Taking Jesus Seriously: The Command to Baptize
February 4th, 2013 by Matt Elton
In my previous two posts, I wrote about the importance of going into all the world to share the good news of Jesus Christ. But in our zeal to carry out the Great Commission through preaching, we sometimes forget that the Great Commission also contains another command from the Lord Jesus Christ: the command to baptize.
Matthew 28:18-20: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.â€
What is Baptism?
Baptism is a sacrament, a physical manifestation of a spiritual truth. The other sacrament commanded in scripture is communion. Understanding communion is helpful for understanding how baptism works. Without faith, communion is nothing more than bread and wine. With faith, communion becomes a profound reflection upon the sufferings of Jesus Christ. The spiritual truth that Jesus died on the cross for our sins really hits home when it is manifested in the physical realm through the bread and the wine, which symbolize his physical body and blood. The physical nature of communion really makes the spiritual truth come alive.
Similarly, baptism without faith is nothing more than a quick bath. But with faith, baptism is a profound experience of being born again. Just as Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again, so baptism symbolizes our own death, burial, and resurrection. The believer is submerged in water, symbolizing the death and burial of the old carnal self and its sinful nature. The believer is then raised out of the water, symbolizing new life in Christ.
Romans 6:4: “We are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.â€
2 Corinthians 5:17: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.â€
Baptism is a commitment. It is usually done when a person first becomes a believer and is willing to make a commitment to follow Jesus as Lord. Through baptism, the new believer is essentially saying, “I am making a commitment to follow Christ. I am confessing my faith in Jesus in the presence of witnesses. I am repenting of my sins by putting to death my old sinful nature, and being being raised up to newness of life in Christ.†Baptism should be performed in the presence of witnesses who can hold the new believer accountable to the faith.
Because baptism is a commitment, only an adult or a mature teen should make the decision to be baptized. So-called “infant baptism†does not count as real baptism because an infant is too young to understand and make a true faith commitment. There are no examples of infant baptism in the Bible. Each believer must make her or his own faith commitment, and no one else can make it for them. This is why baptism requires maturity and the presence of witnesses. Baptism should always involve immersion in water. So-called “sprinkling†is a dumbed down version of baptism that is not biblical.
Where Did Baptism Come From?
John the Baptist is the first person in scripture to baptize. Under divine inspiration from God, John baptized people “for repentance†to prepare the coming of Christ. Although the significance of baptism as a symbol of Christ’s death and resurrection had not yet been revealed, baptism was still a powerful symbol of repentance – a public profession of the decision to put to death one’s sinful ways.
In John 3, John the Baptist is informed that someone else has begun baptizing, and is baptizing even more people than him! This new baptizer, who baptized more people than John, is Jesus of Nazareth. John 4:2 clarifies that Jesus did not baptize believers personally, but sent his disciples out to baptize on his behalf. Nevertheless, baptism was clearly a major part of Christ’s ministry from its earliest days. When John the Baptist heard that Jesus was baptizing more disciples than he was, he replied, “He must increase, and I must decrease†(John 3:30).
Jesus himself was baptized by immersion in water. Matthew 3:16 records, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.â€
Just before his ascension into heaven, Jesus sent his disciples out with the Great Commission, commanding them to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost†(Matthew 28:19).
Baptism continued in the early church, with many baptisms recorded in the Book of Acts. At the Day of Pentecost, 3,000 people were baptized!
Acts 2:38-41 NASB: Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself. †And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!†So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
In Acts 8, an angel sends Philip into the wilderness to witness to an Ethiopian who is trying to understand the scroll of Isaiah.
Acts 8:35-38 NASB: Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?†And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.†And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.†And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.”
The Apostle Paul was also baptized in Acts 9:18. Previously called Saul, he had been struck blind when he encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. Then Ananias visited Saul, placed his hands on him, and Saul received his sight. Immediately after receiving his sight, Paul believed and was baptized! In fact, this baptism marked the moment when Saul became Paul – the death of the old man, and the resurrection of the new man in Christ. See Acts 9 for the complete record.
Baptism continues in Acts 10 (three chapters of baptisms in a row!) with the first recorded gentile baptisms:
Acts 10:45-48 NASB: All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?†And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
In Acts 16:15, a woman named Lydia was baptized after she responded in faith to Paul’s message. Later in that chapter, Paul and Silas even baptize the jailer who was holding them in prison (Acts 16:33) after sharing the gospel with him in jail!
Even in a jail cell, Paul and Silas did not pass up the opportunity to carry out the Great Commission through teaching and baptizing!
Acts 18:8 records that many of the Corinthians who heard Paul speak were baptized.
Baptism is a biblical tradition that stretches from the first century to the twenty-first century in a single unbroken chain. Throughout all of Christian history, from the earliest days to the present, Christians have always baptized.
Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?
Is following Jesus necessary for salvation? Consider the words of Jesus in Luke 6:46: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I say?†Jesus commanded baptism, and as we have seen in the Book of Acts, the early church took his command to baptize seriously, baptizing thousands of individuals.
Throughout the New Testament, baptism is connected with salvation. In Mark 16:16, Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.â€
1 Peter 3:21 compares baptism to the flood of Noah, claiming that just as the ark saved Noah, so baptism “now saves youâ€:
1 Peter 3:21-22 NASB: “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.”
However, these verses must be balanced by the fact that we are saved by grace, through faith, “not by works, lest any man should boast†(Ephesians 2:9). We must remember that baptism is an outward act of an inward faith, and a physical manifestation of a spiritual truth. Without faith, baptism is nothing more than a quick bath, and it won’t save anyone. With faith, one can be saved by grace even without baptism.
Consider, for example, the thief on the cross. He was almost certainly never baptized, yet Jesus said to him, “you will be with me in paradise†(Luke 23:43). The saving grace of God extends to all who believe, even if they are not baptized. Nevertheless, the plan of salvation laid out in scripture is for a person to believe and be baptized. The Lord Jesus Christ clearly commanded this in the Great Commission. Those who are saved without baptism are the exception, not the rule.
Isn’t the Holy Spirit Greater Than Baptism?
Of course, but this does not mean that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit nullified Christ’s command to baptize.
Just before his ascension, Jesus gave his disciples the Great Commission, in which he commanded them to baptize (Matthew 28:19). Jesus gave this command 50 days before the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. Why would Jesus command his disciples to baptize if he knew baptism would be obsolete just 50 days later?
Clearly, Jesus intended for baptism to be practiced even after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – and it was!
As we have seen, many individuals were baptized in the Book of Acts. Baptism was often immediately followed by an individual receiving the Holy Spirit. The two go hand in hand. Baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit are both essential parts of our Christian walk. But one cannot replace the other.
I’ve Never Been Baptized, But I’ve Already Been a Christian for Years, So Why be Baptized Now?
Although baptism usually takes place when a new believer first makes a faith commitment, it is never too late to be baptized. The important thing is to be baptized with the right mindset. Do not be baptized if your reason for baptism is guilt that you were never baptized or fear that you won’t be saved without it. Baptism is not meant to be a burden, but a gift!
Consider the Sabbath day. If your only reason for observing the Sabbath day is fear that you won’t be saved if you don’t, or guilt that you failed to observe it in the past, then the Sabbath day becomes a burden. But if you view the Sabbath day as a gift from God, it becomes a great blessing.
The same is true with baptism. Baptism is not meant to be a burden or something we are forced to do even though we don’t want to. On the contrary, baptism is a gift from God. It’s a holy opportunity to share in the mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ, to make a faith commitment in the presence of witnesses, and to be raised to newness of life in Christ.
Baptism is a profound and memorable experience that gives us strength in our Christian walk. Faced with trials and temptations, we can always look back to the moment of our baptism and draw strength from knowing that we have put to death our old, sinful self, and have been raised up with Christ into a new creation.
Why would a Christian not want to be baptized?
For Further Reading: Angela Moore has a great post on the topic here.
hi
the author wrote above
this may be what protestant church denominations have kept from the 7 sacraments taught and observed by the roman church …
when do folks who have such great interest in an accurate understanding of the Scriptures read what the Scriptures tell and realize that there are NO (that is, zero) “sacraments” taught in the Bible?
Hi
forgot to add another point from the article above in my previous post
good question … especially when observing the overall scope and context regarding the matter.
The answer is rather simple => Jesus did NOT command his apostles to baptize … there is some textual evidence that the command of Jesus originally may not have included the command to baptize but was simply ” … make disciples of and teach all nations in my name” (cp critical apparatus of Nestle/Aland 25th ed.)
This wording coincides with all the rest of the NT scriptures and with what the apostles indeed did according to the record we have in the book of Acts, etc.
Well, is obedience?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYLk_5-lzFM
Wolfgang,
I agree:
“when do folks who have such great interest in an accurate understanding of the Scriptures read what the Scriptures tell and realize that there are NO (that is, zero) “sacraments†taught in the Bible?”
