reality lies only in the inwardness of the individual, then going through the public motions of baptism is little more than window dressing and ego.
Which is the question Iwant answered.
Christ established His Church at pentecost, and He established the mystery of baptism in the Jordan, and his commandment to the apostles, who were to go forth and establish His Church into the whole world, was clear. Baptism is not an option for anyone who wishes to become a member of the Body of Christ... It is the sacred door unto salvation. It is ones initiation into the mystery of Christ's faith, which we are to hold in a pure conscience.[1 Tim 3:9]
Are you saying that it is not possible to be a christian if you have not been baptised ? That is the way I am reading what you are saying. But this doesn't seem to gel with the idea of sola fide
I am recently baptized [a week and a half ago] into this ancient faith, and I can tell you straight that there is a radical difference between me before and now after - For by it, one is transformed from an embryo in the womb of our Mother, the Church, into being birthed as a newborn child of God, and everything changes...
What exactly changes. That is a lot of nice flowery emotive language, but what is the content of this change ?
I can say but little, except that baptism was the most awsomely holy event I could have never imagined, and my life is changed, and explanations only obscure the simple, profound truth...
That seems a triffle convenient. Could you perhaps try ?
Again, if you approach this matter as a matter of human option, then it really doesn't matter. But if you approach it as a matter of entry into the Church that Christ established in the flesh upon the earth, then you will be baptized according as how this Church determines it for you, for it is not YOU who are baptizing, but instead it is you who are RECEIVING baptism from those who are giving it to you, and you do not control them - Christ does... The Church does... And they help you to prepare, and determine when you are ready... This is the ancient way, and it is practiced to this day...
Yes that is fine, but i'm not sure if ultimately I will turn it into an idol or not. I don't think I will, but caution is best exercised here I think.
Entry into the Body of our Lord, and the descent and abidance of the Holy Spirit within us, is a good thing...

Can you show me from scripture where this is required for such a thing.
Kind of like two people living together and sharing the same bed? Who then decide to make it legal?
No not at all.
Well, it places you outside His one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which He founded 2000 years ago upon the earth,
I am a protestant anyway. I suspect I am by definition outside of this already.
and which is still in the holy service of the Lord... And it places you alone as an individual in relationship to God under the aegis of your own individual understanding...
As I said, I am a protestant, I have no real problem with this. Assuming I am reading you correctly.
The ancient way, the safe way, is under the aegis of the Christ-established communion of His Church...
Sounds very suspiciously works like to me.
You won't be able to do that in my Church [Eastern Orthodox] and then get baptized - You would be shown how to understand - You would be given understanding - Catachesis... Instruction in the faith...
My concern is more in doing it down the track. My head is screwed on correctly at this point. But why expose myself to temptation ?

Jason

[Patroclus]

I am a protestant anyway. I suspect I am by definition outside of this already.

The word Catholic (big "c") reffers to the Roman Catholic church. The word catholic (little "c") reffers to the universal church, so that even as protestants, you and I are "catholic."

George, I am sure that you have heard this question before, but I am curious what you think about it. What about the thief on the cross?

[Apollos]

Patroclus -

I am sure George will have his own answer. But if I may, I will give you my condensed answer in regards to the world's most popular thief...

The thief on the cross !!

Was he ever baptized? We do not know. Even so, it could only have been John’s baptism. Christ had not yet authorized His (water) baptism in Matthew 28:18f.

And then of course, he lived under the OT and not under Christ’s new covenant. Was he a Jew?? But there is yet one consideration remaining.

The thief was forgiven by the personal authority of Jesus. (cf. Luke 5:24) Jesus’ forgiving the thief was no different than His forgiving the sins of the woman in Luke 7:47,48. The main point being, you and I are not going to have our sins forgiven in the same way that the thief, the woman, or the man sick with palsy (Lk. 5) was forgiven.

Jesus no longer walks the earth to forgive in this fashion today. So I consider the thief a moot point – a non-example for us today.

Thank you for your consideration!

[George Blaisdell]

Jason writes:

> [geo]
> > “The ancient way, the safe way, is under the aegis of the > > Christ-established communion of His Church...”

> Sounds very suspiciously works like to me.

You are not a non-sequeturianist, are you??? ':smile:'

I run into this Protestant Romophobicism a lot, where the ancient Church tells you that if you want to be a Christian you have to bust your butt, that it takes ALL YOUR STRENGTH in Loving God, and the response is "Naughty-Naughty! That's just Works-Rightepousness! Ya wanna sell me a couple pounds of indulgences? I have been dreaming that my poor old mother is screaming in hell and I want to buy her out! Here's a few thousand, get her outta there, will ya?"

Do you really think your life can change without your effort?

The drug-addicted child-neglecting prostitute makes the altar-call and receives Christ into her heart, and then the WORK begins, yes? Or should she go right back to ignoring her kid, injecting venom into her veins, and turning tricks, because the Lord will do it ALL FOR her??? In fact, He already DID, right?? All she has to do is have faith, yes?

"Well, she has to maybe sign herself in to a clinic..."

What?!?!?

You mean the Lord is not GOOD enough for her???

Non-sequeturianism...

You then write: "My head is screwed on correctly at this point."

Can I sell you some really prime Florida real-estate??

Nobody's head is screwed on correctly, unless every molecule of every breath they take breathes only God... We all sin and fall short... Never believe the lie that you are cool with God - "For in Thy sight shall no man living be justified..."

We are fallen human beings living in a fallen world, and until we depart this world, we are subject to its temptations, and indeed even its needs - food, water, shelter...

Do you fear the Lord? Do you tremble in fear with Paul, as he writes in his epistles? Do you live in suffering with him? And with the Lord, as Paul did? [Suffering for His holy body, the Church - Remember?] Do you make up for the lack of Christ's suffering in the flesh with your own, as Paul did?

Paul had his "head screwed on right," and God sent him a demonic thorn in his flesh, that he should glory in his infirmity and weakness... Do you do this? Was Paul doing works righteousness because he was LIVING the faith?

This whole idea that whenever a Christian is required to DO anything he is somehow automatically guilty of the doctrine of works-righteousness is nuts. If that prostitute goes back to her old habits, she will lose everything she gained at that altar call, and will fall even deeper than she was before it...

We can't save ourselves, but we can refuse the path of salvation, and to refuse it we only need but to affirm our SELVES, and leave the pain and suffering unto death of our own cross just laying where it has always been laying since Christ's resurrection from its pain and death, and go on our happy way with a Big Mack in one hand and a cool ride with a babe and some really classy shades in the other - Top down and the beach in sight!

Or you can turn from all this, and live unto God, "making no provision for the flesh..."

One way is Christian...

The other is the world...

The way of the world leads to death...

The way of Christ dies to this death, and leads to Life everlasting...

One involves pleasures in the world...

The other involves tribulation....

They go opposite directions...

