Baptism

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Branham got it from TIME magazine. It is indeed in the TIME archives.

Do you believe this is an ancient document?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yet if one truly honors said authority, do they not do as said authority commanded? We have an exact quote from Christ in Matthew 28:19. We can only draw inferences from the book of Acts. Traditional Christianity would state that if one baptizes "in the name of Jesus Christ" (i.e. in the authority of Christ) they will baptize as Christ commanded (Matthew 28:19).

I'm now hesitant to "explain away" the exact words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to affirm an inference drawn from various verses in the book of Acts that do not have an exact quote of what was said.

We have exact quotes from the men commissioned to teach and explain what Jesus said in the book of Acts

What many, you included, refuse to do is read what Jesus said before vs 19 where Jesus claims ALL AUTHORITY in Heaven and Earth

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

We have exact quotes from the men commissioned to teach and explain what Jesus said in the book of Acts

What many, you included, refuse to do is read what Jesus said before vs 19 where Jesus claims ALL AUTHORITY in Heaven and Earth

Please give me an exact quote from a baptizer speaking over a person being baptized.

Since Jesus said all authority is given Him, why not repeat exactly what He commanded?

[Godsdrummer]

Aquila

While I can see what you are trying to say, you have one problem from what I can see. You drive home or try to drive home that Matt 28:19 is an exact quote from Jesus. Two things wrong with this is that, one. nowhere in scripture do we have an exact quote of any words of Christ. Two, Christ commands a name while trinitarians do not use a proper name with the use of titles.

In trying to say Matt 28:19 is an exact quote, we must compare the other gospels that write about the same commision, in their gosples.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Each writter put into his own words the gosples as they saw things happen. to say the words of Matt 28:19 was adirect quote is a long stretch, IMHO.

Cultism IMO comes from two different points, those that take scripture and twist it to preach things that are harder than scriputer puts them, and the other those that fall back on traditions that have come over the years by the same way, those that took scripture and twisted them to teach things that are not in scripture.

Example John 3:3-6, taking the water to preach the nessesity of Baptism as part of the salvation plan, without following the context of the passsage and the whole message Jesus taught Nicodemus in the rest of the passage.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Aquila

While I can see what you are trying to say, you have one problem from what I can see. You drive home or try to drive home that Matt 28:19 is an exact quote from Jesus. Two things wrong with this is that, one. nowhere in scripture do we have an exact quote of any words of Christ. Two, Christ commands a name while trinitarians do not use a proper name with the use of titles.

In trying to say Matt 28:19 is an exact quote, we must compare the other gospels that write about the same commision, in their gosples.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Each writter put into his own words the gosples as they saw things happen. to say the words of Matt 28:19 was adirect quote is a long stretch, IMHO.

Cultism IMO comes from two different points, those that take scripture and twist it to preach things that are harder than scriputer puts them, and the other those that fall back on traditions that have come over the years by the same way, those that took scripture and twisted them to teach things that are not in scripture.

Example John 3:3-6, taking the water to preach the nessesity of Baptism as part of the salvation plan, without following the context of the passsage and the whole message Jesus taught Nicodemus in the rest of the passage.

preterist will use historic events recorded outside the bible to justify there view of the bible. and so when people do the same with baptism as using early church history as early as 70 a.d. and upward it just gets ignored and brushed under the carpet like it didnt happent.

Thus my point is we have many recorded works of baptism with the father son and holy Ghost, many well documented using that phrase, and using it while at least one apostle was still alive.. yet in light of this historical evidence. people brush it off as the beginnings of a heretical sect growing


Im not downing you for being a preterist, im just trying to make a point that people did it like this in historical evidence outside the bible.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do you believe this is an ancient document?

I think so. I could not find the reference, though. I mean, who in TIME magazine could think it up?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Aquila

While I can see what you are trying to say, you have one problem from what I can see. You drive home or try to drive home that Matt 28:19 is an exact quote from Jesus. Two things wrong with this is that, one. nowhere in scripture do we have an exact quote of any words of Christ. Two, Christ commands a name while trinitarians do not use a proper name with the use of titles.

In trying to say Matt 28:19 is an exact quote, we must compare the other gospels that write about the same commision, in their gosples.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Each writter put into his own words the gosples as they saw things happen. to say the words of Matt 28:19 was adirect quote is a long stretch, IMHO.

I disagree. The Gospels were written a considerable time after the life of Christ. Through divine inspiration each recorded the words they specifically remember the Lord speaking on various occasions. If what you say is true, we don't have the exact words of Christ at all. It's just a paraphrase in the author's own words. That's VERY problematic and shows a low appreciation of Holy Scripture. It also opens up a world of problems. How can we trust any of the author's interpretation or paraphrase of Christ's teaching? Maybe Jesus didn't say anything at all about baptism... Luke omits a direct comment about baptism, Mark's ending is questioned, Matthew's wasn't Christ's own words in your opinion, and John doesn't mention it either.