I have heard the “word” sacraments
from RCC people, but never from my pastor as to something in the scriptures written for my obedience.
“regarding the matter.
The answer is rather simple => Jesus did NOT command his apostles to baptize … there is some textual evidence that the command of Jesus originally may not have included the command to baptize but was simply †… make disciples of and teach all nations in my name†(cp critical apparatus of Nestle/Aland 25th ed.)
This wording coincides with all the rest of the NT scriptures and with what the apostles indeed did according to the record we have in the book of Acts, etc.”
Wolfgang, yes I too see that there are many “fishy” counterfeit verses. It is appalling, that with all the anti-trinity teachings coming from the Professor A Buzzards students, that the blatant 1-2-3, Father, Son, Holy Ghost, trinitarian myth is not seen with closed eyes.
trinitarian=person or group adhering to the doctrine of trinitarianism
trinitarianism (one deity in three persons) contrasts with nontrinitarian
Matthew 24: (kjv)
13 But he that shall [endure] unto the end, the same shall be saved.
[endure]=have perseverance
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in [all the world] for a witness unto [all nations]; and then shall the end come.
[all the world]=[all nations]=[end of the world]
Matthew 28: (kjv)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach [all nations]:…….(omitted)
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the [end of the world]. Amen.
[end of the world] is not the same as “world without end”
Ephesians 3:21
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, [world without end]. Amen.
This is in harmony with and:
“This wording coincides with all the rest of the NT scriptures and with what the apostles indeed did according to the record we have in the book of Acts, etc.”
Acts 1: (kjv)
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
The promise is for receiving the spirit of truth and parakletos, GOD being in Christ and being in them.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
And Jesus plainly says, there is no more water, and to the contrary you “SHALL” be baptized with holy spirit. No more water and only baptized by Jesus Christ with holy spirit.
Acts 2: (kjv)
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
The twelve were baptized by Jesus Christ with holy spirit and they were filled(plerousthe) to full capacity and to overflowing with
“manifestation of speaking in tongues”=
“proof they had received promised holy spirit of truth”
plerousthe, pleroo=Greek word for “filled” and is in the passive voice indicating that it is an action, to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim absolutely
Wolfgang, there is also something fishy with Peters rehearsing twice his experience with Cornelius being baptized by Jesus Christ with holy spirit, by merely hearing the Word of GOD spoken. And Cornelius, even was filled to over flowing with holy spirit, as he manifested by speaking in tongues. This wonderful beginning for the gentiles was witnessed without any water.
A right cutting(orqotomounta [i.e. ortho + temno]), is that peter remembered what Jesus had said about “no more water”and that what was good with GOD was good enough with him(Peter).
Peter before, just after pentecost, proved this: “faith comes by hearing and by hearing the word of GOD.
Acts2: (kjv)
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Romans 10: (kjv)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
And there is no water baptism mentioned here either.
agapao se’
Timothy
Xavier,
sure, obedience to God’s word is …. but is “obedience of faith” what Anthony Buzzard defines as “obedience of faith” … in particular linking it to his wrong understanding of what the kingdom of God is (namely, a future political nation/kingdom with Jesus as a political earthly ruler) ?
I find it rather arrogant to be “down talking” how some church denominations interpret and what they include in “obedience of faith”, and then propagating his own interpretation which is also subject to error even on major points of what he is promoting
Hi everyone,
many here place their hope in ruling in a future political kingdom on earth together with Jesus (some say for a millennium, some for all eternity) …
Seems a strange idea since in NONE of the parables Jesus taught regarding the kingdom (reign) of God {kingdom (reign) of heaven} he ever liked it or taught it to be an earthly political nation/kingdom ?
Wolfgang
Again you forget those in Acts 1:6 who were the source and the writers of the Gospels.
YOU CAN NOT RESTORE SOMETHING THAT NEVER EXISTED !!!
Maybe you just lack the understanding of those that actually witnessed Jesus.
Wolfgang
Leaving personal attacks aside, we all know your preterist stance so let’s just get back to the topic again.
Jas,
maybe I do …
Jas,
but may be I don’t …. and others do?
may be I do have the understanding Jesus had … reading the parables he taught and noticing that he was teaching consistently about the spiritual nature of the kingdom of heaven and nowhere was talking about a restoration of national Israel ?
Xavier,
so why do you not adhere to your own advice of “leaving personal attacks aside” and immediately thrown one in with “we all know your preterist stance”?
Hi all
getting back to the topic …. so what about taking Jesus seriously? Would it be a good idea to first know and understand what Jesus was teaching, rather than claiming denominational sacramental traditions to supposedly be Jesus’ commands and thereby encouraging folks to actually take denominational traditions seriously rather than Jesus?
Wolfgang
So you’re not a preterist?
Xavier,
get back to the topic and give input to the topic instead of harping on the person … if you are unable to do so, just read instead of write
Wolfgang
I like you too.
Wolfgang
The subject of baptism is an area I could use a better understanding of.Could you clearly state your position by giving clear verses and explain how to get past verses against.
Jas,
No … I can’t state my understanding by giving clear verses and explain how to get past verses against … I’ve done that for many days about other topics here and it proved to be impossible. I have no confidence that it would be any different concerning the topic of baptism.
I already have stated clearly what I understand regarding Mt 28:19 and what it does (NOT) say concerning baptism.
Xavier
hmn , strange .. who said I liked you ?
Wolfgang
I was under the understanding that you were mature in years ,able to have a mature debate without letting emotions get in the way.
I have found profit in your views on many subjects here and respect your right to hold beliefs different to mine.
There are so many beliefs that divide mankind which I feel could be solved through open dialogue and an open mind.
Jas
well, your understanding about my age is correct and I would like to think that your comment regarding having mature debates is equally correct.
My above reply has nothing to do with letting emotions in the way. It has to do with plain reasoning and evaluating what I have experienced in recent weeks and months in various discussions on this blog seeing that trying to do what you asked me to do for weeks was impossible, so I honestly answered your question in that I have no confidence that it would be any different concerning the topic of baptism now.
As I already mentioned before, I am also not taking much time now to participate on this blog and if I decide write something in a thread, I will endeavor to state my point clearly and accurately and leave it at that.
Wolfgang
touché. 😉
Wolfgang
It is your choice to discuss or not but what is the purpose of posting in a discussion without an intent of discussion.
Jas,
my purpose now is to point out and to share scriptural points regarding articles posted and or comments made. Real “discussion” appears to be more or less unfruitful (very unfortunately)
Jas,
have you read any reply yet to my questions asked in #12 above? what about the point regarding Jesus not detailing anything in his various kingdom parables about the kingdom being a national earthly country/nationß
I’ve made my point … from my end, there’s nothing further really to discuss about those aspects.
Wolfgang
I look forward to you presenting verses that you feel are connected to the articles
“have you read any reply yet to my questions asked in #12 above?”
no,other than mine
There is much written in the Gospels but not all that could have been. So taking that into account I would look for the thoughts and beliefs of those that witnessed all the things Jesus spoke and taught.If they could not understand then how could they be a credible source for the account. I would say that to accept their accounts we must accept they understood correctly which would require accepting their belief in Acts 1:6. If this verse was the only verse that describe a future earthly kingdom of Israel I might be persuaded it was an addition but it is not the only verse.
I am sorry I disappointed you when I could not accept your methods for determining what was literal or figurative but you really never gave a logical basis for how you do it, you just claimed it.
I think Jesus was teaching his disciples to baptize others in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit.
When Jesus was with them they often baptized many as John the baptist did.
I think Jesus wanted them to continue to baptize and to teach them the things Jesus taught.
Here’s a quetion, Suppose a pastor is only willing to baptize someone by putting restrictions on them such as only if they have never been baptized in any manner before, or only if they want the same format all the others get, or only if they would promise this or that?
Jesus taught them to serve as one that would wash another’s feet.
That’s one of the things he taught.
Does a servant put conditions on someone or does he usually simply do things the way the one he is serving wants things, with
the only condition being that in the process of serving he isn’t asked to do anything contrary to the will of God?
Hi Ray,
You wrote in # 26:
“I think Jesus was teaching his disciples to baptize others in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit.”
Peter was a very devoted disciple of Jesus and this is what he commanded the Jews to do just after the outpouring of holy spirit on Pentecost.
Acts 2: (NASB)
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter did not say anything about the Father, the Son or the holy spirit.
He said, be baptized in the name of “Jesus Christ”….
I am thinking about washing your feet….
Timothy
“They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Jesus for he had said to them, “Go make Disciples of all the nations in My nameâ€.
Eusebius of Caesarea (H.E. 3.5.2):
This is a quote of Eusebius who lived about 300ad ,if the triny formula had existed at that time in this verse he most definitely would not have left it out
To Wolfgang,
I already made a lengthy comment here on this thread. After reading it again, I see that I wrote mostly what your post contained. Perhaps that is because we believe, almost and closely, the same thing about Pentecost, till today baptism.