Christ tells us to "count the cost"...

geo

[GrayPilgrim]

Okay NO ONE IS ARGUING for it and it is a non sequitor and red herring to say someoen is. Lets look at Romans 8 briefly to settle it once and for all (as far as this thread is concerned:brow: )

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. 12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"

The Christian life is one of constant warfare. The Christian will put to death, by the active presence of the Holy Spirit in their life, sin in their life. This is what it means to be a Christian, free form condemnation but constantly killing sin in their life. Notice that this definition also shows a test. So that the person who wollows in sin and does not struggle against sin, does not have the Spirit of God dwelling in them.

GP

[George Blaisdell]

Patroclus:

George... What about the thief on the cross?

The one on His right?...
Who died with Christ except on his own Cross?...
Who confessed Christ even in the agony of his own personal cross?...
Who died before the Church was established?...
Whom Chirst saw that day in paradise?...

What about him???...

Well Glory to God!

geo

[George Blaisdell]

Gray Pilgrim quotes Romans:

13 "For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. "

This is the mandate to disciples, to put to death, by the Spirit, the deeds of the body - It does not say that this is to be done FOR us, but that we CAN DO it, yet only can we do it by the Spirit...

Synergy - Like Dad driving [in the old days!] with me at the wheel in his lap, and I am 5 years old, and I am "driving" the car... Well, I AM driving the car, but not without his help... Likewise our promise of life IF we put to death the deeds of the body [drive the car] by the Spirit [in Dad's lap]...

And the entry into the Body of Christ, the Church, is accomplished by the Church, and by the grace given Her, by the Spirit Himself, the Holy Spirit, sent by Christ after His death and resurrection... And this entry is the holy Mystery of Baptism, and it is not to be defined and explained and argued and persuaded... No...

It is to be entered by the gates of instruction and discipleship - The practice of the faith, in the hands of the elders of the Church...

geo

[Jawa Man]

So what do you think of what John has to say...?

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with 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 with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:

It seems baptism is what saves us, but not a baptism of this world. The baptism we have on earth is clearly symbolic of repentance (thus we die our old life, and symbolically come out of the water as a new life in God). Only Jesus truly gives us this life changing baptism, which is a spiritual one.

According to the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary:
"'and with fire'--To take this as a distinct baptism from that of the Spirit--a baptism of the impenitent with hell-fire--is exceedingly unnatural. Yet this was the view of ORIGEN among the Fathers; and among moderns, of NEANDER, MEYER, DE WETTE, and LANGE. Nor is it much better to refer it to the fire of the great day, by which the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Clearly, as we think, it is but the fiery character of the Spirit's operations upon the soul-searching, consuming, refining, sublimating--as nearly all good interpreters understand the words. And thus, in two successive clauses, the two most familiar emblems--water and fire--are employed to set forth the same purifying operations of the Holy Ghost upon the soul."

Now what did Paul say about this baptism of water?

Act 19:1 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,
Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

So Paul says the baptism of the Lord is necessary. According to the verse from Matthew I took before, the baptism of Jeuss is in the Spirit, not of water. So, physical baptism is not what gives you the spirit. Even when baptized in the name of God they did not receive the Spirit. They received the Spirit because of Paul's actions - laying his hands on them (obviously with some kind of prayer in his mind).

Anyway, enough on that...

I believe baptism should come in some form after the sinner's prayer. We all have to repent - and how do you repent to someone? You ask for forgiveness. But many people will fall after that. If you baptized after this, though, you have made a covenant with God, a physical expression of His spiritual reformation in you. You die as a sinner *splash* (symbolic) and arise as a justified person *unsplash*. So I believe SP is necessary (in any form the person chooses, as long as it is a sincere request for forgiveness), and baptism is the affirmation of the covenant (like circumcision, as someone said earlier).

[George Blaisdell]

Jawa man writes:

"I believe baptism should come in some form...[etc]"

Should I just toss this opinion in the bin marked personal opinions? I mean, everyone has one, and most have many more than just one, and they all get mixed up together in a big pile and so what?

But the Bible teaches us to be ONE MIND IN CHRIST... And if you want to be a Christian, your job is to acquire the mind of Christ, for as Paul writes of the Church, "We have the mind of Christ", and Paul did not acquire the mind of Christ, nor did any of the other Christians of those early times, by each and every one of them having their own opinion of the meaning of baptism and the sacraments of the Church. Instead, they CONFORMED themselves to the teachings of the Church, under the Church's supervision.

They were never just turned loose willy-nilly, each with their very own Bible, to figure out their own individual understanding [like you have just done] so as to all have a differing version of the Gospel.

Paul is very specific about this, for he writes that if anyone should come bearing a differing gospel, even if it is an angel or Paul himself, that one is to be anathema... Simple as that.

The boundaries of faith are demarcated by dogma for the safety and well being of the believer... A believer is one who has the faith, and is not the one who is the author of their faith based on their individual reading, reasoning, and ever-revised comprehension of scripture...

In the early Church, if you were to decide to tell Paul that you have a differing belief from what he has been telling you, he would have no hesitation in disabusing you of the validity of the idea that your differing opinion has any relevance to anything that is of God...

We all know who is the master of division[s]....

The early Christians were of ONE MIND... Communion... KOINO [common] NIA [mind/nous]... One with another...

One of the things that is dismaying to Orthodox eyes is this idea that Protestants seem to have, that their opinion matters - It is Christ's opinion that matters, and that opinion is to be found in the ground and pillar of the truths, the Church...

The very thing that the Protestant seems to consider his individual sacred duty, which is to form his own individual opinion of the meaning of the essentials of the faith, is for the Orthodox utterly wrong headed and un-Biblical...

Nowhere in the Bible will you find all the members of the Church each having some opinion or other about, say, Baptism...

Nowhere...

geo

[Jawa Man]

Thanks for responding. Now-

"I believe baptism should come in some form...[etc]" Should I just toss this opinion in the bin marked personal opinions? I mean, everyone has one, and most have many more than just one, and they all get mixed up together in a big pile and so what?

So if I say, “I believe in Jesus Christ,” it is an opinion and should be disregarded? What I meant in the statement before was that baptism should be modified for our personal affirmation of the covenant of Christ. Some may feel “dunking” is suitable for it, other something else. Remember, with circumcision, God thinks nothing of the physical circumcision itself, but wants a circumcision of the heart, just as he would like us to have a baptism of the heart.

But the Bible teaches us to be ONE MIND IN CHRIST... And if you want to be a Christian, your job is to acquire the mind of Christ, for as Paul writes of the Church, "We have the mind of Christ", and Paul did not acquire the mind of Christ, nor did any of the other Christians of those early times, by each and every one of them having their own opinion of the meaning of baptism and the sacraments of the Church. Instead, they CONFORMED themselves to the teachings of the Church, under the Church's supervision.

Who determines what doctrine to follow? There are so many out there, I can’t just blindly choose one – in this fallen world, I have to question and 1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Notice this does not say simply submit, but prove what you are submitting to is right.

They were never just turned loose willy-nilly, each with their very own Bible, to figure out their own individual understanding [like you have just done] so as to all have a differing version of the Gospel.

