You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Jason

You most certainly ARE. I asked you why you used the scriptures about a fountain for cleansing from sin, and sprinkling to make clean as examples of Old Testament water baptism, and I pointed out that these scriptures refer to the cleansing through the blood of Christ.
If I took you wrong, you had the oppertunity to correct me, instead, you reply with..."Did John the Baptist invent baptism?"
So clarify your posistion, do those scriptrues refer to water baptism or to the blood of Christ?

Originally Posted by Jason

thanks for the tip

It is not a “tip.” What I gave you is a FACT. Here, let me help you with some scriptures…

The word Baptism means to immerse. It comes from the Greek word “BAPTIZO” which means “to immerse.” Sprinkling for baptism came several hundred years after Jesus’ time. Sprinkling is the Greek word “RANTIZO.”

Sprinkling (RANTIZO) was also a commandment of the Lord. This was done with a mixture of water and the ashes of a "red heifer.” It was only used in instances where the object to be cleansed was too large to pick-up and immerse. An example would be: the altar itself was too large to be immersed, so it was sprinkled, but the shovels used for the altar, and the priests who worked with the altar were immersed.

The Old Testament contains several references to baptism. These immersions are known as a “MIKVAH.” A mikvah is a pool or a gathering of water.

Leviticus 11:36
(36) Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.

Baptism is found in the Old Testament sacrifices and rituals. There was immersion for the hands, the hands and the feet, and the whole body. Immersion of the whole body was performed to correct a condition of ritual impurity and to restore the impure to a state of ritual purity. Ritual impurity could be viewed as SIN. The ritually impure person is prohibited from performing certain functions and participating in certain rites, so their immersion (baptism) would then render him again ritually clean.

Here is a listing of some of the mikvahs mentioned in the Old Testament:

1. Leviticus 13: 1-32 .......Cleansing of leprosy.
2. Numbers 19:18-19 .......Exposure to a dead body.
3. Leviticus 15:5-14 .......Exposure to a person with an unclean issue. An example is the woman with the issue of blood (Matt 9:20-22).
4. Leviticus 15:19-31 .......Cleansing from state of Niddah (“Set apart”) woman's monthly cycle. This was seen in 2 Samuel 11:2-4 in the story of David and Bathsheba's bath-time escapade. It was also used for Fasting or for a Nazarite oath.
5. Leviticus 12:2-4 .......Cleansing of a mother after childbirth. This was found in Luke 2:22, when Mary partook in a cleansing after Jesus’ birth.
6. Numbers 19:20 .......Ceremonially clean for worship in the Temple.
7. Exodus 29:4, 40:12 .......Installation/Consecration of the Priests.
8. Numbers 8:15 .......Levites to the service of God.
9. Leviticus 16:24-26 .......Priests on Yom Kippur/Day of Atonement had to before they would enter the Holy of Holies. It required an Immersion and a change of garments five times for that one service. The High Priest was not ritually impure, but there was a change of status with each time he stood before the LORD. “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” (Hebrews 10:19)
10. Leviticus 16:26 .......Priest with the scapegoat.
11. Leviticus 16:28 .......Priest with the ox sin offering.
12. Numbers 15:15 .......Immersion of a Proselyte/Jewish Convert. Males had to undergo circumcision and immersion. Females were converted at their Immersion.
13. Leviticus 19:8 .......Priests who burned the red heifer for its ashes.
14. Leviticus 1:9, 13 .......The washing of the burnt offering for atonement. This sacrifice consisted of male cattle, lambs, and goats. The priest washed the innards of the animal sacrificed, and burnt the outward parts with fire.

This last washing for the burnt offering is most like the baptism a person does to be Born Again as commanded in John 3:5 and Acts 2:38. Often the bronze laver found in the Tabernacle and Temple is spoken of as a type and shadow of this type New Testament baptism (See Exodus 30:18-21). The problem with this is the laver’s usage was limited to already consecrated priests. They used the laver to wash their hands and feet before ministering within the holy place. Consequently, the laver did not involve a full bodily immersion. Full immersion is required to both consecrate a man into the priesthood and before the High Priest stood before God in the Most Holy Place on Yom Kippur.