Right now, Wolfgang, I want to comment on a few verses in sequence and the punch line is the last paragraph.
Acts 1: (kjv)
2) Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
He chose: Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, and Philip, and Thomas, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James and Judas Iscariot.
3) To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Jesus taught his chosen Apostles many thing about the Kingdon of GOD, after his resurrection, and up to his assention.
4) And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Jesus, his chosen Apostles(including Judas Iscariot) and followers were at Jerusalem and told to wait for the spirit of truth from GOD.
5) For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Jesus, said that, to the contrary of water baptism, the Apostles would, absolutely and soon, be baptized with holy spirit.
6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
IMHO, to restore indicates back to something that was lost. There is no clue here to what they had *perceived* from Jesus’s “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God”. Whether or not an Earthly Kingdom, spiritual Kingdom or a new heavens and Earth Kingdom.
7) And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Jesus replied, you do not need to know what GOD has planned. It is in GODs power to decide the time or seasons.
8) But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
But, from this moment and now on, you shall absolutely be baptized with holy spirit and absolutely receive power and absolutely shall be witnesses (of Jesus Christ Gospel) of the Kingdom in Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria and to the ends of the Earth.
Acts 2: (kjv)
3) And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Fire has been GODs sign of acceptance for sacrificial offerings.
4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
John said that Jesus would baptize with holy spirit and fire.
John and other men could only baptize with water.
And only Jesus Christ can baptize with holy spirit and here is the first time example and the 12 were not baptized with water but with holy spirit by Jesus Christ.
38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Please pay close attention and notice, that Peter, Jesus’ top disciple did not say to be baptized **in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost**.
Matthew 28: (kjv)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them **in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Wolfgang, I think that many are like the giant Ostrich bird. When they come to verses that do not support their trinity doctrine myth, they stick their heads in the dirt to avoid seeing what is actually written in GODs word.
PS…..Wolfgang….IMPORTANT PS…..please see and read “Jas comment and quote” in # 28 above. Thank you Jas.
agapao se’
Timothy
Jas,
I agree … this is what I had mentioned in my initial post to this article about the command in Mt 28:19. Please note, not only does Eusebius not mention the “trinitarian name formula”, he also mentions NOTHING about a command “to baptize …”. Seems that the texts Eusebius had available to him contained Jesus’ command as “Go make disciples of all nations in my name …” and did NOT contain the phrase “and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost”.
That Jesus’ command did not contain any “baptize them in water {in the name of the holy trinity}” should be clear from the overall NT scope and from the context we read in Acts and some NT epistles.
Jas
many verses have already been presented in the article and posts by other contributors … I just do not read “water” in (into) all of them.
Jas
there are no methods particular to me for determining if and when language is meant literally and if and when figures of speech are employed.
The logical basis I have mentioned several times in different posts … perhaps not put in as condensed words as I am trying to do now: When something stated is not literally true to fact or not according to the normal rules of grammar, etc. then a figure of speech is involved.
Examples:
It is not literally true to fact that people fly on clouds … therefore an expression indicating such uses a figure of speech for emphasis, and someone “coming on a cloud” is NOT meant literally.
It is not literally true to fact that sun and moon and other stars “fall from heaven” (and on to the earth) … therefore any expression speaking about such a thing are not meant to be understood literally but involve a figure of speech emphasizing some particular truth with the use of such a “word picture”.
Wolfgang
I completely understand the use of figurative language in literature and find it used by many writers of the bible. It is also uniquely used in visions of the prophets to describe things of the future with things understandable in their time.
I am very sure you understood the statement above because in our discussion I gave examples of events descibed in full literal language, possible in everyway it was described that you just claim as not true on the basis that it just doesnt fit into your belief that Abraham did not look for a physical manifestation of the promises made to him. North wasnot really north, so on.
Jas
from what you write and have written previously, I would gather that you do not understand (and certainly not, completely!) the use of figurative language …
I only see once again, that I am obviously unable to present any clear verse or illustration to you …
Does “baptize” include water? What should we suppose hearing that word meant to a disciple of Jesus the first time he ever heard Jesus use that word?
Let’s look at John 4:1,2:
Now when the Lord knew, how the Pharisees had heard, that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
(Though Jesus himself baptized not; but his disciples.)
Well what was it that Jesus’ disciples did during baptism that Jesus did not?
I suppose our tendency to take something figuratively happens when for some reason or another we can’t seem to take something litteraly.
But why is it that some Christians had trouble taking baptism litteraly?
“I only see once again, that I am obviously unable to present any clear verse or illustration to you …”
Wolfgang
Not only have you not presented any clear verses you also have not even presented any unclear verses that seem to support.What you have done was claim that literal descriptions of physical places and events we should ignore the literal context of the writer because it does not fit your belief.
“many verses have already been presented in the article and posts by other contributors … I just do not read “water†in (into) all of them.”
Wolfgang
I agree we should not read into verses unless context has been set or later explained.
My issue on the subject of baptism is the context of water being used in baptism is in many verses and the context of spiritual baptism by fire is in many verses. In the baptism of Jesus both are mentioned to have happened.
So could one be necessary for the other to happen?
Jas,
now, I remember writing a detailed post regarding this very point and explaining in detail why “literal descriptions of physical places and events” not necessarily mean that a statement is meant to be understood literally …
but – once again – I obviously was incapable of providing clear verses to you, even though the verses could not have been any clearer.
Did anyone here beside me miss this. I do remember you claiming verses backed your belief but you never revealed the mystery of how the trick was done.
Wolfgang
Here is how real scholars do it
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/17b.pdf
Jas,
yes .. .that’s how (many or most perhaps) scholars and theologians do it … make it as complicate and scientifically coloured with many footnotes etc. to cloud a simple Bible reader’s view so that he will more easily “just follow along” and just trust what the scholar is finally concluding after all those many beautiful words …
I wonder how Peter and the other apostles would have followed had Jesus done such scholarly presentations to them 😉
Jas,
no trick and no mystery involved … anyone, even you, can know, BUT only when they themselves do not make it impossible
yes .. .that’s how (many or most perhaps) scholars and theologians do it … make it as complicate and scientifically coloured with many footnotes etc. to cloud a simple Bible reader’s view so that he will more easily “just follow along†and just trust what the scholar is finally concluding after all those many beautiful words
Wolfgang
Really!
That was so clearly presented a 5 year old could understand.
I haven’t read everything in this post….I was starting to get that deer-in-the-headlights feeling. And so I understand about all the lovely words we use to make a point and defend our view. After reading so much, one gets the tendency to shrug and defer to those more knowledgeable.
So my question is….how do we non-college-educated non-theologians discern which passages to take literally and which to take figuratively? How are we supposed to know that wise men with college degrees really do know more than the average bible reader?
Sheryl
I was not a college-educated theologian when I decided I wanted to know more about the use of figures of speech … got myself the book “Figures of Speech Used in the Bible” by E.W. Bullinger and started reading … and have a read a few other works in the meantime on the matter.
The more important point was that I learned to read more carefully and to think while reading … nothing peculiar to me which someone else could not do also.
As for “the wise men with college degrees” vs “average bible reader”, I would say that I know quite a few average bible readers who have more accurate knowledge of the Scriptures than many wise men with college degrees … I usually have a lot more difficulties reading the wise men’s scholarly works than I have reading the Bible …
Jas,
I suppose I am not quite 5 years old then … because I had to invest quite a bit of concentration and dig up vocabulary in order to read that paper, and I am not even talking about all the footnotes which would need checking … and I certainly did not understand why the scholar would come up with the conclusions he did, seeing that they were based in part on inaccurate reading or interpretation of certain Biblical passages
Wolfgang
You an english professor teaching english to germans who claim the perfect use of the english language could not understand.
You even set out to teach me proper english.
The author weighed all 3 against context,history and texual form is how he came to that conclusion
Wolfgang, regarding Post #10 … the first parable that popped into my mind after reading your post was when the owner of a field had to go away and left his possessions in the care of his servants. Then he came back and rewarded or chastised his servants accordingly for how they handled his riches during his departure. To me this is a valid example of Jesus leaving the gospel in the hands of saints on earth and he will return to reward or chastise. This fits into a literal and physical kingdom scenario.
By the way, I stand to be corrected, but I see the millennium as the thousand (figurative or literal) years Jesus will reign as all sin is abolished and all persons judged….and then when there is no more sin Jesus will return everything back to God, and God himself will walk among us as he once did in the garden of Eden… for eternity.
Is it true that water baptism was replaced by God with the baptism of the holy Spirit, or is that a part of replacement theology?
It seems to me that not only did Jesus tell his disciples to baptize as they had known what baptism was, but also that there would be a receiving of the holy Spirit in a way it had not been given.