And you have a willy-nilly interpretation because you follow the Orthodox viewpoint! That’s a ridiculous argument, because it assumes people themselves can never find what God truly wants to say. Therefore David was wrong to meditate on the Lord night and day, and was really not a man after God’s own heart!

The boundaries of faith are demarcated by dogma for the safety and well being of the believer... A believer is one who has the faith, and is not the one who is the author of their faith based on their individual reading, reasoning, and ever-revised comprehension of scripture...

Is “faith” accepting a church without questioning, and ignoring the teaching of Paul in 1 Thessalonians about testing all things? Bantha fodder! I must be interpreting Paul wrong here!

In the early Church, if you were to decide to tell Paul that you have a differing belief from what he has been telling you, he would have no hesitation in disabusing you of the validity of the idea that your differing opinion has any relevance to anything that is of God...

Is that relevant to the argument? It must be proven first that I went against Paul in ways other than, “You question your church so you are wrong!” May I quote from midget Greedo in Episode 1: “Oon nioka, Annie! Ho, ho, ho!” Watch the movie, it may be horrible, but that is one of the funniest quotes ever. :yipee:

One of the things that is dismaying to Orthodox eyes is this idea that Protestants seem to have, that their opinion matters - It is Christ's opinion that matters, and that opinion is to be found in the ground and pillar of the truths, the Church...

That is assuming all Protestants, since they search individually, are going against Christ. Protestants are also known (though this is not mentioned!) to go to other Protestants to do a kind of “peer review” – that way I can keep my sword sharp and my mind sharp.

The very thing that the Protestant seems to consider his individual sacred duty, which is to form his own individual opinion of the meaning of the essentials of the faith, is for the Orthodox utterly wrong headed and un-Biblical...

Well, I am very un-orthodox then. :spam:

[Apollos]

A few words about the “baptism of fire”…

I have noticed on many occasions that those who purport the notion that the “baptism of fire” is something other than the fires of “Gehenna” (Hell) usually do not include the verses before and after in order to grasp a fuller meaning and a fuller context.


Matthew 3:10 - And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

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:

12 - whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire. ASV

Verse 10 sets forth that John is talking about those that do not produce good fruit. These are cut down to the root and cast into a fire to be burned ! The “good” trees are separated from the bad trees – the bad trees are burned !

Verse 11 speaks in reference as to how a threshing floor is managed. The “fan” is used to blow the lighter weight chaff away from the heavier wheat after the grain is beaten on the floor to loosen the chaff. The (good) wheat is saved and placed in storage. The (bad) chaff is worthless and is burned !

“Unquenchable fire” - the greek word asbestos” – is never used in scripture in reference to the HS. The word is used but only –4- times: Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:17, Mark 9:43 & 45.

A look at the last –2- references should prove compelling to my point.

Mark 9:43 - And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire.

Verse 45 - And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell.

I trust this simple lesson helps clarify what the “baptism of fire” that John spoke of is.

[George Blaisdell]

JawaMan writes:

> " So what do you think of what John has to say...?

Mat 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with 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 with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:"

Baptism is a cleansing, I should think...

The Christian baptism is done by and in the Body of Christ, and is unto the remission of sins, and the seal of the Holy Spirit. Christ's Church, His body, baptizes - And this is Christ... These are Christ... Remember the risen Christ's words to Saul on the road to Damascus? "Why are you persecuting ***ME***?" So when you are baptized into the Body of Christ, by the Body of Christ, and within the Body of Christ, you are baptized by Christ...

The baptism by fire is, I would but guess, the purification that comes with the withdrawal of grace after the suffusion of grace, such that what you do with the grace while you have it in terms of repentance in your soul, will be tested by its withdrawal, and you will find that what you have built wisely will stand, and what you have built foolishly will be burned away, thereby purging you by fire of the infirm, to be followed by an additional infusion of grace, and it's subsequent withdrawal - For all things are to benefit for those in Christ... And in this manner, we find out what we are doing well, and what badly, and there can be understood in this cleansing the chastisement by the Father of the son, the Parent of the child...

And all this is but metaphorical speaking, about the realities that are not amenable to worldly denotation, yet are vital within a Christian's life in Christ... Adam turned away from God, and died that day, losing the radiance of the grace of God that was his raiment of light and life covering him, and we are called to regain what he lost, and more than that, to become one with Christ-God...

We do not do this by self-affirmation holding forth our points of view, but in self denial and a humble and lowly and obedient spirit, taking up our cross and following Christ...

> It seems baptism is what saves us,

It is a first step in restoration of our relationship with God...

> but not a baptism of this world.

But Jawa - It is precisely THIS world that is the one into which Christ incarnated - It is this world that is the one in which He was baptized... It is this world in which we live, and are to follow Him... We are in THIS world for a reason, and it is not to escape this world, but to find redemption in Christ, and baptism is the door into the Door...

> The baptism we have on earth is clearly symbolic of repentance (thus we die to our old life, and symbolically come out of the water as a new life in God).

The baptism we have on earth is Christ-God given, and is the gate of repentance into the Holy Body of our Lord - It is so much more than mere symbol - It is the Sacred Mystery of entrance into Christ... It is a sacrament of Christ's Holy Church...

> Only Jesus truly gives us this life changing baptism, which is a spiritual one.

Baptism is incarnational, bringing the person that is you, or me, or whoever is being baptized, of bringing this person through repentance into the Body of Christ, of bring the body and soul of that person into a new person in Christ... It is not separately spiritual - It is real, and incarnational, a declaration of war upon the spirits of the air, an expansion of the kingdom of heaven wrought upon the earth by one person newly entered into Christ.

It is so easy to get sidetracked from the essential mystery that baptism is, and what it accomplishes... And to argue the rationality and reasonableness of possible theorhetical hypotheses regarding it... Where everyone has some opinion or other... And they all add up to nothing, including mine...

We cannot reduce baptism to propositional exposition...

geo

[Justified]

fire:"

Baptism is a cleansing, I should think...

:thumb:

The Christian baptism is done by and in the Body of Christ, and is unto the remission of sins, and the seal of the Holy Spirit.

You're saying water baptism is the seal of the Holy Spirit and is preformed by church members? If I understand you right then your idea of cleansing is nothing but HOGWASH.

Christ's Church, His body, baptizes - And this is Christ... These are Christ... Remember the risen Christ's words to Saul on the road to Damascus? "Why are you persecuting ***ME***?" So when you are baptized into the Body of Christ, by the Body of Christ, and within the Body of Christ, you are baptized by Christ...

Spirit baptism is an operation of God not man (Col 2:12) and it places us into His body. How can you possibly believe that man can have this power. Man can not direct the Spirit of God as examplified in the Cornelius account. Your words seem to imply that if you're not baptized by the Orthodox church it is invalid. This would mean that God without man can not Spirit baptize a believe into the body of Christ.

