Question about Acts 2:38: What about the martyrs?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

And by the way, mikveh isn't merely Jewish tradition. It's Word of God commandment from the Father. Jesus Himself submitted to it. He would not have been allowed to enter the Temple property until He had ritually submersed Himself into mikveh mayim.

Triple self immersion for gentiles becoming Jews most certainly IS a Jewish tradition.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

How many times did you need to be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ before Jesus heard your prayer and knowing you had called upon Him in faith, decided to remit your sins?

I am not here to question your experience. Whatever you felt was right at the time is okay with me. I won't undercut it at all. But maybe you felt you needed to be re-immersed in the name of Jesus by the Apostolic people God ran you into because, as a matter of personal faith, you felt your previous self-immersion was unsanctioned by Christ?

If so, does that remove Christ's sanction from any and all self-immersions? How would you go about proving that?



For the record, I am not and do not promote self-immersion, as I have said three times now. I am not interested in independence from the Body, to be "cool and hip", or because I have an "over-fascination with Jewish traditions".

I make my case for uncertainty from Acts 22:16.

The fact is no one can prove from the Holy Scriptures who immersed Paul. And that fact has to leave the door open for various possibilities, any of which, potentially, are legit in the eyes of Christ.

I have proven, a few posts up, that baptism, both John's, and Christian baptism, were performed by a person dunking a candidate under water.

To assume Paul " may" have been baptized some other way, assumes too much, assumes the Bible's statements defining and describing baptism are not given to teach us anything, and assumes "whatever is not explicitly prohibited is allowed," all of which are unscriptural and unreasonable assumptions.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Triple self immersion for gentiles becoming Jews most certainly IS a Jewish tradition.

That kind of mikveh is a tradition. But that isn't the only kind. God through Moses ordered the High Priest to perform mikveh upon himself before the sacrifices made on Yom Kippur. That's not mere Jewish tradition. That's divine fiat.

John's immersion or mikveh was given to him by God. Remember Christ's question to the Pharisee and scribes? John's immersion, was it of men, or from heaven?

These are the kinds of mikvaot to which I refer when I say that God commanded them.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I have proven, a few posts up, that baptism, both John's, and Christian baptism, were performed by a person dunking a candidate under water.

To assume Paul " may" have been baptized some other way, assumes too much, assumes the Bible's statements defining and describing baptism are not given to teach us anything, and assumes "whatever is not explicitly prohibited is allowed," all of which are unscriptural and unreasonable assumptions.

You have proven that what you say is the normative practice, against which I AM NOT arguing.

But I can think of a few extreme cases where it might become necessary where a person needs to immerse him or herself, in the which I would not question it as legit. And I am saying that Acts 22:16 may give license, in such cases, to do so, since Paul's baptism experience is a complete mystery.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

That kind of mikveh is a tradition. But that isn't the only kind. God through Moses ordered the High Priest to perform mikveh upon himself before the sacrifices made on Yom Kippur. That's not mere Jewish tradition. That's divine fiat.

John's immersion or mikveh was given to him by God. Remember Christ's question to the Pharisee and scribes? John's immersion, was it of men, or from heaven?

These are the kinds of mikvaot to which I refer when I say that God commanded them.

Yes, and that proves what about self immersion of converts to Christ?

I submit that it proves nothing except that God uses water to do certain things.

Christian baptism is a ritual washing, a lustration, or mikva. But it does NOT follow that Christian baptism is self administered.

Dishwashing is a washing, or "bathing", but them dishes don't wash themselves.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You have proven that what you say is the normative practice, against which I AM NOT arguing.

The normative practice established by divine fiat.

But I can think of a few extreme cases where it might become necessary where a person needs to immerse him or herself, in the which I would not question it as legit. And I am saying that Acts 22:16 may give license, in such cases, to do so, since Paul's baptism experience is a complete mystery.

First, it is not a complete mystery unless we ignore all the data God saw fit to give us regarding baptism.

Secondly, we can think up extreme cases, but we cannot outthink God. And His thoughts are expressed to us in His Word.

[votivesoul]

Note Hebrews 6:2, where the Greek word means washings, as translated later in Hebrews 9:10

I want to return to this, as it's very important to this discussion. Note Hebrews 9:10:

Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

This is a summary of various Tabernacle and Temple-based rituals performed by Jews under the Old Covenant Law.

"Diverse washings" in Greek is diaphorois baptismois. Diverse, or diaphorois simply means diverse or various. This indicates that the author of Hebrews, in his summation, is including all the different ceremonial washings prescribed by the Old Covenant. This would then refer to the washing of the inwards of an animal after it was sacrificed, to the washing of various kitchen utensils or other items that became impure through use and/or touch. But it would also include the various washings people had to perform upon themselves, whether after intercourse, menstration, or even up to the immersions the priesthood had to undertake for itself during certain rites of sacrifice and Temple service.

Now, note that baptismois is the dative masculine plural of the Greek word/verb baptizo the common Greek word we translate to baptize. The very related word baptisma refers to the noun baptism, as a thing.