I was at a church where the pastor’s wife spoke of water baptism
as “this is what it’s all about”, that is, baptizing as many as will be baptized, and that was what was important.
Many years ago I was a part of a group that didn’t water baptize, but what “it was all about”, was being baptized with the holy Spirit,
leading as many as will into the baptism of the holy Spirit, speaking in tongues.
I believe the Church today should be involved in both.
Hi Ray,
I must have been with the same group. After hours of teaching I was baptized with holy spirit, in the name of Jesus Christ, when I confessed Jesus is my lord and believed in my heart that GOD raised him from the dead. I immediately spoke in tongues when I moved my mouth, lips and tongue. I had just returned to USA after living for 5 years is Western Germany and was fluent in German and Cuban Spanish as well.
I knew the utterance I heard in my brains ear was just like GODs word says, “the spirit gave them the utterance”. That was 33 years ago, and I still privately speak in tongues aloud and silently in my mind.
And most important I knew that I was born again of GODs spirit.
Romans 8: (kjv)
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
You wrote in # 51:
“Many years ago I was a part of a group that didn’t water baptize, but what “it was all aboutâ€, was being baptized with the holy Spirit,
leading as many as will into the baptism of the holy Spirit, speaking in tongues.
I believe the Church today should be involved in both.”
Ray, I too believe that the church should be involved in both, “being baptized with holy spirit” in the name of Jesus Christ and “speaking in tongues”.
However, I do not believe there are two baptism, water and holy spirit.
Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,…..
Timothy
Though there was John’s baptism unto repentance, and there are water baptisms today, those who believe in Christ have or will be baptized in the holy Spirit.
That’s the one baptism we all have or will have in common.
I first spoke in tongues back in 1980 when one evening I got serious about what I was reading in a small book, a chapter that said “How To Speak In Tongues.” I was on that blank page where I was to speak in tongues, and by the grace of God, I too received
into manifestation the gift of tongues, the ability to do it.
Isn’t being baptized into Christ the one baptism spoken of? Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27, for we were taken out of one man (Adam) and put into another. (Jesus) Were we not all dipped in his blood? Were we not all put under by it’s power? And didn’t we all come up cleansed?
Ray,
Fruit of the spirit is an inside job. I feel great joy inside because we have stumbled onto a mutual ground.
I read Roman 6:3, and the whole chapter is all a part of what you just said above.
We have a very similar background and I wish to slowly proceed with sharing what I am continuing to do for changing into what GOD teaches us.
Romans 6: (kjv)
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
For right now this pop song says a lot about this verse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPIhOaDPElQ
and
Galatians 3: (kjv)
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
We do have to repent and change like the butterfly;
Romans 12: (kjv)
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye [transformed] by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
[transformed]=metamorphe=metamorphosis
Timothy
Isaiah 40:31
There is limitless virture in the Lord who energizes us by his Spirit to do the things that please God.
Ray,
AMEN and SIT much!
Timothy
Sheryl,
what in this parable is teaching something about the nature of the kingdom of heaven being an earthly political nation/kingdom?
I sit talking about political power / government position or similar which is entrusted to the servants to exercise? will the reward of the servants be governmental positions or some political office in a political kingdom? those servants deserving being chastised … will they be thrown in prison, executed or in some other way punished as would be done in a political kingdom?
I see nothing in this parable which would warrant an interpretation in terms of it referring to the kingdom of heaven being an earthly political kingdom …
You mention your understanding of the servants being entrusted with the gospel and their handling of it, promoting it, etc. being for what they are rewarded (or chastised, depending on what they did) ….
Now, how does that show that the kingdom is a political earthly kingdom? What does the gospel have to do with political rewards (or lack thereof)?
“Remember what your water baptism meant in that it symbolized that you received God’s spiritual baptism in salvation and you were placed into Jesus Christ [through his death].” Romans 6
Jas,
This is the thread where You, Wolfgang and myself are close to being in concert(with a common plan).
I will read all 59 comments to see what has been posted. However I probably will start all over again.
I do not believe, that Matthew 28:18-20, has not, been molested and is actually a “skandalon”, baited trap to bring Christians to the trinity doctrine.
Please read what I have uncovered:
Skandalon:
the trigger in the trap on which the bait is placed and that springs the trap when it is touched by the animal, causing the trap to close, in the ambush and not so much to the suffering; whereas, skandalon involves the conduct of the person who is thus injured. Skandalon always denotes the enticement or occasion leading to conduct which brings with it the ruin of the person in question. In the NT the concept of skandalon is used both positively and negatively, and is concerned mainly with the fact that it incites certain behavior which leads to ruin and rarely denotes merely a hidden, unexpected cause of ruin (Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet 2 8). In most cases, however, the skandalon is something which gives occasion to conduct leading to ruin; the course of sin leading to ruin or to a fall
Ta skandala:
are things which lead others to turn away from God’s salvation and thus to come to ruin (Matt. 18:7. Luke 17:1).
Skandalizo:
to commit that which leads to the fall or ruin of someone. Without reference to the element of deceit, it means to throw someone unawares into ruin; to give occasion for ungodly conduct resulting in the mischief incurred thereby, to craftily entice or lead to ruin, allowing someone to adopt a course in which he will unknowingly come to mischief and ruin, to fall into ruin unawares, to be offended or to be caught or affected by a skandalon.
It is an easy to understand concept and used in our parable of the sower.
Matthew 13: (kjv)
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is [offended].
[offended]=skandalon
Timothy
“I do not believe, that Matthew 28:18-20, has not, been molested and is actually a “skandalonâ€, baited trap to bring Christians to the trinity doctrine.”
Timothy
I agree it was probably added in 4th century as a proof .
To, Matthew, the author,
There is a very tiny part of GODs word that deals with all the details surrounding the day of Pentecost. It takes very little time to read and medium perception to perceive what actually happened from several days before unto Pauls “The Way Fellowship” in Acts 28.
There is no mention of the twelve or any other disciples every following what you are taking from “your great commission”, to: “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” and Jesus Christ our Lord never commanded the disciples to baptize anyone at or beyond Pentecost with water. Show where it is written?
Have I overlooked any scripture that uses the words, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?” (of course, other than Matthew 28)
You know there are speed reading, teachings, many parents enroll their children in, so that they may do better in school and college. Did you take any speed reading courses? I am a slow reader myself, and will read something many times over to interpret what is actually being written and said by the author. There are so many details about people being born again, being baptized with holy spirit and manifesting their baptism by speaking in tongues or being a prophesier.
We have several touches of scriptures that are being twisted to mean what the propagators of the water baptism want them to say. Even the leaders of revived Christian movements sound like gibber gabber in their interviews.
Speaking in tongues, is a physical manifestation of the spiritual truth and reality, that one has been baptized with holy spirit, and was what the twelve did with the breath they gasp.
John 20: (kjv)
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, *even so send I you*.
Here, Jesus Christ is sending the twelve or a commission as you call Matthew 28.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost(holy spirit):
God breathed the breath of life into man and he became a living soul. Jesus demostrated this when
Here, Jesus Christ is demonstrating breathing and receiving
*the holy spirit*
Acts 2: (YLT)
2 and there came suddenly out of the heaven a sound as of a bearing violent breath, and it filled all the house where they were sitting,…
The 12 were following Jesus Christ command and were together waiting to be baptized with holy spirit. They would have remember Jesus breathing when they heard the wind sounding like heavy breathing.
They received holy spirit into manifestation as the spirit gave them utterance. I see that speaking in tongues is part of the being baptized with holy spirit.
Ray has spoken in tongues without being baptized in water and so did I and hundreds of fellow Christians I know, including our Guest Author.
I know that some are uncomfortable, with this metaphysical, spiritual matter. Well most of the humans who encountered real messengers from GOD, angels, wore sore afraid and the angels had to comfort them by saying, “do not be afraid”.
Personally, I think that those who think being dunked in water is a such a [trippy] thing, as having been talked into believing such.
[trippy]=An adjective meaning cool, freaky, groovy, amazing, or all of the above, depending on the context in which it’s used. Although “trippy” is a fairly new word, the root word, “trip,” refers to soft psychedelic trips and has been in use since the 60’s.
According to our author: “But with faith, baptism is a profound experience of being born again.”
When you hear a new voice in your minds eye, as you begin to speak in tongues, has an instant *fruit of Joy*. It is spiritual truth, in the senses realm, that you have holy spirit within and are born again.
Water is an “outside job”, and holy spirit is an “inside job”.
Matthew, I will deal with your: “But with faith” later.
Timothy
Jas
I have come to the same conclusion … I do not think that the verse was altered early on to trap Christians into the trinity doctrine. It seems to me as well that at the time of the councils in the 4th century AD, the words of Jesus were changed. What originally read “making disciples of them in my name” was changed by adding a water baptism (“baptizing them”) and changing the “in my name” (into “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost”.