The baptism by fire is, I would but guess, the purification that comes with the withdrawal of grace after the suffusion of grace, such that what you do with the grace while you have it in terms of repentance in your soul, will be tested by its withdrawal, and you will find that what you have built wisely will stand, and what you have built foolishly will be burned away, thereby purging you by fire of the infirm, to be followed by an additional infusion of grace, and it's subsequent withdrawal - For all things are to benefit for those in Christ... And in this manner, we find out what we are doing well, and what badly, and there can be understood in this cleansing the chastisement by the Father of the son, the Parent of the child...

What is this babble? "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" Where is it said (Scripture) that grace is given then withdrawn to purge infirmities and then given again?

Apollos clearly explained the baptism of fire and provided the proof text. You gave no rebuttle.

And all this is but metaphorical speaking, about the realities that are not amenable to worldly denotation, yet are vital within a Christian's life in Christ... Adam turned away from God, and died that day, losing the radiance of the grace of God that was his raiment of light and life covering him, and we are called to regain what he lost, and more than that, to become one with Christ-God...

We are not untied with Christ through some mystical (unknowable) union becoming like God. Paul taught "justification by faith" and that we might know the manifold wisdom of God (Eph 3:10). The ability or righteousness of Christ is credited by faith alone and not by our ability to regain what was lost.

We do not do this by self-affirmation holding forth our points of view, but in self denial and a humble and lowly and obedient spirit, taking up our cross and following Christ...

> It seems baptism is what saves us,

It is a first step in restoration of our relationship with God...

It is not by our ability to be Christ like that we become one with Christ. God requires perfection and with man it is impossible.
Only by faith in Christ not works can our relationship with God be restored.

> but not a baptism of this world.

But Jawa - It is precisely THIS world that is the one into which Christ incarnated - It is this world that is the one in which He was baptized... It is this world in which we live, and are to follow Him... We are in THIS world for a reason, and it is not to escape this world, but to find redemption in Christ, and baptism is the door into the Door...

How many doors in this world must we pass through to reach Christ? Is your baptism the only door?

> The baptism we have on earth is clearly symbolic of repentance (thus we die to our old life, and symbolically come out of the water as a new life in God).

The baptism we have on earth is Christ-God given, and is the gate of repentance into the Holy Body of our Lord - It is so much more than mere symbol - It is the Sacred Mystery of entrance into Christ... It is a sacrament of Christ's Holy Church...

You said baptism is the first step in a process of becoming Christ like. Scripture says we are COMPLETE in Him (Col 2:10) and that we are PERFECTED FOR EVER (Heb 10:14), it is not a process over time of being more Christ like but an OPERATION OF GOD (Col 2:12). All this is made possible by circumcision in putting off the body of sin. This circumcision is made without hands (Col 2:12) therefore it is not of this earth as is the ONE baptism (Eph 4:5) by the Spirit (1Cor 12:13). There is no sacramental mystery.

> Only Jesus truly gives us this life changing baptism, which is a spiritual one.

Baptism is incarnational, bringing the person that is you, or me, or whoever is being baptized, of bringing this person through repentance into the Body of Christ, of bring the body and soul of that person into a new person in Christ... It is not separately spiritual - It is real, and incarnational, a declaration of war upon the spirits of the air, an expansion of the kingdom of heaven wrought upon the earth by one person newly entered into Christ.

All this by a dunking in water?

It is so easy to get sidetracked from the essential mystery that baptism is, and what it accomplishes... And to argue the rationality and reasonableness of possible theorhetical hypotheses regarding it... Where everyone has some opinion or other... And they all add up to nothing, including mine...

Opinions are nothing but scripture defines doctrine (2 Tim 3:16)

We cannot reduce baptism to propositional exposition...

I agree, so what saith the scriptures?
geo

[George Blaisdell]

Justified: writes:


> George Blaisdell writes:

> > Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with 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 with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire.

> > Baptism is a cleansing, I should think...

> :thumb:

That thumb is soooo... wonderfully infectious!

> > The Christian baptism is done by and in the Body of Christ, and is unto the remission of sins, and the seal of the Holy Spirit.

> You're saying water baptism is the seal of the Holy Spirit and is preformed by church members?

It is done by the Church. And why do you add the word "water"? Of course there is water... Where in the Bible do you find this notion that anyone is baptized outside of water? Where do you find "Spirit baptism"?

What is found is a progression of the type, from Noah, where only 8 souls were saved from death in the ark, which is a type of the Church, and all the rest were drowned in the great flood, which is a type of the Church's baptism... Pretty watery, yes?

Then we have the salvation of those fleeing Pharoah, and the army of him being drowned in the Red sea, with the faith of the faithful protecting those passing ahead of their pursuers... Another 'type' of salvation from the enemies of the faithful... Still water, yes?

Then we have John, stepping outside of the Jewish practice, and immersing the faithful into the waters of the Jordan, yes? Preaching repentance... And this still by water, for there was "MUCH WATER" where John baptized...

And then we have John baptizing Christ, almost against his will, "that should be fulfilled all righteousness"... And this is very wet and watery, yes?

And then we have Christ sending out his disciples to baptize and teach the nations, yes? So now, somehow, you are arguing that this baptism is to be done without water??? Or by something outside the disciples who are to be found in the Body of Christ, his Church?

> If I understand you right then your idea of cleansing is nothing but HOGWASH.

Well - OINK!!! (':eek:')

Lord knows I am at least that filthy unbaptized! But however clean we are able to make ourselves with the Holy Spirit in discipleship unto baptism, this does not compare with what we receive in the cleansing of the baptism of Christ... In His Church... And that cleansing is but the beginning... The planting of the seed of the Spirit, and that seed needs cultivation and protection to grow, in a word a garden... And that garden is the Church... Once it becomes vibrant and strong and upright, as Job, THEN it can go into the desert and endure the trials and hardships that burn away all that is dross...

> > Christ's Church, His body, baptizes - And this is Christ... These are Christ... Remember the risen Christ's words to Saul on the road to Damascus? "Why are you persecuting ***ME***?" So when you are baptized into the Body of Christ, by the Body of Christ, and within the Body of Christ, you are baptized by Christ...

> Spirit baptism is an operation of God not man (Col 2:12)

There is no baptismos pneumatikos [Spirit Baptism] in Col 2:12 - Yet even so, you are right, for indeed God acts upon us in the mystery of baptism, and that baptism is in water, and that water bears God's Holy Spirit unto us in a profound Mystery...

> and it places us into His body.

(':thumb:')

> How can you possibly believe that man can have this power.

Did the disciples baptize? It is not man that has this power, but God acting on earth through men who are a part of His Holy Body, the Church... As He hath commanded them to do...

> Man can not direct the Spirit of God as examplified in the Cornelius account.

Indeed not - Which is why it is only the obedience to the command to go, and to teach, and to baptize, that carries God's will...

> Your words seem to imply that if you're not baptized by the Orthodox church it is invalid.

My friend, I cannot speak of baptism outside the Church, for I know it not...

> This would mean that God without man can not Spirit baptize a believe into the body of Christ.

Which is patently false... God can do what He wills to do...