It's clear then, that these three Greek words, more than just sharing a linguistic similarity, all refer to the same thing. Baptizo refers to the performing of the act, baptisma refers to the act itself, and baptimois refers to what happens during the act, i.e. a washing occurs.

Now, since the author of Hebrews has used this word to refers to all of the various ceremonial and ordained washings of the Old Covenant, by default, he is also including all the ordained mikvaot contained in the Old Testament texts, meaning the author of Hebrews is, in essence equating the term baptism with mikveh.

Granted, Christian baptism is not the same as Old Covenant washings prescribed by the Torah. Rather, Christian baptism is a new, different mikveh for the New Covenant, in which a person converts to Messianic faith, has their sins completely remitted, and is promised new life in the Holy Spirit, which as the righteousness, peace, and joy of the Father, is the Kingdom of God.

Therefore, anyone who uses the word mikveh and baptism interchangeably is well within their Scriptural rights to do so, just as many Jews today are well within their rights to use the Greek word baptism to refer to mikveh.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yes, and that proves what about self immersion of converts to Christ?

That just as a mikveh can be self-administered, so, too, a baptism into Christ may perhaps also be self-administered, if a situation allows.

Christian baptism is a ritual washing, a lustration, or mikva. But it does NOT follow that Christian baptism is self administered.

You wrote earlier that Christian baptism is not a mikveh.

Baptism [is] no mere mikva...

from Page 13, response #122.

Hence, my point stands: there is a clear and undeniable distinction between a mere mikva, and a baptism.

from Page 13, response #128.

But the syllogism fails because Christian baptism is NOT "simply a Christianized mikva".

From Page 15, response #141.

Have you changed your position, then?

Dishwashing is a washing, or "bathing", but them dishes don't wash themselves.

This is a false analogy, since neither the person performing a baptism, or the person receiving baptism, are the ones washing anyone. It is Jesus Christ who is washing the baptized person.

And in this way, Jesus Christ, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE (this means including the person who did the baptism) testifies to the fact that the baptism was legitimate in that HE WASHED THEM and FORGAVE THEM, and no one else.

Therefore, it is HIS TESTIMONY, as a present witness, that matters. Therefore, if the Lord Jesus testifies to a baptism by washing away the stain of sin and forgiving the guilt of those sins, who are we to argue against Him?

We act like His testimony isn't sufficient. Someone else has to be present or Jesus won't be believed when He demonstrates that a person has been saved by Him.

I hope everyone here received the Holy Spirit in front of witnesses or else, unless you were forced to speak in tongues in front of someone to prove you were filled with the Spirit, I imagine not a soul believed your testimony.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The normative practice established by divine fiat.

Agreed, as I have agreed throughout this post. Is this some mystery?

Secondly, we can think up extreme cases, but we cannot outthink God. And His thoughts are expressed to us in His Word.

We don't have to outthink God. God can make a way for anything. Naaman baptized himself without Elisha being present (see LXX version of 2 Kings 5:14). The witness to his obedience to the prophet was not just him being wet, but by the miracle he received after he obeyed.

Is it any different today?

Imagine an abused wife and children who will be killed by the husband if they dare attend a church? Imagine she's secretly reading her Bible and realizes her and her children need to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Suppose she risks all their lives to get to a church that will baptize that way, or suppose she immerses herself and her children in secret?

God is going to withhold remission of sins from her? God won't recognize her faith as legit? He won't give her the Holy Spirit? He keeps them out of the Kingdom of God because she wasn't baptized by another person, and/or some saint wasn't present to witness it?

I don't think so.

Testimonies from all over the world abound of people who, having no one to baptize them, baptized themselves. They were stuck, without an option. Did they outthink God, or did God make a way through the extreme circumstances, for them to find water, and be immersed?

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Agreed, as I have agreed throughout this post. Is this some mystery?
We don't have to outthink God. God can make a way for anything. Naaman baptized himself without Elisha being present (see LXX version of 2 Kings 5:14). The witness to his obedience to the prophet was not just him being wet, but by the miracle he received after he obeyed.
Is it any different today?
Imagine an abused wife and children who will be killed by the husband if they dare attend a church? Imagine she's secretly reading her Bible and realizes her and her children need to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Suppose she risks all their lives to get to a church that will baptize that way, or suppose she immerses herself and her children in secret?
God is going to withhold remission of sins from her? God won't recognize her faith as legit? He won't give her the Holy Spirit? He keeps them out of the Kingdom of God because she wasn't baptized by another person, and/or some saint wasn't present to witness it?
I don't think so.
Testimonies from all over the world abound of people who, having no one to baptize them, baptized themselves. They were stuck, without an option. Did they outthink God, or did God make a way through the extreme circumstances, for them to find water, and be immersed?

"Whosoever call upon the NAME of the Lord SHALL BE saved."

Reminds me of the fellow that asked me if an airline was going down (to crash), would
God hear a sinner's prayer if it DID crash and everyone was killed.
I replied that God will make a way. He can cause the plane to right itself to keep everyone
safe...even if only ONE was to be "saved"; or He could allow the plane to crash, and
have only the believer survive...to be saved.

We shouldn't limit God.