Wolfgang and Jas,
Thanks for your replies about Matthew 28 being a forgery.
Here is a copy/paste from another thread comment about Jesus Christ last commands/instructions to his disciples before Pentecost:
Figures of speech and verse info from John Shoenheit
Jesus commanded the twelve(including Judas Iscariot):
acts 1: (kjv)
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
“1:4. “being assembled together.†This verse has a textual variant that is not easily dealt
with, leaving us with three alternatives: assemble together, spend the night together, or
eat salt together (which is the literal, usually translated simply “eat togetherâ€). The scholars are divided. Let us think that “spend the night together†is the meaning here, and
we agree. Those who say, “eat salt together,†do so because of the parallel record in Luke24:43-53:”
Luke 24; (kjv)
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in” his name” among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
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”.
|
50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
And this may in fact be the record being referred to in Acts 1:4, but it may also
be not the same record, but a similar one. Jesus no doubt spoke of the coming holy spirit on a number of occasions.
“Being assembled together†is very likely, it is the choice and would
also have to be the case even if Jesus and his disciples were eating together(they were SALTED)
“to wait for the promise of the Father.†The “promise†is the
figure of speech=metonymy=
A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated,
for that which was promised,”the gift”. The apostles did not have to wait for the promise; it had been given long ago. They had to wait for
what was promised, i.e., “the gift of holy spirit”.
“which, said he, “you heard from me.â€
figure of speech=ellipsis=
ἔλλειψις, élleipsis, “omission” or “falling short”
adding, “said he.†However the Greek text is the
figure of speech=anacoluthon
nonsequence=a grammatically incorrect sentence, when a sentence abruptly changes from one structure to another. Grammatically, anacoluthon is an error; however, in rhetoric it is a figure that shows excitement
In this case, the indirect address of the first part of the verse suddenly becomes
a direct quotation of Jesus
acts 1: (kjv)
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but(hoti=that, because or since) wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but(hoti=that, because, or since) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
4 & 5 have two consecutive hoti.(twice/2/or doubled=bible number established)
The question one must ask, and answer, is why did Jesus command his
disciples to stay in Jerusalem? It was to wait for what the Father had promised, i.e.,
“the gift of holy spirit.”
The disciples had already been baptized in water. If water baptism was
all that was important and necessary for salvation, there would have been no need for the disciples to wait in Jerusalem or receive the gift of holy spirit.
Sadly, many people reverse what Jesus said here in Acts.
They say water baptism is essential for the believer
and act as if baptism in holy spirit is not really essential but perhaps “nice to have,†or valuable in many ways.
Jesus was teaching quite the opposite. He knew the disciples had
already been water baptized. He also knew it would no longer be intrinsically valuable after the Church started on the Day of Pentecost.
Thus, he commanded his disciples to:
stay in Jerusalem and receive(lambano) baptism in *holy spirit*
“because†John [only] baptized in water, but *holy spirit* was going to be first poured out in Jerusalem.
“with water.†The Greek is hudÅr (#5204 ὕδωÏ) in the dative, thus, “with water.â€
Thus it is clear that the element that people were baptized with, by John, was water.
However, in the later part of the verse, the specific word “in†(en (#1722 á¼Î½) is used, emphasizing that:
the Christian is baptized “in†holy spirit. There is one baptism for the Christian, and it,in spirit, not water (cp. Eph. 4:5).
John’s baptism was a shadow of what was to come, and
even John himself said this (Matt. 3:11; etc.). There is no reason to baptize in water “today”.
I am one who believes, that GODs use of figures of speech, mark and flag, very import Words in GODs Word.
Here the topic about “water baptize” and what was Jesus commanding his twelve(including Judas Iscariot)
about *being baptized with holy spirit*
It sure reads in my minds eye, that this “is not” a command:
“to baptize”,
but, however, to the contrary, a command:
“to be baptized”,
not with water, but instead with holy spirit, and soon, soon, soon.
Matthew 28:19 (kjv), if a command, was never followed or carried out with the words:
“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”,
The Twelve and all Christians since are useing:
Ephesians 5: (kjv)
20 Giving thanks always for “all things” unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:
I baptize you, “in the name of Jesus Christ”
It is written!
Timothy
PS…assisted with research by: Sc’o’nheit
Timothy,
when I was younger, I found the type of study as given by J. Schoenheit fascinating and sort of “the greatest thing in Bible study” … nowadays, I am no longer that fascinated and find much of such type of detailed study to be not necessarily helpful to “common folks” like me who want to understand the Scriptures.
Sure, there is a need of getting words right, have some knowledge of figures of speech, etc …. but for the most part, things like the above are “complicate” at best and “confusing” at worst to many people. Some information there seems more of a “show off” than “a helping hand to understand” … as it is irrelevant to understand what was to be communicated.
Now, I consider context, overall scope and careful reading far more important than pointing to Greek words and names of figures of speech, etc … which most who read will have forgotten in a rather short time anyways. When what is read is understood correctly within the context of a topic and the overall scope of Scripture, understanding will come usually more easily to readers.
As for the topic of water baptism, I regard Jesus’ words in Acts 1,5ff to be rather clear about a change having taken place from the baptism of John (which had been God ordained and had been practiced before) to baptism in spirit (which was to be available in the very near future). Reading the rest of the NT (such as the records in Acts), it is clear to me that there was no water baptism in the name of the trinity either … and that water baptism may have been still practiced by some but was obviously not what Jesus had commanded his apostles to do!
All fancy interpretations trying to make water baptism a requisite for those who believe on Christ after Pentecost even to today are only confusing, especially since those interpretations about the supposed “true meaning and purpose of water baptism” do not even agree but are divided and contradicting among each other …
Some might read Acts 1:5 as meaning that baptism by water was something old, ready to perish, and that something new was about to take it’s place.
I take it that Jesus compared the baptism of the holy Spirit which they were about to receive, as important as John’s baptism, where many of them began.
In so saying, Jesus also may have caused many of them to remember the words of John, bringing the work of John and Christ together. (John 1:33 for example)
Wolfgang,
I am older too, but I still find the figures of speech(which you are always talking about being present UZW) “fascinating and sort of “the greatest thing in Bible studyâ€.
I did not go through all that rouble to show off to you, to the contrary, for those who opose “our” foundational learning TWI and VPW. They blame the “no more water” gesetz der rache on TWI rocking the boat with “accuracy vs religion”.
And Mr Beautifulness is oposed as well. I very seldom if ever read commentaries, but I do refresh my memory with your web site. Thanks.
I have been drinking Cuban Coffee for several hours and have another post ready to submit.
By the way I agree, with what I learned in Germany, about your mentalitate, and feel the same way.
“All fancy interpretations trying to make water baptism a requisite for those who believe on Christ after Pentecost even to today are only confusing, especially since those interpretations about the supposed “true meaning and purpose of water baptism†do not even agree but are divided and contradicting among each other …”
Timothy
Ray,
I always like reading your perceptive comments.
Timothy
Timothy,
indeed, I do talk about the importance of recognizing figures of speech, etc. but not very much about their “technicality, name, etc.” but more about the resulting meaning in a passage and why a phrase may be involving a figure of speech rather than be meant literally.
I certainly did not mean to indicate that you were trying to show off … I commented on the passages you were quoting.
Jas and Wolfgang,
Here is another one and I am not spinning.
After Peter had calmed down and gotten his composure back, he stood up and boldly activated the dunemis power he had received. He was no longer fearful of the Jews and hiding behind closed doors. He was energized with holy spirit and spoke, with fearless candor, the words Jesus Christ gave him through his newly received spirit of truth gift, his personal parakletos.
Peters speech is direct from Jesus Christ to those present and to us today as we read the account in GODs word. We know that to be saved action is required to repent and:
Roman 10: (kjv)
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Peters first witnessing contains all the correct words and his teaching to Cornelius has the same words meaning, Jesus is Lord and GOD raised him from the dead.
Acts 2: (kjv)
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Jesus has received the holy spirit which he now sheds forth on those he is baptizing with holy spirit. The other present at the Temple saw and heard the twelve speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is a filling to overflowing(pleroo) of holy spirit. It surely is the baptism with holy spirit seen and being seen.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
As Romans 10:9 Confess/say that Jesus is Lord
Homologeo-á½Î¼Î¿Î»Î¿Î³Îω = Definition = to say the same thing as another, i.e. to agree with, assent; to concede. not to refuse, to promise; not to deny. to confess; declare; to confess,
Now here is the clincher:
1 Corinthians 12: (kjv)
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
speaking by the Spirit of GOD=speaking in tongues
no man can say that Jesus is Lord=except by speaking in tongues
Act 10 & 11…..Cornelius and his household believed GOD raised jesus from the dead and confessed Jesus is Lord when they simultaneously spoke in tongues.
This is what peter taught:
Acts 10: (kjv)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
These gentile people only had to hear GODs word to believe and homologeo Jesus as Lord by speaking in tongues.