> > The baptism by fire is, I would but guess, the purification that comes with the withdrawal of grace after the suffusion of grace, such that what you do with the grace while you have it in terms of repentance in your soul, will be tested by its withdrawal, and you will find that what you have built wisely will stand, and what you have built foolishly will be burned away, thereby purging you by fire of the infirm, to be followed by an additional infusion of grace, and it's subsequent withdrawal - For all things are to benefit for those in Christ... And in this manner, we find out what we are doing well, and what badly, and there can be understood in this cleansing the chastisement by the Father of the son, the Parent of the child...

> What is this babble?

Well, we are indeed to be baptized into Christ's baptism. [Mark 10:39] And Christ was baptized in water, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him as He emerged from the water - still wet - And abided... This is our baptism... This is Christ's baptism - This is Christian baptism...

Your "spirit baptism" is some other baptism... Christ's was in water.

> Where is it said (Scripture) that grace is given then withdrawn to purge infirmities and then given again?

Just after Mt 3:11c "He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire, "Whose winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His threshing floor, and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff He will burn completely with fire unquenchable."

What we DO matters, you see, and we are cautioned to count the cost of what we are building, lest we not finish, and are ridiculed... And the seeds are planted, the tares with the wheat, and according to how we build, so will the straw burn away and the stone remain solidly affixed to the Rock that is the Corner that is Christ...

We are by grace alive in the world, some of us in Christ, and this grace holds almost all our demons at bay, and for this reason, many of us think we are doing pretty good... But withdraw that grace, and the winnowing fan blows away all that is of straw and we are left humbled exceedingly, and properly so, as we find that what we thought we had built was as nothing at all...

> Apollos clearly explained the baptism of fire and provided the proof text. You gave no rebuttle.

No need - I pretty much accord with him...

> > And all this is but metaphorical speaking, about the realities that are not amenable to worldly denotation, yet are vital within a Christian's life in Christ... Adam turned away from God, and died that day, losing the radiance of the grace of God that was his raiment of light and life covering him, and we are called to regain what he lost, and more than that, to become one with Christ-God...

> We are not united with Christ through some mystical (unknowable) union becoming like God.

Then explain the miracle working of those of the Church of Acts...

> Paul taught "justification by faith"

Indeed...

> and that we might know the manifold wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).

Indeed... And note it does not say that we might know "all about the wisdom'" of God, but "know the manifold wisdom" - You and I know all about hunger, and especially do physicians who study hunger, but until you starve, you do not know hunger...

> The ability or righteousness of Christ is credited by faith alone and not by our ability to regain what was lost.

Credited?

To be right with God is to be one in His Son, and that means living a life turned away from sin and turned unto obedience to Christ's commandments, and this is begun in discipleship, and launched in baptism, and proceeds by the growth of the seed planted in baptism away from the old man and unto the new man in Christ, throughout one's lifetime, and there is no limit to this ever expanding process of the growing of a life lived in Christ, because there is no limit to Christ...

> > We do not do this by self-affirmation holding forth our points of view, but in self denial and a humble and lowly and obedient spirit, taking up our cross and following Christ...

> > > It seems baptism is what saves us,

> > It is a first step in restoration of our relationship with God...

> It is not by our ability to be Christ like that we become one with Christ.

Nobody is saying that it is...

> God requires perfection and with man it is impossible.

"Be ye perfect, as even your Father in Heaven is perfect." [Mt 5:48] How are you going to answer Christ words here, if you are asserting that He is issuing an impossible command...??

> Only by faith in Christ not works can our relationship with God be restored.

Only by the works of faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law - for faith outside of works is dead faith...

> [B]How many doors in this world must we pass through to reach Christ? Is your baptism the only door?

It is not my baptism - It is Christ's, as he commanded... And Christ is the Door... And for us, every sin is a door that we must close to ourselves in Christ, and outside Christ we cannot close even one door... And we close doors by confession, repentance, and forgiveness...

The baptism we have on earth is Christ-God given, and is the gate of repentance into the Holy Body of our Lord - It is so much more than mere symbol - It is the Sacred Mystery of entrance into Christ... It is a sacrament of Christ's Holy Church...

> You said baptism is the first step in a process of becoming Christ like.

Baptism is what enters us into His communion...

> Scripture says we are COMPLETE in Him (Col 2:10) and that we are PERFECTED FOR EVER (Heb 10:14), it is not a process over time of being more Christ like but an OPERATION OF GOD (Col 2:12).

Are you complete in Christ and perfected forever? I sure am not... I have to side with the Publican and cry out in fear for mercy and forgiveness... I cannot side with the Pharisee and proclaim my unearned righteousness by pre-selection... I am still a babe, striving to 'be perfect', and failing all the time...

> There is no sacramental mystery.

Then you deny the first thousand years of undivided Christianity, and declare Christ a failure, and make of Him a grateful thanks-giver to the Reformation for doing what He had failed at doing... And you deny Paul, who writes that "We hold the mystery of the faith in a purified conscience."

> > > Only Jesus truly gives us this life changing baptism, which is a spiritual one.

> > Baptism is incarnational, bringing the person that is you, or me, or whoever is being baptized, of bringing this person through repentance into the Body of Christ, of bring the body and soul of that person into a new person in Christ... It is not separately spiritual - It is real, and incarnational, a declaration of war upon the spirits of the air, an expansion of the kingdom of heaven wrought upon the earth by one person newly entered into Christ.

> All this by a dunking in water?

All this by obedience to Christ's commandments... Entering into His Holy Body by the Mystery of Baptsm, as He commanded...

You and I have both played in swimming pools, and dunked one another in water - And were not entered into Christ...

> It is so easy to get sidetracked from the essential mystery that baptism is, and what it accomplishes...

> Opinions are nothing but scripture defines doctrine (2 Tim 3:16)

Yes, within the Church, which is the ground and pillar of the truths...

Outside the Church, opinions on Scripture meaning and scripture definition are manifold and conflicting indeed!

geo

Appended Post:

Appended Post:

Apollos quotes scripture:

Matthew 3:

10 - And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

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:

12 - whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire. [ASV]

A little commentary on this passage from a Holy Father of the Church who spoke the language of the Bible in the 3rd-4th centuries - The very centuries when the persecutions ceased, and those who had survived them were able to write words on paper that could be preserved - For centuries had passed in the horrific persecutions of Christians - This one man is John Chrysostom, and in writing of this passage from within the early [and now emerging from the persecutions] Church, he writes:

"'He shall baptize you in [en] the Holy Spirit'; and by this metaphor he declares the abundance of the grace. For he said not, 'He shall give you the Holy Spirit.' but 'He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.' And by the additional mention of the fire, he again indicates the exceeding and unstationary quality of that grace." [Hom. 11, P.G. 57:154 (col. 197)]

So that you can clearly see the early Christian understanding of baptism, which was performed by the clergy in a sacrament of full triple immersion in water, that they fully understood it to be as you seem to understand it, a baptism IN the Holy Spirit, [and not a provision or apportionment of the Holy Spirit to the person being baptized]... Water baptism IS baptism in the Holy Spirit, when it is done by the Church, but is not when not, which is why there was rebaptism of those baptized by John... These were emphatically NOT given a hairy fairy baptism out of water and in dry air...