To see what the laver represents, one needs look no further than its own description. The laver was made from bronze mirrors. Such a finish allowed the priest to check his spotless appearance before ministering further into the Holy Place. This type reflective washing is what Paul spoke of when writing: “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:26). The Word of God is the mirror that reflects the true image of a man. Water can remove the filth from a man’s flesh. But it takes God’s Word to wash away a man’s impurities so he can better appear in the image from which God fashioned him; this likeness is Jesus Christ! James said, “For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (James 1:23-25). James mentions the Word of God being like a “glass” or mirror. When the Word shows a person how they actually appear, they can then change to more reflect Christlikeness. Such transformation aligns to the “washing of water by the word,” mentioned by Paul. The Word allows man to cleanse himself from a marred fleshly image, so he can then more perfectly reflect the image of the Body of Christ. As a result, the laver more typifies the Word’s cleansing power than it does water baptism for conversion. A man or woman can appear as Christlike if they’re committed to continually realign their life to reflect God’s Word!

I hope that helped you see this more clearly.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Jason

Not so, you brought up the scripture about sprinkling as a refernece to Old Testament water baptism. If you are consistent with that stance, then, yes, someone could make a case for baptism by sprinkling. The problem is that the passage about sprinkling doesn't have to do with water but with blood.

Jason, you need to stop, study, and then comment. All you’re doing is shooting from the hip, which is why you are fumbling all over the place on this. Your opinion is your own, and you have a right to it, but that doesn’t mean your ‘I thinks’ and ‘I believes’ are equivalent to biblical Truth. Jason, have you ever studied the verses I gave on OT mikvahs BEFORE I listed them? Study, dear young Brother!

Originally Posted by Jason

I don't belive He "invented" baptism. But I do believe that this baptism was unlike the mikvah's. In a sense, John's baptism was a new phenomenon. In that God told Him to do it, that it was a one time event (in contrast to the mikvah's), and that it had a clearly spiritual meaning-sepearation from the world, verses ritualistic cleansing. The purpose of baptism unfold from the days of John, until the day of Pentecost, when we come to see the full meaning of water baptism.

So if baptism wasn’t in the OT, and since John didn’t invent it, when and where exactly did it begin? Jason, you need to stop the theories and get into the Book!

Originally Posted by Jason

I believe in the necessity of water baptism, I do not believe that repentance is complete without it.

Who said otherwise?

Originally Posted by Jason

Please give your final comments on this, so that we can get back to the issue at hand- the fallacies of full preterist doctrine.

So now you dictate what can and cannot be said? Wow. Eld. Epley first brought this up. If you have a problem with it, then tell him. My policy is if a person has a right to state an error, I have a right to state a truth. What you and he are proposing is a biblical untruth. I gave numerous scriptures that proved that. All either of you have done is give what you believe, and have done so without giving any Bible to support your ‘feelings’.

Jason, if you are ever to be considered a serious student of God’s Word, then you better get in that Book and learn what you believe, and why you believe it, BEFORE you open your mouth with an opinion. You argue for a gap in Mat 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and yet you admit you do not know where it is. You argue for a gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks, and yet you admit you do not know where it is. You claim to believe in a rapture that may be "hinted" in the OT, though both Brothers Epley and Blume admit there is no scripture for in the OT. Jason, the Bible says the foundation of a Christian’s faith is based on the NT apostles, on the OT prophets, and on Jesus Christ as the “corner stone.” Without an OT scriptural witness, no doctrine can be called “biblical Truth.”

Jason, the reason men like you and Eld. Epley have a problem with AFPs is not because of what they believe, but because they can articulate and substantiate their position in ways that you brethren cannot. Neither of you are able to disprove the tenets of AFP with scripture. Lord knows Eld. Epley has tried for many years, and yet after all that time, he has never come upon an argument that is the bullet to the brain of AFP. And what’s worse is the same arguments that he uses over and over has been disproven each time with Scripture. Jason, if it is so heretical, why is it so difficult for you Futurists to find scriptures in the Bible that prove it so?

Jason, I sincerely wish you the best in your studies….