They were not first baptized and then received. GOD showed Peter that faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of GOD.
Timothy
Timothy
we can have a discussion on this if you promise to not be super sensitive .I understand this is a touchy subject with you but know that just because I am not convinced on subject doesnt mean I am judging you by your belief.
1 Corinthians 12: (kjv)
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
“speaking by the Spirit of GOD=speaking in tongues
no man can say that Jesus is Lord=except by speaking in tongues”
Timothy
This verse does not support your conclusion. What profit would it be to say Jesus is lord by babbling it?
From my understanding, the manuscript evidence of Mt 28:19 supports the three fold formula. However, I think Acts 10:47-48 is telling both with respect to the formula and with respect to water baptism:
Peter did not baptize them with the three fold formula – was he being disobedient? I hardly think so. Also, I think it shows from this verse that water baptism was still to be done but baptism by spirit was far more important.
Tim
Actually manuscript evidence is all late 4th early 5th century .The Quote I provided was from late 3rd early 4th. I agree Acts 10:47-48 states water baptism still had a purpose even after the gift of the HolySpirit.This verse is a very difficult verse because the order of the baptisms is reversed.
Jas and Tim (aka Antioch)
Tim,
you write:
“Peter did not baptize them with the three fold formula – was he being disobedient? I hardly think so. Also, I think it shows from this verse that water baptism was still to be done but baptism by spirit was far more important.”
Seems that Wolfgang, Jas and myself believe the reason that Peter did not follow the 3 X is that it is a forgery and not in the original text. And I think that it being there just helps to continue the trinity doctrine.
Jas,
I promise!
“we can have a discussion on this if you promise to not be super sensitive. I understand this is a touchy subject with you but know that just because I am not convinced on subject doesn’t mean I am judging you by your belief.”
Maybe, for sure, you are really loving me with the love of GOD with not judging my belief. I know you are not judging me.
When I started with wanting to write more here, I knew that we are divided on the “what is speaking in tongues issue” and I thought that we are right on with the Matthew 28 issue and that you would allow me to later, now at this time, say that I think SIT is related. And I remember our first conversations, not debates or quarreling s about this subject.
So I am going to sleep on it and try to come back later and explain about the metaphysical aspects of this subject. And being that I am calling it metaphysical makes for maybe the so called “leap of faith” for others to believe or understand.
In the mean time I am giving a link with a discussion between the ones who are “being” this current “water baptism” trip. And, I might add that they are trying to start over again a new/old denomination.
I want to point out, that the speech from, me to me, is gibber gaber, especially when mumbling while the other is speaking. This, however, is common to the aristocracy of Sirs. And secondly there is mumbling about the place where Wolfgang and my self and others at lhim began our love for GOD, his son and our Lord Jesus Christ and important here, a love of studying GODs word. So, I know that Wolfgang and myself are “super sensitive” about their under the breath slander. The Germans would call it spinning or them spinners. As what we say about “sailors spinning a yarn”, which means to tell a tall tale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i3u0WZxAZc0
Please take the time needed to listen and consider.
Timothy
Timothy
I fail to see the reason for video which asserts that mine and Tim’s observation of the necessity of water baptism is correct. But it does give me the opportunity to address the falsehood of this being the first offer to uncircumcised to become a citizen of true Israel.In Isaiah 56 God makes it perfectly clear how. I see the amazement by the jews in Acts 10 caused by the effects of 2nd temple judaism that require being circumcised first then converting to 2nd temple judaism which included manmade laws and requirements.
Tim
All ancient mss currently available date to the 4th / 5th century AD, and yes, they all have the trinity baptism formula.
The problem with this formula is that none of the records in Acts or other NT scriptures show that a baptism was done in the three name way.
There is absolutely no mention of any baptism in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost done by the apostles to whom Jesus had supposedly spoken those words. There is also no mention in any baptism passage indicating that the apostles were wrong in not doing baptisms in the trinity name.
Thus, I would say that all textual indications are that there is something suspicious with that wording in Mt 28:19. What the apostles indeed did do was making disciples of all nations in the name of (that is, by the authority of) the Lord Jesus, teaching them what they had been taught by the Lord.
Even though none of the mss in extent deviate in Mt 28:19 from the baptim command with the trinity formula, there is strong indication in several writings of early church fathers, and in particular in Eusebius, dating from before the council of Nicea (24 occurrences) in which reference is made to Mt 28:19 and the wording is “made disciples of all nations in his (the Lord’s) name” … with no reference to baptism nor to the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Seeing that Eusebius was actually a supporter of the trinity doctrine, one would think that he would certainly quote or make reference to Mt 28:19 with the trinity name formula if it had been in the Mt text which he had available to him … interestingly, in a few writings (5 occurrences) dated after the council of Nicea, Eusebius mentions the trinity name formula.
As for me, I conclude from the internal evidence of the NT scriptures, in addition with the above mentioned evidence from writings older than the currently available mss, that the original text did not include any baptism command in the name of the trinity.
Wolfgang,
Agrees:
“As for me, I conclude from the internal evidence of the NT scriptures, in addition with the above mentioned evidence from writings older than the currently available mss, that the original text did not include any baptism command in the name of the trinity.”
Jas agrees:
““I do not believe, that Matthew 28:18-20, has not, been molested and is actually a “skandalonâ€, baited trap to bring Christians to the trinity doctrine.â€
Timothy
I agree it was probably added in 4th century as a proof .”
Tim (aka Antioch) agrees that the Apostles did not follow the “trinity formula”:
“Peter did not baptize them with the three fold formula – was he being disobedient? I hardly think so. Also, I think it shows from this verse that water baptism was still to be done but baptism by spirit was far more important.”
Ray has added:
“Some might read Acts 1:5 as meaning that baptism by water was something old, ready to perish, and that something new was about to take it’s place.
I take it that Jesus compared the baptism of the holy Spirit which they were about to receive, as important as John’s baptism, where many of them began.
In so saying, Jesus also may have caused many of them to remember the words of John, bringing the work of John and Christ together. (John 1:33 for example)”
I thank you each, for your responce.
Timothy
And Mr Beautifulness is oposed as well
wouldn’t this subject be a little easier to understand if the words “baptize’ baptized;and baptisim” were replaced by their meanings? “immerse’ immersed’ immersion.
norm,
how do you think would that make it easier to understand the subject?
on what to do you base your understanding that “immerse, immersion” are the meaning rather than “baptize, baptism”? what do think is the meaning of “baptize, baptism”?
Wolfgang
I agree that most people understand it has to do with immersion but some dont. Now I do see the need for the word christ to at least show its meanings as to anoint,anointed or anointer because most people even translators think it is a proper name.
Wolfgang,
I checked the lexical definition of baptizo, which is “to dip repeatedly, immerse, or submerge”. I also found this related commentary interesting:
Hi
in reply to norm’s suggestion I asked how it would make it easier to understand what is being studied here if one speaks “immerse, immersion” rather than of “baptize, baptism” … as far as I am concerned, it is completely irrelevant to what we are studying.
The point being in question here is “baptism [immersion] in water” or “baptism [immersion] in spirit” … and as far as I can see, it doesn’t matter at all whether I use the word “baptism” or “immersion”!
The next point was concerning how the meaning of “baptize, baptism” and “immerse, immersion” vary or how they are different .. IF one wants to claim that it is easier to understand the subject by using “immerse” rather than “baptize” … seems to me that “baptize” is an English transliteration from the Greek word baptizo, and “immersion” is one of the ways the Greek word is actually translated into the English language (see Sarah’s quote from a commentary).
So then what was the point of norm’s suggestion?
Sarah,
ok .. so here we see that the definition (meaning) of the word baptizo according to this lexicon is not just “immerse”, but also “submerge, dip repeatedly”.
As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t really help much to then go the way of that other commentary and try and make baptizo really mean only “immerse” by comparing it to another Greek word (bapto) which does not even occur in the Scripture passages dealing with the topic of “baptism”! Seems to me to be a clear indication that the authors of that lexical article are proponents of (a) “water baptism” and (b) “immersion” as the only valid method for performing such a water rite.
I’d rather read a study where someone would use the Scripture passages dealing with the topic of “baptism” and the word baptizo, etc. and determine from the biblical context how the term is used in the Scriptures rather than in a recipe for canning vegetables.
Also, it may be a good idea to compare these Scripture passages in the Aramaic and see how the Aramaic equivalent for baptizo is used in the contexts and what meanings it carries depending on the context in which it is used.
Jas,
I agree with you about this … but even with this, perhaps it would be sufficient to point out that “Christ” is not a name, but rather a particular transliteration from the Greek word “christos”, meaning “Anointed”, and as used in conjunction with the person Jesus (e.g. Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ) as the designated reference to “the Messiah” (the Anointed) ?
