e.r.m.
Church of Christ
That is very different than what I actually said.You want to tell me that the Messiah was not baptized? See the Jerusalem Post here....>>>
Holy Hebrew Arithmetic: What Age was Jesus when he became Teacher-Priest?
.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What say the scriptures?
- Thread starter e.r.m.
- Start date
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
I feel vilified now if I even try to express a different understanding. Originally I was just requesting clarification. I wasn't challenging you or in your face or anything. Just talking. But here goes anyway.The verse fairly unambiguously indicates that Christ told the disciples that baptising is part of what they were to do to make other people disciples, the other part being to teach them Christ's commands. Or can you find a way not to see even that much? You do seem to be trying awfully hard not to understand it.
My point was that how baptism is effective in making people disciples, this verse does not say. That seems open to speculation and interpretation. It could be anything from, say, a purely symbolic initiation ceremony to a sacrament, if we go only on this verse. So you can take your pick - unless you or someone can come up with other verses to clarify this question.
Is that fair, or do you have an alternative explanation to offer of what this verse says?
Being that it uses the subjunctive, baptiz"ing" them in the name... instead of "and baptize them in the name...", then baptizing could be understood as part of what makes them into disciples. Although "make disciples of all nations "by" baptizing them would certainly be clearer. As it is, I don't see it as a solid case. My greatest difficulty with it is that the greek refers to disciples as
μαθητεύω,v \{math-ayt-yoo'-o}
1) to be a disciple of one 1a) to follow his precepts and instructions 2) to make a disciple 2a) to teach, instruct
I don't see baptizing a person as turning them into this. It sounds more to me like "Make disciples of all nations, baptize these disciples, and teach them to obey...."
However,
since it does say "...make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..." It does come across as a written purpose for baptism. I will thus include it, thank you.
So now we have as "written" purposes for baptism in Jesus's name:
Romans 6:3-4 We are baptized into his death, buried with him in baptism
Acts 2:38 For the remission of sins
1 Peter 3:21 baptism now also saves us and an answer of a good conscience toward God.
&
Matthew 28:19 for the purpose of being made into a disciple.
Thank you all for these scripture references and "written" purposes.
Any more?
Last edited:
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
Point taken!
There seems to be general acceptance that John's baptism was 'unto repentance'.
From Pentecost, baptism in the Holy Spirit is available. I would say that Acts 8:15,16 gives us a clue as to the purpose of the water baptism (in the name of the Lord Jesus) in relation to the giving of the Holy Spirit.
'Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.'
Read alongside Romans 6, it would appear that although baptized (in the name of the Lord Jesus) into his death, they had not been raised up in newness of life. As I understand it, this newness of life occurs when the Holy Spirit is received.
In the case of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-40), Philip 'preached unto him Jesus' after finding him reading from Isaiah 53. The eunuch suggested water baptism when they came to a suitable place. Then Philip said, 'If thou believest with all thine heart' to which the eunuch replied 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'. Philip then baptised the eunuch in water, but it says that the eunuch 'went on his way rejoicing', which suggests the eunuch accepted his own burial with Christ (dying to sin), and resurrection with Christ (as a new creation in Christ, having received the Holy Spirit).
It's an interesting distinction, and makes me think that the problem experienced amongst the Samaritans is not uncommon in our own day. People are water baptised into the death of Jesus without ever receiving the new life that results from an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The two aspects of baptism should be understood as one, but often are not.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Agreed.
I agree for the most part with one major exception. I don't believe it's the outpouring of the Spirit or the Spirit coming "on" or "upon" that initiates the newness of life. I agree with you that one guys with Christ and is raised to a new life with baptism, but I believe the gift of the holy spirit that is associated with the new life is when the Holy Spirit dwells inside as in Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19 which comes with baptism in Jesus's name Acts 2:38-39 as opposed to how it came "on" them and the outpouring with the laying on of hands by the apostles.
Last edited:
Just that the author of Acts 19 said we should be baptized by immersion like Jesus Christ and in His name.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Thank you.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
It also may be a bit like praying in Jesus name. That could be prayer in his will for His glory and not necessarily a verbal formulation.
In the case of Baptism, a Baptism with intention of being a disciple and committed to his teaching and glorifying God leaning on the work of Christ on the cross probably can generally be considered being Baptized 'in his name' whether you say 'in the name (note that it is singular not plural) of the Father, Son and Spirit' or 'in Jesus name'
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
Please elaborate. Are you suggesting that there is a distinction in experience between those who received the Spirit in Samaria (citing Acts 8:17), and those who received it in Jerusalem (Acts 2: 38-39)? Or, are you saying that newness of life comes with water baptism (in Jesus' name), independently of the gift of Holy Spirit?
Not so popular of a belief but:
My Church believes that you have to be baptized with authority too, that authority being in my Church. If you don't believe this or you don't understand properly that this is so, you get a shot at getting saved in the next life.