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Jason, you are very much in error. Let me help you here...

Talk about foot in the mouth is sprinkling a baptism?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

It is not a “tip.” What I gave you is a FACT. Here, let me help you with some scriptures…

The word Baptism means to immerse. It comes from the Greek word “BAPTIZO” which means “to immerse.” Sprinkling for baptism came several hundred years after Jesus’ time. Sprinkling is the Greek word “RANTIZO.”

Sprinkling (RANTIZO) was also a commandment of the Lord. This was done with a mixture of water and the ashes of a "red heifer.” It was only used in instances where the object to be cleansed was too large to pick-up and immerse. An example would be: the altar itself was too large to be immersed, so it was sprinkled, but the shovels used for the altar, and the priests who worked with the altar were immersed.

The Old Testament contains several references to baptism. These immersions are known as a “MIKVAH.” A mikvah is a pool or a gathering of water.

Leviticus 11:36
(36) Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.

Baptism is found in the Old Testament sacrifices and rituals. There was immersion for the hands, the hands and the feet, and the whole body. Immersion of the whole body was performed to correct a condition of ritual impurity and to restore the impure to a state of ritual purity. Ritual impurity could be viewed as SIN. The ritually impure person is prohibited from performing certain functions and participating in certain rites, so their immersion (baptism) would then render him again ritually clean.

Here is a listing of some of the mikvahs mentioned in the Old Testament:

1. Leviticus 13: 1-32 .......Cleansing of leprosy.
2. Numbers 19:18-19 .......Exposure to a dead body.
3. Leviticus 15:5-14 .......Exposure to a person with an unclean issue. An example is the woman with the issue of blood (Matt 9:20-22).
4. Leviticus 15:19-31 .......Cleansing from state of Niddah (“Set apart”) woman's monthly cycle. This was seen in 2 Samuel 11:2-4 in the story of David and Bathsheba's bath-time escapade. It was also used for Fasting or for a Nazarite oath.
5. Leviticus 12:2-4 .......Cleansing of a mother after childbirth. This was found in Luke 2:22, when Mary partook in a cleansing after Jesus’ birth.
6. Numbers 19:20 .......Ceremonially clean for worship in the Temple.
7. Exodus 29:4, 40:12 .......Installation/Consecration of the Priests.
8. Numbers 8:15 .......Levites to the service of God.
9. Leviticus 16:24-26 .......Priests on Yom Kippur/Day of Atonement had to before they would enter the Holy of Holies. It required an Immersion and a change of garments five times for that one service. The High Priest was not ritually impure, but there was a change of status with each time he stood before the LORD. “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” (Hebrews 10:19)
10. Leviticus 16:26 .......Priest with the scapegoat.
11. Leviticus 16:28 .......Priest with the ox sin offering.
12. Numbers 15:15 .......Immersion of a Proselyte/Jewish Convert. Males had to undergo circumcision and immersion. Females were converted at their Immersion.
13. Leviticus 19:8 .......Priests who burned the red heifer for its ashes.
14. Leviticus 1:9, 13 .......The washing of the burnt offering for atonement. This sacrifice consisted of male cattle, lambs, and goats. The priest washed the innards of the animal sacrificed, and burnt the outward parts with fire.

This last washing for the burnt offering is most like the baptism a person does to be Born Again as commanded in John 3:5 and Acts 2:38. Often the bronze laver found in the Tabernacle and Temple is spoken of as a type and shadow of this type New Testament baptism (See Exodus 30:18-21). The problem with this is the laver’s usage was limited to already consecrated priests. They used the laver to wash their hands and feet before ministering within the holy place. Consequently, the laver did not involve a full bodily immersion. Full immersion is required to both consecrate a man into the priesthood and before the High Priest stood before God in the Most Holy Place on Yom Kippur.