Wolfgang
Christos doesnt just mean Anointed it is also means Anointer and comes from to anoint.
Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible
Jesus, who is called Christ – As the word ΧÏιστος Christ, signifies the anointed or anointer, from χÏιω, to anoint, it answers exactly to the Hebrew משיח mashiach, which we pronounce Messiah or Messias; this word comes from the root משח mashac, signifying the same thing. As the same person is intended by both the Hebrew and Greek appellation, it should be regularly translated The Messiah, or The Christ; whichever is preferred, the demonstrative article should never be omitted.
Priests, prophets, and kings, among the Jews, were anointed in order to the legitimate exercise of their respective offices. Hence the word ΧÏιστος Christ, or משיח Mashiach, became a name of dignity, and often signified the same as king. See Isaiah 45:1; Psalm 105:15; Leviticus 4:3; Leviticus 6:20; 1 Samuel 2:10. The words משיח Mashiach and מלך melec, ΧÏιστος and βασιλευς, Christ and king, are frequently interchanged. 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalm 2:2, Psalm 2:6; Luke 23:2; and see the Scholia of Rosenmuller on this place. The reason of this may be seen in the following note, which I extract from the comment on Exodus 29:7.
Wolfgang,
I haven’t read the entire thread, but just glancing back at your last few posts, it’s not clear to me why you have a problem with baptism meaning immersion or submerging…?
p.s. Wolfgang,
It seems like you are reacting to the post-Biblical theological baggage that has been attached to the word “immersion” (or synonymns like submerge, dunk, etc).
I think it makes sense that baptizo would mean immersion, given that baptisms frequently took place in rivers. Whether someone got dunked fully or not, they were essentially immersed in water just by wading out into the river.
I also don’t see how the concept of immersion is a problem as applied to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The idea of being immersed in the Holy Spirit works beautifully. Both OT and NT are full of references to certain people being “in” the Spirit, which conveys the sense that they are enveloped or immersed in the Spirit.
Jas and Wolfgang,
I checked out the book and it sells for upwards of $ 65.00
However I did find this and copy paste her and now.
THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL
Excerpts from THE PROOF OF THE GOSPEL, by Eusebius, edited by W.J. Ferrar
Eusebius’ quotes referring to Matthew 28:19
The following seven citations of Matthew 28:19 are shown below in the quotations from the Proof of the Gospel (the Demonstratio) by Eusebius. The intent of this excerpt is not to purport accuracy of theology or philosophy of this man, but to glean from his access to the text of Matthew 28:19 in his day and time. For these citations, Eusebius (265 A.D. — 339 A.D.) as proclaimed Bishop of Caesarea had access to the famed Library of Caesarea and thus references Matthew 28:19 from more ancient manuscripts housed therein than are available to us today.
(1) Book III, Chapter 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157
Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: “Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations.” “But how,” the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, “can we do it: How, pray, can we preach to Romans: How can we argue with the Egyptians? We are men bred up to use the Syrian tongue only, what language shall we speak to Greeks: How shall we persuade Persians, Armenians, Chaldaeans, Scythians, Indians, and other barbarous nations to give up their ancestral gods, and worship the Creator of all? What sufficiency of speech have we to trust to in attempting such work as this? And what hope of success can we have if we dare to proclaim laws directly opposed to the laws about their own gods that have been established for ages among all nations? By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?”
But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.”
(2) Book III, Chapter 6, 132 (a), p. 152
With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” …
(3) Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159
But when I turn my eyes away to the evidence of the power of the Word, what multitudes it has won, and what enormous churches have been founded by those unlettered and mean disciples of Jesus, not in obscure and unknown places, but in the most noble cities—I mean in Royal Rome, in Alexandria, and Antioch, through the whole of Egypt and Libya, Europe and Asia, and in villages and country places and among the nations–I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man’s and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them; “Make disciples of all the nations in my Name.”
(4) Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175
And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
(5) Book I, Chapter 3, 6 (a), p. 20
Hence of course, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His Resurrection: “Go and make disciples of all the nations,” and added “Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.” (1)
Note 1 in W. J. Ferrar’s edition: Matthew 28:19. The verse is quoted thus seven times in the Demonstratio with the omission of the reference to Baptism and the Trinity. Conybeare (Hibbert Journal, i. (1902-3) p. 102), who holds that the reference was interpolated for dogmatic reasons, and was not fully assured in the text till after the Council of Nicea, supports his view from the practice of Eusebius. This is the view of Kirsopp Lake, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ii. 380 and Moffatt, The Historical New Test. 1901, p. 647. The historicity of the words as ipsissima verba is denied by Harnack, Clemen, and J. A. Robinson, Encyclopedia Biblica, art. “Baptism” From the Acts taken literally it would be gathered that apostolic Baptism was simply in the Name of Jesus. – (Acts 8:12-16; Acts 9:18; Acts 22:16)
(6) Book I, Chapter 5, 9 (a), p. 24
“Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.” What could He mean but the teaching and discipline of the new covenant?
(7) Book I, Chapter 6, 24 (c), p. 42
“Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all the nations … teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.”
Bibliography: Eusebius (265-339) Bishop of Caesarea around 314 was referred to as the son of Pamphilus. He wrote many books, the best known of which is the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Other writings were the Praeparatio, the Demonstratio from which we have The Proof of the Gospel, Quaestiones ad Stephanum, and the Epitome. According to the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, “His time considered him its most learned man.”
The above seven referenced quotations of Matthew 28:19 according to Eusebius reflects the verse as he read it from the text in the library in Caesarea. The problem with most translations including the King James Version, as it relates to the text of Matthew 28:19, is that they reflect an erroneous addition of wording of Catholic origin and not the correct words spoken by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As the verse and the doctrine of the Trinity were being discussed in his day, and having access to the original, Eusebius denounced the reading of Matthew 28:19 with the Trinitarian phrase as the most serious of all the falsifications.
It is time for modern-day Christianity to get back to the actual words of our Lord Jesus and quote the words as they were actually written in the “Everlasting Gospel” of Matthew as:
“Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all the nations in my name” (Matthew 28:19).
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall first be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matthew 24:14). Could the correct rendition of Matthew’s Gospel play a part in the distribution of the Everlasting Gospel? (Revelation 14:6 — “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people”).
Timothy
Timothy
Great research !
Sarah,
you seemingly did not get the point either … the discussion was NOT about the mode or method of baptism in the first place !
Whoever “norm” is then brought up the terminology “immerse, etc” as helping to understand the matter better than using “baptize” … and I then asked why such would be helpful to understand better what we were discussing ?
It’s sort of like we were talking about “cars and busses” and someone says, would it be helpful to say “automobile” instead of “car” … what does such have to do with what is being discussed?
Now, as far as the mode of baptism is concerned, I do have a problem with people arguing “immersion” as only acceptable method from terminology which even in a lexicon is not as clear as they claim … you even mention as lexicon which says “baptizo” not only means “immerse”, but can also mean “dip”! My suggestion is to not go by lexicon authors and their (often? perhaps even most times?) pre-conceived ideas of how their particular denomination practices water baptism, but to do your own look by evaluating all places where a term is used in Scripture and what the various contexts indicate as far as its meaning!
Sarah,
I suggest you take a look at the terms “dip” and “immerse” to see if they mean the same thing … and I would say that many of those who talk of “water baptism by immersion” will insist that they certainly do NOT understand being “just partly in the water” (such as standing to your ankles or knees in the water) is a valid “immersion”
Timothy,
I share Jas’ commendation of your article with details from the works of Eusebius … good job!
I trust it will help to see some folks here why others here (like you, Jas and myself) see a problem with the text in Mt 28:19 as we find it in our Bibles today!
All the hype and insistence on “water baptism” rituals of various kinds are irrelevant as far as obeying Christ’s words … since he never commanded anyone to go to all nations and baptize them in the name of the trinity.
We also see how some attempts by unitarian believers to solve the “trinity name” problem is beside the real point … because they are trying to explain a phrase as having possibly a non-trinitarian understanding which was never even in the original text … and mostly, they do so because they insist that the command “and baptize them …” was.
Has anyone dealt with the manuscript issue on Matthew 28.19? To my knowledge, every single manuscript we have containing Matthew 28.19 contains the traditional version. We dare not take a church father’s faulty quotation over what the Bible actually says. We should keep in mind that it was quite common for church fathers to quote the Bible from memory rather than looking it up each time. Eusebius could very well have memorized the verse incorrectly. Of course it wouldn’t ruin my day if Matthew 28.19 turned out to be a forgery, but we need much stronger evidence than one guy who misquoted it three hundred years later. Furthermore, the Didache (written in the first century) also contains the traditional version of Matthew 28.19.