I keep remembering the line from the Psalms - "...and the waters above the heavens..."

Then the Blessed Theophylact:

"John preached the baptism of repentance which led towards the remission of sins... The Forerunner proclaimed the baptism of repentance so that those who repent and receive Christ would have forgiveness of sins." ... "His baptism gave neither spiritual grace nor the forgiveness of sin, but He will forgive you and give you the Spirit abundantly."

This whole post-modernistic innovation of some kind of arid and dry spirit-only baptism outside Christ's Church is not Biblical... The presence of grace, to which it [at best] refers, is not baptism into the Body of Christ. If it were, Christ would not have commanded the first Holy Church Fathers [the Apostles] to baptize the nations... He could easily have given each and every one of us our own, privately tutored, personal and privately held baptism... But instead, He sent Saul to Ananias for both healing and baptism into His Holy Body the Church...

Nowhere in the Bible do we find salvation outside the Church after Pentecost...

geo

[Justified]

I am trying to understand your beliefs and I feel you have overlooked much of what I have written. I have provided scripture references explaining that it is the word of God that cleanses (baptizes) us. Faith in the new testament (Matt 26:28) of His shed blood (Rom 3:25) is the key to receive that cleansing which is eternal remission (John 6:54) and we are born again by the word of God (1 Pet 1:23). Christ said that His words in reference to the new testament were spirit and life (John 6:63) and that life is eternal. The words of Christ are living water (John 4:10) and that water is a reference to the Holy Ghost (John 7:38). Water baptism is an outward cleansing yet the cleansing we must receive is inwardly to our very souls (Luke 11:39). To receive the inward cleansing by the Holy Spirit we must spiritually drink the living water thus we are baptized (washed) on the inside where it counts (1 Cor 12:13). It is this inward baptism by the Spirit that we partake of the communion of His Shed blood (Matt 26:27). Drinking is a direct reference to baptism (Matt 20:22). Spirit descending or falling is not a reference to baptism.[/B]

What is found is a progression of the type, from Noah, where only 8 souls were saved from death in the ark, which is a type of the Church, and all the rest were drowned in the great flood, which is a type of the Church's baptism... Pretty watery, yes?

Then we have the salvation of those fleeing Pharoah, and the army of him being drowned in the Red sea, with the faith of the faithful protecting those passing ahead of their pursuers... Another 'type' of salvation from the enemies of the faithful... Still water, yes?

The main point is that the ones that got wet perished but and those that were in the ark (type of Christ) and believed God were saved.

Then we have John, stepping outside of the Jewish practice, and immersing the faithful into the waters of the Jordan, yes? Preaching repentance... And this still by water, for there was "MUCH WATER" where John baptized...

Water baptism was very much a part of Judaism before John the Baptist with its inception under the Mosaic law (Ex 19:10). It was a ritual cleansing that prepared the priest to receive the sacrifice (Ex 29:4). The applied blood of the sacrifice according to the law which is a representation of Christ remitted sins. This is seen again during John's ministry, a time when the law was still in force, as John prepared the way of the Lord with water baptism making Israel a nation of priest.

Now therefore, if ye will "obey my voice" indeed, and keep my (Mosaic) covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: Ex. 19:5 (KJV)
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Ex. 19:6 (KJV)

The "voice of one crying" in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Mark 1:3 (KJV)
John did baptize in the wilderness, and "preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". Mark 1:4 (KJV)

John was beheaded and the apostles completed the task at Pentecost when all the nations of Israel gathered to hear the gospel. Water baptism was preparatory yet the ritual was not complete until the blood was applied. Paul after Pentecost is called by the Spirit and it is his ministry that fulfills the gospel (Col 1:25). Paul is the first apostle to preach the message of Christ's shed blood for remission (Romans 3:25).

And then we have John baptizing Christ, almost against his will, "that should be fulfilled all righteousness"... And this is very wet and watery, yes?

Yes, Christ was born under the law and fulfilled that law thus baptism in water.

And then we have Christ sending out his disciples to baptize and teach the nations, yes? So now, somehow, you are arguing that this baptism is to be done without water??? Or by something outside the disciples who are to be found in the Body of Christ, his Church?

You have it in the wrong order and there is no "and". Christ instructed the apostles to "teach all nations, baptizing them".

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19 (KJV)

[George Blaisdell]

> Justified: writes:

> George Blaisdell writes:

> > And why do you add the word "water"? Of course there is water... Where in the Bible do you find this notion that anyone is baptized outside of water? Where do you find "Spirit baptism"?

> I am trying to understand your beliefs...

Insofar as I believe anything that is true, I believe nothing different than Christians have believed since Pentecost, and nowhere in the early Church do we find "dry baptism"... Had any such an idea been in practice, there would have been a huge literature of writing about it in the early Church - There is no such record, and there was no controversy whatsoever - ALL baptism was done with water - It is just that the Christian baptism carried what the pre-Christian one did not, for the waters of the Christian baptism were in the Holy Spirit, and the cleansing was not outer, but inner... The original Church practiced ONE baptism from the beginning, without any controversy whatsoever for the first thousand years, and that baptism to this day is in water, triple immersion, followed by Chrismation...

> and I feel you have overlooked much of what I have written.

You have not shown me any scriptural reference to any "dry [anhydrous] baptism" whatsoever, where the baptism occurred by some other means than water... There aren't any. Stringing together a bunch of passages that describe baptism's effects in no way describes its means.

> Spirit descending or falling is not a reference to baptism.

The Holy Spirit descended as a dove upon Christ in the waters of baptism, and we are to be baptized in Christ's baptism - It really does not take rocket science to say that we will also get wet in baptism and the Holy Spirit will descend upon us in it...

The main point is that the ones that got wet perished but and those that were in the ark (type of Christ) and believed God were saved.

The main point is that the enemies of God were washed away... And the Ark is the Type of the Church - Which has a "Nave", remember? That is the Ark... Where we take communion, eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of our Lord and Savior...

> > Then we have John, stepping outside of the Jewish practice, and immersing the faithful into the waters of the Jordan, yes? Preaching repentance... And this still by water, for there was "MUCH WATER"; where John baptized...

> Water baptism was very much a part of Judaism before John the Baptist with its inception under the Mosaic law (Ex 19:10).

In Jewish custom only a few drops of water were used in the ritual... Which is why the wedding at Cana was so significant in the sheer and huge volume of water in those vats...

> > And then we have Christ sending out his disciples to baptize and teach the nations, yes? So now, somehow, you are arguing that this baptism is to be done without water??? Or by something outside the disciples who are to be found in the Body of Christ, his Church?

> You have it in the wrong order and there is no "and";. Christ instructed the apostles to ";teach all nations, baptizing them";.

OK...

> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19 (KJV)

That is correct - The disciples are the ones sent to be baptizing all the nations - The disciples, except now, being sent out, they are apostles... They are IN THE WORLD, yes? They are flesh and blood, Yes? They are persons, yes? And these are the ones who are to DO the baptizing, yes? From generation to generation, yes?

The apostles were sent out to teach all the nations, baptizing them... The reason there is no "and" is because of the intimate connection between teaching and the subsequent baptizing... [It is not the reverse, obviously, baptizing and THEN teaching, yes? But teaching (catechesis) unto baptizing. And this the Church has been doing for 2000 years now...]

I am teaching no new doctrinal innovation, Justified, but the teaching that has been taught and followed by the Church since Christ, with no dissention whatsoever...

What you are teaching is a differing and innovative gospel that has shown up only in the 20th century or so...

I am sorry to sound so harsh, but this notion of yours really is utter nonsense.

geo

[Justified]

George,

Insofar as I believe anything that is true, I believe nothing different than Christians have believed since Pentecost, and nowhere in the early Church do we find "dry baptism"... Had any such an idea been in practice, there would have been a huge literature of writing about it in the early Church - There is no such record, and there was no controversy whatsoever - ALL baptism was done with water - It is just that the Christian baptism carried what the pre-Christian one did not, for the waters of the Christian baptism were in the Holy Spirit, and the cleansing was not outer, but inner... The original Church practiced ONE baptism from the beginning, without any controversy whatsoever for the first thousand years, and that baptism to this day is in water, triple immersion, followed by Chrismation...


George, I appreciate your reply and will give a complete response to your post and hope that you will answer all my points in return. If I miss something please bring it to my attention.

Please define the difference between Christian and pre-Christian baptism.

The Gospel was not fulfilled at Pentecost, Christ by the Spirit called Paul to complete the task. (Col 1:25).

Paul's writings after Pentecost (Acts 9) speaks of a revelation by the Spirit of the "mystery of Christ" unknown by men. Paul refers to the mystery as the manifold wisdom according to the "eternal" purpose that God purposed "in" Christ (See Eph 3:1-11). Paul goes on to explain that we receive the mystery through 'faith' by the Spirit to the 'inner man' and it is at this time we receive the 'fullness' of God. This mystery was revealed after Pentecost!

Paul said God shall judge men according to his gospel and he is the first apostle to instruct men out of the law. Paul reveals that circumcision is now of the heart by the 'spirit' in order that the praise will be not of men but of God (See Rom 2:16-28).


Paul is not commissioned to water baptism!

Christ did not send Paul to baptize but to preach the gospel by revelation of the mystery. It was not by mans wisdom but the manifold wisdom of God destroying mans wisdom lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. Paul explains that the Jews require a 'sign' but in contrast he preached Christ crucified (1 Cor 1:17-24).

Paul the first apostle to reveal that Christ was crucified for the remission of sins was not commissioned to water baptize for the remission of sins.

The Church is a Spiritual house made without hands and does NOT require the hands of men to place even one stone upon its Foundation. The earthly church made with hands at Pentecost is but a shadow of the Spiritual Church that is not of this world. That which is natural (seen with the eye) is not that which is Spiritual (not seen with the eye). The Spiritual Church does not require a sign to believe, it walks by faith not by sight.

You have not shown me any scriptural reference to any "dry [anhydrous] baptism" whatsoever, where the baptism occurred by some other means than water... There aren't any. Stringing together a bunch of passages that describe baptism's effects in no way describes its means.

George, you made reference to the baptism of fire. Is it wet? Those that received baptism in the cloud and the sea never got wet. Noah was saved from the water in the ark (type of Christ). After Christ was water baptized He said.. "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!".

You need to respond to my arguments and the references you say I strung together and provided your interpretation proving me wrong. If you have questions I will be happy to explain.

Holy Spirit baptism began after Pentecost and it is unique Paul's ministry, believers are baptized by the Spirit and made a member of Christ’s Spiritual body, the Church made without hands (1 Cor 12:12-14).

The Holy Spirit descended as a dove upon Christ in the waters of baptism, and we are to be baptized in Christ's baptism - It really does not take rocket science to say that we will also get wet in baptism and the Holy Spirit will descend upon us in it...


You are mistaken to assume the descending of the Spirit As Christ received John's baptism was Christ's baptism. After this occurred Christ said He had a baptism to be baptized with (Luke 12:50). It only takes the ability to read to understand that not once is the Spirit descending or falling a reference to baptism and you're right, it ain't rocket science.

The main point is that the enemies of God were washed away... And the Ark is the Type of the Church - Which has a "Nave", remember? That is the Ark... Where we take communion, eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of our Lord and Savior...

They did not believe God and were destroyed by the water as will those that believe sins are remitted in water baptism. It is Christ that saves not a church made with hands. The ark was a representation of Christ and those that are 'in' Christ as Noah was in the ark will receive 'eternal' salvation. There is no mediator between God and man but Christ Jesus and there is no profit in naturally drinking the blood of Christ.

[Justified]

George,

In Jewish custom only a few drops of water were used in the ritual... Which is why the wedding at Cana was so significant in the sheer and huge volume of water in those vats...

Jewish custom disagrees with you assumption:

Tevilah ("immersion” in Hebrew) is recited during the Jewish mikveh ritual. The ritual immersion commanded in Mosaic law form the basis for the Judaic mikveh laws. Ancient sages who formulated these rules agreed that the purpose of mikveh was spiritual rather than physical cleansing. They taught that the mikveh cleanses the unclean yet it was only a shadow of the spiritual cleansing performed by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). The roots of baptism rest deeply and permanently within Jewish tradition. Mikveh tradition teachs the ritual has the power to cleanse the hearts of men.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mark 7:7 (KJV)
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. Mark 7:8 (KJV)

In the old testament we read that before giving the Law on Mount Sinai, God commanded the people to wash as an act of purification (Exodus 19:11). The Mosaic law records the washing of Aaron (Lev. 8:6) and his sons when they were ordained as priests to minister in the holy tabernacle. God commanded Aaron (Lev. 16:4) to wash himself before he ministered in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. This priestly cleansing by immersion prepared Israel as a nation for the priesthood during the ministry of John the Baptist.

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: (Ex. 19:5)
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel (Ex. 19:6).

John was that voice crying in the wilderness!

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight (Matt. 3:3).

The Hebrew word mikveh means "a collection or gathering together," in this context it refers to a gathering of the nations at Pentecost for the purpose of ritual cleansing. The earliest Biblical uses of the word "mikveh" occur in I Kings 7:23 and in 11 Chronicles 4:2 describing the huge, circular "Sea of Solomon," constructed along with the first Temple for the priests to carry out their ceremonial washing.

The only Biblical requirement for entrance into the covenant was circumcision, baptism by tradition was added. No one knows exactly when the requirements were changed to include baptism, but it was before the time of Jesus placing it within the period of the Mosaic law.

