I believe in Acts 2:38 not just because I was taught it, but because I researched it out when I came to the Lord & the good book backs it up in so many ways.
My Pastor was speaking on the house of God and he quoted a scripture on Jesus Baptism to make a point & a light went off in my head.
Jesus was baptized not because he had sin, but to fulfill all righteousness.
His baptism was to fulfill his calling as our high priest at the start of his ministry
at age 30.
Every Levite was washed to prepare them for ministry.
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
We are a royal priesthood, would it not make sense then that as our High priest was washed to make way to minister in a priestly role, would it also not make sense that we would need that washing to begin our priesthood roles in this New Testament covenant?
BTW, I am in no way taking away the fact of remission of sins through water baptism in Jesus name, but rather this just gives another reason of the need of it.
I like also that in the Tabernacle we were coming toward God, Altar, Laver, Holy place/Holy of Holies!
In the Gospel, Jesus is coming towards us, Holy of Holies/Holy Place (Heaven), Laver (Jordan River Baptism) & Altar (Calvary)
The idea that the brazen laver represents baptism in the Bible has been discussed here before at length, Ron ...
Run a search of the AFF archives with the keywords ... baptism and laver and you will get 3 pages full of posts ... even some by you.
These type of creative analogies are not new at all to the 3 step crowd in using fanciful theories to explain their paradigm of the new birth... others include the gestation and delivery of babies, re-enactment of the Work of the Lamb, retc.
Nowhere in the bible do we see baptism linked to the laver as typology ... although it is likened to Moses at the Red Sea and Noah's Ark ... both bible based shadows.
Almost, if not all, all bible typologies point to JESUS CHRIST, Ron ... not your interpretation of Acts 2:38.
There a many holes to comparing baptism the the brazen laver ...
1. The Tabernacle typologies in Hebrews and other books point to Jesus Christ and what He did ... not our re-enactment of the Gospel. Even noted Oneness theologian, Dr. Daniel Segraves sees the error in this approach.
He says:
Quote:
While the Tabernacle of old was definitely a figure (Greek parabole) (Hebrews 9:9), no New Testament verse seeks to interpret the meaning of each item associated with Tabernacle worship. By necessity, then, much of the interpretation regarding the Tabernacle is speculative at best. What the New Testament does clearly indicate is that the essential purpose of the Tabernacle worship, as a whole, was to prefigure the coming Christ and His role as the final and only efficacious sacrifice (Hebrews 9:8-14, 23-26; 10:1-21; Colossians 2:16-17; Galatians 3:24).
2. Comparing baptism to the laver is simply not adequate.
Segraves continues:
Quote:
There are several reasons why the laver seems not to be an adequate type of water baptism:
1. Contrary to the author's assumption that the laver was "scheduled after the initial approach and sacrifice at the brazen altar and before entering the Holy Place," the laver was the first destination of the priest, even before approaching the brazen altar (Exodus 30:20; 40:12, 30-32). If the brazen altar represents repentance and the laver water baptism, this would place baptism before repentance in typology.
2. While the New Testament does assign specific typological meaning to certain Old Testament events and practices, it nowhere specifies the laver as a type of water baptism.
3. The laver was not a place of immersion, but mere washing.
4. The priests had to wash at the laver repeatedly each time they planned to minister. Water baptism is a one-time event.
If the laver is typical of any New Testament truth, it would seem more appropriate to consider it to be typical of the daily washing of believers by the Word of God, as seen in Ephesians 5:26: "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."
The laver would seem an appropriate symbol of this for the following reasons:
1. It was covered with mirrors, reflecting the approaching priest's image. The New Testament compares the Word of God to a mirror in which men behold themselves (James 1:23).
2. The washing at the laver was a continual thing; the washing of water by the Word is a continuing process.
.... discussion of circumcision as a type of water baptism was more satisfying and biblically based.
One could have hoped, however, that he would have included a discussion of the two other divinely appointed types of water baptism: the flood of Noah (I Peter 3:20-21) and the crossing of the Red Sea (I Corinthians 10 1-2).
3. Baptism provides no "washing".
The false premise that remission is a result of a washing that happens at baptism .... while forgiveness is the result of repentance ... is patently false. As the idea that the blood is only applied in a properly administered baptism in which salvation hangs on the words of the baptizer.
When one examines the words of the Apostles in using the Greek word "aphesis" to mean both forgivenes/remission ... w/ no distinction made. Why do you do you go against their doctrine and words?
The writer to the Hebrews (chapter 6) tells us blood remits/forgives/washes/ wipes away our sins. Peter, the preacher at Pentecost, tells us that when we repent and turn to God our sins are wiped/blotted away (Acts 3:19)
What about Acts 2:38 ... ? "For the remission of sins".
Dr. Seagraves adds:
Quote:
It would be useful in any current discussion of the relationship between water baptism and the remission of sins to recognize and respond to an objection that is current among some scholars of our day. It is perhaps best expressed in The Bible Knowledge Commentary and suggests that the clause "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ" is parenthetical, based on the following factors: "
(a) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb `repent' is plural and so is the pronoun `your' in the clause so that your sins maybe forgiven (lit., `unto the remission of your sins,' eis aphesin ton hamartion hymon).
Therefore the verb `repent' must go with the purpose and forgiveness of sins.
On the other hand the imperative `be baptized' is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence.
(b) This concept fits with Peter's proclamation in Acts 10:43 in which the same expression `sins may be forgiven' (aphesin harmation) occurs. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone.
(c) In Luke 24:47 and Acts 5:31 the same writer, Luke, indicates that repentance results in remission
of sins."
Peter, "the holder of the keys", even tells us in his epistle tells us that it does not put away filth. (1 Peter 3)
We can clap hands and high five each other in this thread all we want but to add to the Word has serious consequences.
The following quote holds true to this extrabiblical approach you are proposing, Ronald:
"Any doctrine which cannot be solidly supported by scripture must be laid aside, lest we be found to add to or take away from God’s holy Word."
--------------------------
Source: The Segraves quotes are from a response to the paper presented by Tim Landry at the 1988 Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism, entitled Water Baptism as It Relates to Water Baptism and the Infilling of the Holy Spirit). Yep. Segraves put the smack down on TimLan.
It's just too bad so many don't believe in Baptism
anymore Ron
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico
SWEET! This is one of the best posts I have read around here in a long time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
It is no skin off my back. I was wondering when our self proclaimed "guardian of the truth" was going to show up.
I know where he stands on water baptism as an afterthought "touchy feely good to show every one I am a Christian type a thing."
Some don't want to believe the whole counsel of the Word anymore but would rather add to it ... mysticizing baptism ... rather than teach it is a commandment of our Lord and Savior for initial believers.
Some don't want to believe the whole counsel of the Word anymore but would rather add to it ... mysticizing baptism ... a commandment of our Lord and Savior for initial believers.
Some don't want to believe the whole counsel of the Word anymore but would rather add to it ... mysticizing baptism ... a commandment of our Lord and Savior for initial believers.
And why did He command it? Just so we could get wet?
Dan, you say in one breath you believe Baptism was a commandment, but you seem to despise it whenever anyone brings it up and gives scripture for it's necessity.
Not everything is an argument.
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
Some don't want to believe the whole counsel of the Word anymore but would rather add to it ... mysticizing baptism ... a commandment of our Lord and Savior for initial believers.
I don't really care what you think anymore, Dan. To me you are like an annoying yapping chihuahua who doesn't realize how small he really is.
Not everything is an argument.
Hybrid Mode