My Church believes that you have to be baptized with authority too, that authority being in my Church. If you don't believe this or you don't understand properly that this is so, you get a shot at getting saved in the next life.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
No Acts 10:47-48 establishes that Baptism in Jesus's name is in water. We shouldn't be trying to make up our own.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
In the next life?
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
The difference there would be in Acts 2 & in Acts 10, this outpouring came directly from Jesus. In Acts 8:17 it doesn't actually say outpouring but what they did receive, they received via the laying on of hands. Peter said in
Acts 11:15-16 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. [16] Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
Peter skipped over what happened in Acts 8:17 (and Peter was there) and went back to Pentecost as the last time he remembered the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. This is indicative that he saw the two differently.
No, the newness of life along with water baptism (in Jesus' name) does not occur independently of the gift of the Hily Spirit, it is given at baptism Acts 2:38 that being the Holy Spirit dwelling inside as in Romans 8:9.
Do you know of a scripturally viable alternative to the purpose of baptism in Jesus's name?, which is in water Acts 10:47-48.
Yes. People can convert in the next life if they would have accepted it had they known all about it in this one.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Is there a scripture for this?
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Acts 10:47-48 does say Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before baptism still needing water baptism for obedience. They were already saved and spirit filled and even certified as the real deal by the Spirit.
The opposite appears to have happened with Simon the magician in Acts 8:9–24 who was baptized and then condemned because he was unchanged and still in the bonds of bitterness
Last edited:
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
It says
"...the Holy Spirit came 'on' all who heard the message." not indwelling.
Doesn't say water baptism "for obedience". That's not a written purpose.
It's not "written" that they're saved.
No one besides God knows the state of his heart before he got baptized. Peter had said 'repent and be baptized' Acts 2:38 and he may not have repented.
No different than the scenario of someone saying the sinners prayer superficially.
Do you know of a scripturally viable alternative purpose for baptism in Jesus name?, which is in water.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
Good, thanks. Sorry if I was a bit testy, but I did feel you were being unnecessarily difficult.
Anyway, a further thought about the function of baptism.
I looked up why John the Baptist baptized people and learned it derived from the Jewish mikvah, a ritual bath taken to symbolise spiritual cleansing. So there was nothing really new about it. The Gospels tell us that this ritual was adopted by Christ, in that he allowed himself to be baptized by John and then, after his resurrection, gave the injunction I referred to previously to continue the practice, as a part of the induction of new disciples.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Sorry if I was.Good, thanks. Sorry if I was a bit testy, but I did feel you were being unnecessarily difficult.
I'm familiar with the mikveh.
Mikveh & Baptism
Purpose of the mikveh
1. To the ancient Jews, both Essene and non-Essene, the mikveh was a process of spiritual purification and cleansing, especially in relation to the various types of Turmah or ritual defilement when the Temple was in use. We learn from the Clementine Homilees that Peter practiced daily pre-dawn Mikveh immersion.
2. The Jewish baptism candidates were often immersed three times. The idea of total immersion comes from the Scripture in Leviticus 15:16 when it says, "he shall wash all his flesh in the water." One reason it was customary to immerse three times was because the word mikveh occurs three times in the Torah. We know this to have been an early Nasarenes practice under Yeshua.
4. The immersion candidate was not initially touched by the baptizer in Yeshua's (Jesus') day. Because Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water," Rabbinical Judaism stresses that the entire body must come in contact with the water of the mikveh. To insure the immersion was valid, no clothing or individuals could touch the candidate. Any such intervention that prevented the water from reaching a part of the body was known as Chatzitzah and rendered the immersion invalid. Although the mikveh was more spiritual than physical, often the bath had two sets of steps, one entering and another leaving so as not to defile what had been purified. We know from Mandean tradition, and also Cyril of Jerudalem, that early Nasarene baptisms were performed without restricted clothing. Once relativily pure from preliminary self immersions, catecumens could be touched by the oficiating Priest and Priestess for full Baptism.
They were so obsessed with cleansing, to them, it wasn't symbolizing, it was the reality. This was the backdrop within which Jesus and Peter commanded baptism in Jesus's name.
Some groups "love" to call baptism in Jesus's name a ritual. Although the washing of hands and utensils was referred to as a ritual in the NT, baptism in Jesus's name was not. The vocabulary for this doesn't exist. Point is, there's no evidence that they conceived of it this way. It's an evangelical point of view. There is written evidence that Baptism's purpose could be to make new disciples. There's no written evidence that Baptism was to introduce new disciples. Although, that could have incidentally happened also, there's nothing written about this as a purpose.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
I should have thought baptism is, objectively, an example of a ritual: Definition of RITUAL
One does not need a scriptural reference to describe it as such.
As for your last two statements, I find them strange. Can you offer an alternative explanation for the meaning of the words of Christ that I originally quoted to you? What did these instructions mean, in your opinion, if baptism was not part of the process of gaining new disciples?
A little in the Bible. A lot elsewhere.
“What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf” (1 Cor. 15:29)?