Mikveh was a vital part of Jewish life well before the time of John the Baptist. One finds Mikvehs in medieval Spain, in ancient Italy and in desert outpost of Masada. The way archaeologists determine whether or not a dig is Jewish is the presence of a Mikveh. This is recorded in halacha (Jewish law) which states that before the synagogue is built, a Mikveh must be established.

Maimonides (1135-1204), a Jewish codifier of the Torah had this to say concerning converts to Judaism:

"By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant: by circumcision, and baptism and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is written: 'No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof' (Exodus 12:48). Baptism was in the wilderness, just before giving of the Law, as it is written: 'Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes' (Exodus 19:10). And sacrifice, as it is said: 'And he sent young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt offerings' (Exodus 24:5)...When a gentile is willing to enter the covenant...He must be circumcised and be baptized and bring a sacrifice...And at this time when there is no sacrifice, they must be circumcised and be baptized; and when the Temple shall be built, they are to bring a sacrifice...The gentile that is made a proselyte and the slave that is made free,
behold he is like a child new born."

Gentiles of today who convert to Judaism must undergo baptism in a mikveh ritual. The purpose of this ceremonial immersion is believed to grant spiritual cleansing, as Maimonides stated in his codification of the laws of mikveh. Peter reflected this same belief when he required the Gentile Cornelius to be baptized.

Using water to cleanse is an ancient Jewish tradition. When John the Baptist came on the scene he preached a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4) as did Peter (Acts 2:38) at Pentecost when the nations were gathered together. The Jews saw nothing pagan or wrong in John’s demands that people repent and be cleansed in the Jordan River."Baptist" or “baptizer“, comes from the Greek verb baptidzo, which has the same meaning as the Hebrew root taval: to wash by dipping or plunging in water. John's message was in keeping with what all the other Jewish prophets proclaimed. He preached God's judgment, warning that Israel must repent and be water baptized because of the coming of the Messiah was at hand. The self-righteous may have disagreed but they had no problem with John's method of cleansing. If it had been anything other than their normal tradition the religious leaders would have had him stoned as a false prophet.

John baptized Jesus and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1 :29). Jesus was perfect and sinless, John’s baptism prepared Him as both Priest and Sacrifice for Israel. In the days Christ walked this earth the Mosaic law was still in effect, those who repented and were cleansed by John in the river still brought animal sacrifices to the Temple to receive God's forgiveness. But after Christ gave his life as an atonement for sin, removing the law (Col. 2:14), baptism became a Spiritual operation of God that places us into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).

The New Covenant or New Testament requires faith in the blood of Christ for remission (Rom. 3:25) and is the means for eternal cleansing. Spiritual baptism is the washing away of sin (Titus 3:5) and uncleanness by the blood of Christ, and the giving of new life by God's Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).The New Testament scriptures teach that by faith we are plunged or buried into his atoning death (I Cor. 12:13), so that God might raise us even as Christ himself rose from the dead and it is an operation of God.

Maimonides listed the three requirements for Judaism as circumcision, baptism and sacrifice, in that order. Maimonides waived the requirement of sacrifice until the Temple should be rebuilt yet failed to realize that God never waived that requirement. God sent the Messiah before the Temple was destroyed, so that all who believed in him would not be left without an acceptable sacrifice for sin. Modern Christianity confuses the biblical order, the sacrifice comes first then water baptism as a symbol of their faith. The correct order is revealed in the gospels as the Baptist prepared Israel as priest with water baptism to receive Jesus who was the Sacrifice. The confusion in the order is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose and place water baptism had in the roots of Judaism. The scriptures do not teach water baptism as symbolic of what be believe but they reveal it as a cleansing ritual under the Mosaic law to prepare for the Sacrifice. Because of Christ's sacrifice, believers are cleansed spiritually and forgiven of their sin. Paul described it this way in his New Testament letter to the Gentile believers:

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Col. 2:9)
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: (Col. 2:10)
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: (Col. 2:11)
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Col. 2:12)

Before Christ died one had to be circumcised and baptized to be brought under God's covenant, the New Testament is inward and visible only to God. By his Spirit, he inscribes his law upon the hearts of all those who commit themselves to him through faith in Jesus’ sacrifice (Jeremiah 31:33). The Scriptures teach that Jews and Gentiles by faith receive circumcision of the heart (Col. 2:11) and Spiritual cleaning (Titus 3:5) the moment they accept the Sacrifice of God. Therefore the fulfillment of the Mosaic law is found in Christ and not by works of righteousness. Paul by revelation (Gal 1:12) said:

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Cor. 1:18 (KJV)

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; (Titus 3:6)
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:7).

[Justified]

George,

That is correct - The disciples are the ones sent to be baptizing all the nations - The disciples, except now, being sent out, they are apostles... They are IN THE WORLD, yes? They are flesh and blood, Yes? They are persons, yes? And these are the ones who are to DO the baptizing, yes? From generation to generation, yes?

The doctrine of apostolic succession is false. Apostles were chosen by Christ, the eleven took it upon themselves to appoint Mathias, yet Christ chose Paul to replace the fallen Judas.

Paul by the Spirit of Christ reveals the truth of the comission. Christ sent him not to water baptize but to preach the gospel and when one believes that gospel they are baptized by the Spirit.

God's field is the world and each tiny seed within it requires baptism, an impossibility for the apostles with water. If you open the valve of a irrigation tank it is not necessary to baptize each seed in the field individually causing it to germinate but you did release the water thus giving life to all the seed the water immersed. Such is the spirit word (John 6:63) of the new testament for remission of sins (Mat 26:28) that Christ instructed the apostles to teach (Mat 28:19-20), it gives life (2 Cor 3:6) and we are born again through faith in it (1 pet 1:23). Christ's words are living water in both spoken and written form.

The apostles were sent out to teach all the nations, baptizing them... The reason there is no "and" is because of the intimate connection between teaching and the subsequent baptizing... [It is not the reverse, obviously, baptizing and THEN teaching, yes? But teaching (catechesis) unto baptizing. And this the Church has been doing for 2000 years now..]

This formula will fail and that is precisely why God by the Spirit performs the ONE baptism. Believing is required (Mk 16:16) to receive baptism and only God can judge the heart of man.

I am teaching no new doctrinal innovation, Justified, but the teaching that has been taught and followed by the Church since Christ, with no dissention whatsoever...

You mean the Pentecostal doctrine not Pauline.
You truly have a zeal for God but not according to His righteousness (Roms 10).

I am sorry to sound so harsh, but this notion of yours really is utter nonsense.

Don't worry yourself, I and grounded in the Truth. I feel sorry for you because I believe you are blinded by church doctrine. The Church is a building made without hands and the natural is not that which is Spiritual. God has appointed Christ as mediator and the mediation is accomplished by the Word of God. We have the word in written form and we are instructed to study inorder to receive God's approval and if we rightly divide the word we will not be ashamed (2 Tim. 2:15). We can understand God's word for we are told it is Spiritually discerned by comparing spiritual (the word) things and he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man (1 Cor 2:13-16).