To see what the laver represents, one needs look no further than its own description. The laver was made from bronze mirrors. Such a finish allowed the priest to check his spotless appearance before ministering further into the Holy Place. This type reflective washing is what Paul spoke of when writing: “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:26). The Word of God is the mirror that reflects the true image of a man. Water can remove the filth from a man’s flesh. But it takes God’s Word to wash away a man’s impurities so he can better appear in the image from which God fashioned him; this likeness is Jesus Christ! James said, “For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (James 1:23-25). James mentions the Word of God being like a “glass” or mirror. When the Word shows a person how they actually appear, they can then change to more reflect Christlikeness. Such transformation aligns to the “washing of water by the word,” mentioned by Paul. The Word allows man to cleanse himself from a marred fleshly image, so he can then more perfectly reflect the image of the Body of Christ. As a result, the laver more typifies the Word’s cleansing power than it does water baptism for conversion. A man or woman can appear as Christlike if they’re committed to continually realign their life to reflect God’s Word!

I hope that helped you see this more clearly.

Baptism is a burial or immersion of the WHOLE body not a finger and you know that. Those instances you cite are sprinklings NOT baptism.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Talk about foot in the mouth is sprinkling a baptism?

Eld. Epley, please don't lie. I never said nor insinuated this at all. You know my stance on Acts 2:38. Elder, you should make this right.

Lord bless you and yours, Elder!

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

It was a NT revelation. Death was not conquered in the OT so everyone had to die thus the resurrection but death has been conquered in the NT and those WHICH ARE ALIVE AND REMAIN,... WE SHALL NOT ALL SLEEP!!!!!
These men were inspired to speak and write scripture this is the silliest argument I have ever heard. NO ONE was baptized in water in the OT. Good grief.

1Cor.10:1,2,11 KJV

1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea,

2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Baptism is a burial or immersion of the WHOLE body not a finger and you know that. Those instances you cite are sprinklings NOT baptism.

Eld. Epley, I am quoting the BIBLE. Can you explain where I misrepresented any of these for being anything other than I said?

Elder, please stop the misrepresentations. To intentionally misrepresent a man or his teachings is the same as a lie. Please stop.

[Steve Epley]

For those who do not believe in NT revelation:
Eph. 3:2-7
NOTE: "which in OTHER ages was NOT KNOWN unto the sons of men, as it is NOW revealed unto his holy Apostles and prophets by the Spirit"

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Baptism is a burial or immersion of the WHOLE body not a finger and you know that. Those instances you cite are sprinklings NOT baptism.

The issue is "immersion." That is what I brought up and clarified. I also explained these differences. Elder, you are again NOT reading what is posted BEFORE you comment. Eld. Epley, you've been a minister too long for such behavior.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

For those who do not believe in NT revelation:
Eph. 3:2-7
NOTE: "which in OTHER ages was NOT KNOWN unto the sons of men, as it is NOW revealed unto his holy Apostles and prophets by the Spirit"

Eld. Epley, this is just another example of how you omit the context of a verse, and how you do not include all the counsel of God’s Word. Let’s first look at the context of your verses.

Eph 3:1-7
(1) For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
(2) If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
(3) How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
(4) Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
(5) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
(6) That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
(7) Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Notice that the “mystery” was that the “gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” Now consider this with the following:

Gen 17:1-5
(1) And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
(2) And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
(3) And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
(4) As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
(5) Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

The OT here foretold of what Paul said is now clearly understood in the NT. Elder, this verse, and others, clearly said that the gentiles would be a partaker of these promises. Elder, Abraham was not a Jew. He was in fact a gentile. This is Bible, Eld. Epley.

Eld. Epley, you need to realize that there is a difference between ‘unspoken’ and ‘unknown.’ The detective may not know the truth of the case, but that doesn’t mean he cannot see the clues. The OT already contained everything about what Jesus was to fulfill before He ever was born. The issue Paul is expounding is that it was "NOT MADE KNOWN" then in the OT like "IT IS NOW REVEALED" in the NT. In other words it was not known in the OT to the degree that it is now known through the fulfillments of the Gospel. Scriptures like those in Genesis 17 support this conclusion.

As a result of this, Elder, now that Jesus has ushered in His New Covenant, you should even more easily be able to find the scriptures in the OT that do speak clearly of your supposed rapture. That is what Paul is saying. Yet, even though this is the case, you admittedly cannot find this OT evidence for your rapture theory. That is a real dilemma for which you should take an honest evaluation….