Cultism IMO comes from two different points, those that take scripture and twist it to preach things that are harder than scriputer puts them, and the other those that fall back on traditions that have come over the years by the same way, those that took scripture and twisted them to teach things that are not in scripture.

Baptism was essentially practiced in accordance to Christ's words. The book of Acts doesn't contain even a paraphrase regarding what formula the Apostle's used. All it contains are admonishments to be baptized "in the name of the Lord". That means, in accordance to His teaching and authority, in His honor, with recognition of His power. It doesn't say much about a "formula". If so... please provide a quote for a formula as spoken over a candidate being baptized.

Example John 3:3-6, taking the water to preach the nessesity of Baptism as part of the salvation plan, without following the context of the passsage and the whole message Jesus taught Nicodemus in the rest of the passage.

I think context in that passage is very important too. Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a "ruler of the Jews". This means that Nicodemus was one of the top theological authorities, if not the head theological authority, among the Sanhedrin. Obviously Nicodemus wasn't sure what Jesus meant when He said that a man must be "born again". So Nicodemus questioned Him pointedly to provoke a theological explaination. Jesus explained that to be "born again" was to be "born of water and Spirit". When Jesus said that a man must be "born of water and Spirit" what would Nicodemus have thought? In rabbinical literature the mikveh pools were referred to as "the womb of the world". When one was completely immersed in the mikveh pool (tevilah) they were said to be "a little child just born" or "a child of one day". When Jesus explained the phrase "born again" by saying "born of water and of Spirit" Nicodemus would have seen it as a direct reference to mikveh (tevilah), what we understand as root practice of Christian baptism.

Now... for you full immersionists, this is EXCELLENT data supporting full immersion. lol

[Pendragon]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Example John 3:3-6, taking the water to preach the nessesity of Baptism as part of the salvation plan, without following the context of the passsage and the whole message Jesus taught Nicodemus in the rest of the passage.

Yes, how about the context of that passage? At the end of John 3 Jesus is baptizing people.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Aquila
Example John 3:3-6, taking the water to preach the nessesity of Baptism as part of the salvation plan, without following the context of the passsage and the whole message Jesus taught Nicodemus in the rest of the passage.

Regardless of one's position on mode or formula, I believe water baptism is part of the plan of salvation. Not in that it provides any spiritual grace, but because God ordained it to be so. Much like the Lord's Supper. There are various sacraments, all serve a purpose rather one believes they are symbolic of inner truths or actual means of the impartation of grace.

I see the Christian life as a journey. That means that as the Christian grows in faith obedience will grow also. It's been said that one is lost if they perish before being water baptized. I believe God sees the heart. One who refuses to be baptized out of pride or a contrary will shall be judged by God in accordance to their disposition. One who perishes while on the way to be baptized or while learning that baptism is a Christian sacrament will be judged according to their disposition.

I'd argue that one who refuses to be baptized may not have saving faith. Thus baptism isn't the issue. It's their unbelief. They simply don't believe the Word of God.

Baptism, God ordained it, Jesus commanded it, and Christians embrace and practice it.

God is just.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I disagree. The Gospels were written a considerable time after the life of Christ. Through divine inspiration each recorded the words they specifically remember the Lord speaking on various occasions. If what you say is true, we don't have the exact words of Christ at all. It's just a paraphrase in the author's own words. That's VERY problematic and shows a low appreciation of Holy Scripture. It also opens up a world of problems. How can we trust any of the author's interpretation or paraphrase of Christ's teaching? Maybe Jesus didn't say anything at all about baptism... Luke omits a direct comment about baptism, Mark's ending is questioned, Matthew's wasn't Christ's own words in your opinion, and John doesn't mention it either.

Baptism was essentially practiced in accordance to Christ's words. The book of Acts doesn't contain even a paraphrase regarding what formula the Apostle's used. All it contains are admonishments to be baptized "in the name of the Lord". That means, in accordance to His teaching and authority, in His honor, with recognition of His power. It doesn't say much about a "formula". If so... please provide a quote for a formula as spoken over a candidate being baptized.

I think context in that passage is very important too. Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a "ruler of the Jews". This means that Nicodemus was one of the top theological authorities, if not the head theological authority, among the Sanhedrin. Obviously Nicodemus wasn't sure what Jesus meant when He said that a man must be "born again". So Nicodemus questioned Him pointedly to provoke a theological explaination. Jesus explained that to be "born again" was to be "born of water and Spirit". When Jesus said that a man must be "born of water and Spirit" what would Nicodemus have thought? In rabbinical literature the mikveh pools were referred to as "the womb of the world". When one was completely immersed in the mikveh pool (tevilah) they were said to be "a little child just born" or "a child of one day". When Jesus explained the phrase "born again" by saying "born of water and of Spirit" Nicodemus would have seen it as a direct reference to mikveh (tevilah), what we understand as root practice of Christian baptism.

Now... for you full immersionists, this is EXCELLENT data supporting full immersion. lol

If your going to be extreme on the points we have discused I would think that you would be more a procipiant of full immersion. LOL