Sean,
yes … Jas and I have both dealt with that point (cp. some posts above), in particular pointing out that every manuscript with Mt 28:19 in extent dates from a time AFTER the council of Nicea, that is, from 4th and 5th century AD.
certainly, we should not take a church father’s faulty quotation … but, how do you want to prove that Eusebius quoted the passage wrongly from memory? He makes reference in several of his writings (and his writings are usually considered to have been composed not just “from faulty memory” but from collected sources and thus to be pretty accurate !) to Jesus’ words in Mt 28:19 WITHOUT the baptism command and the trinity name formula. Perhaps even more interesting in order to discern whether his memory was faulty is the fact that in a few of his writing after the council of Nicea, he does use the baptism command and trinity name formula. Do you mean that he refreshed his memory at the council of Nicea and all of a sudden then quoted the passage with a wording which is found in later manuscripts? Eusebius is known as having been a proponent and supporter of the trinity doctrine … thus, why would he have such a “faulty” memory regarding this rather important passage in Mt 28:19 and make reference to it without that command to baptize in the name of the trinity?
The much stronger evidence for me is found in the records in the book of Acts and the rest of the NT scriptures … and the logical estimation that the apostles had not forgotten the Lord’s important command after a few weeks when Peter at the day of Pentecost already “forgot” to mention the trinity name formula … By the way, ALL mss have in Acts and other places every reference to a baptism WITHOUT the trinity name formula … how is that for mss evidence?
In addition, there is NO record in Acts where any of the apostles COMMANDED those who heard the gospel to get into water and be immersed by them in the name of the holy trinity … need more evidence from Scripture, Sean?
Furthermore, there is a passage in Justin Martyr (writings from the time of ca. 130-140 AD) which is considered by several scholars to be a reference to Mt 28,19, namely in his dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258: ” …. that still today ‘men are made disciples in the name of His Christ’ … ” At first, many scholars and theologians rejected this as a reference to Mt 28:19 on reason that the trinity name formula was missing (!), but since the time the references in Eusebius’ writings became known, this difficulty and reasoning regarding the passage in Justin Martyr no longer exists. It appears that Justin at about 140 AD had the same mss text of Mt 28:19 available to him as later on Eusebius had available to him. (cp. article by F. C. Conybeare in The Hibbert Journal of Oct. 1902, page 106).
Another church father as witness to the Mt 28:19 alternative reading is Aphraates (writings betwenn 337 – 345). He quotes in a somewhat official manner the text as follows: “Make disciples of all nations and they will believe on me …”, with the last words being a variation on Eusebius’ wording “in my name”, the point is that he does not (!) have any baptism command in the name of the trinity. Again, seeing that Eusebius in his more encompassing works prior to the council of Nicea is lacking the command to baptize and the trinity name formula, it is clear this is not just a “lack of memory” by Aphraates either.
As for the Didache, yes .. it seems that with that particular work the command for (water) baptism in the name of the trinity name formula came to be established in certain areas of the early church ..
Any more need for manuscript evidence, Sean? or is the manuscript evidence of all the passages in Acts and rest of NT scriptures with their lack of a baptism command and their lack of the trinity name formula sufficient?
One other argument that points to this text being spurious is that Jesus says in verse 18 that all authority on heaven and earth has been given to HIM yet he then goes on to tell them to therefore go and baptize in the name of THEM? It would make more sense for him to say to go and baptize in the name of HIM and not THEM.
I agree that when debating this with trinitarians, we have to acknowledge what the manuscript evidence says and not depend solely on Eusebius to make our point. But, I do believe the internal evidence in the rest of the bible – that Peter et al never baptized anyone with the trifold formula – is convicting.
“Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles(Didache), and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper; for as I wrote before, some reject it, and others place it in the canon.”
Seems Eusebius rejected the Didache.
To think Eusebius just misquoted this verse which was very important in his belief would be unbelivable to me.
Jas,
that Eusebius was misquoting the verse would seem a rather very far fetched idea …
Wolfgang,
I was responding to your comment to Norm in #78, where you implied he was totally off base by defining baptism as immerse. Is it necessary to be so antagonistic? It certainly doesn’t help your case.
Jas & Wolfgang,
In the mean time, as I hold my breath, waiting to see if the champions of religion, still avoid accuracy.
In post # 85 you mentioned Jesus being the anointer.
1 Samuel 2: (kjv)
35 And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.
It came to my memory Saul and David being anointed with oil by Samuel to be kings.
1 Samuel 10: (kjv)
1 Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?
Saul was anointed with oil
1 Samuel 16: (kjv)
13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.
David was anointed with oil and the holy spirit came upon him.
Psalm 23: (kjv)
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anoint-est my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
I always think of myself as being anointed with oil, when I recite the 23 Psalm in my heart.
So, what you write about Jesus being the anointer, is actually like, when he baptises with holy spirit, it is as being anointed by Jesus Christ, with the parakletos spirit of truth.
Just a thought, to let you know, I follow very closely all you write.
We were taught an adage:
Religion is man doing works to be right with GOD.
Christianity is what GOD has done for man to be right with him, GOD.
All the RCC religious works, like water baptism and repetitiveness words, are foolishness, compared to what we know, to please GOD.
# 96 & # 97 = ditto!
Timothy
Tim aka Antioch,
I second that. I also suspect that, outside of the Bible, the Didache is the first place a knowledgable Trinitarian would point to prove the tri-fold baptismal formula. I think it would be a tough sell to claim that particular manuscript spurious.
This is a good point that definitely gives me pause for thought.
Timothy
Actually I do not believe Jesus as the anointer, I believe the anointer is the presence of God Spirit. When Paul states the law was our tutor till the Christ has come I see it meaning till the anointer otherwords the law was our tutor till we received the anointing of the Holy Spirit.
Jas,
Amen !
Timothy
Sarah,
???
where did I imply in my comment 78 (or in later comments) that norm was totally off base by defining baptism as immerse?
Actually, I did not even understand him “to define baptism as immerse”, but rather – as my questions to him were should have shown – I thought that he was of the opinion that “baptize, baptism” were not the correct translation of “baptizo” and that the correct translation “immerse, immersion” would help understand the subject we were discussing (baptism in water vs baptism in spirit).
Seems to me that you in your reading of my comments implied something as if I had been commenting on the different modes of water baptism, and that I was opposed to the mode or method of immersion in water when compared to perhaps some other methods … whereas I did not even comment about different methods of water baptism since our ongoing discussion was not about “dipping, immersing, swimming, wading or who knows what other type of contact with water” in the first place …
Cheers
Wolfgang
Sean,
just re-read your earlier post and noticed the following again
I wanted to clarify something here … it is not that I think all of Mt 28:19 is a forgery, rather I do believe — based on the evidence presented — that the wording involving the baptism command and the trinity name formula were forged and not part of the original wording of the verse, but the rest of the verse seems perfectly to be in harmony with the rest of the NT scriptures and the records in the book of Acts
Since it would not ruin your day to acknowledge that there was no command given by Jesus to baptize anyone in water and to do such in the name of the trinity … how would your teaching on Mt 28:19 and topics such as “baptism” change from what it is now (partly based at least on the traditional reading of Mt 28:19) ?
Jas and Wolfgang,
In the mean time I have another googled/copy paste, which re-hashes the Matthew 28:19 saga and list names of many researchers.
And one noted KR writer notes:
“Nevertheless, there is biblical and historical evidence that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize, and that they did so. Sir Anthony Buzzard and many others who have studied the early church in detail have come to this conclusion. The Christian church has always practiced baptism, from the first century to the present. Only in the twentieth century did one Christian ministry, The Way International, choose to not practice baptism. This seems a bit strange.”
**Wolfgang, I do not find accuracy verses religion, strange!**
“There is a verse in Matthew – Matthew 28:19
that has a problem. The problem is – there are
no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to
the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript
in any language that contains it prior to the
Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this
verse seems to speak in the language of this period,
(4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus
spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing
to weigh the evidence against this passage because
of the weight it carries in Church tradition.
The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19,
and the Trinity baptism formula!”
-Analysis of Matthew 28:19 – in A study
of the Text of the New Testament
Randall Duane Hughes
“one can look to the listing of the Papyri’s
as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland’s “The Text
of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995,
pages 96-103.” This list gives a description
of the verses contained in each of the 96
papyri’s listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems
to be the last verse from Matthew found in
the Papyri’s. So there is virtually a two chapter
gap (as well as a three century gap) from the
“earliest manuscripts” and the traditional
rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism
formula.”
-Analysis of Matthew 28:19 – in A study
of the Text of the New Testament
Randall Duane Hughes
“Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear
out this fact in their book, “The Complete Text
of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999,
pages 6 & 13.” Page 6 contains the list of the
various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also
ending at 26:52) and page 13, the comments they
were providing – were for – only those manuscripts
that were “dated from the early second century
to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300).”
Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity
baptism formula is NOT among the verses found there!”
-Analysis of Matthew 28:19 – in A study
of the Text of the New Testament
Randall Duane Hughes
“Within the past hundred years there have been
those who brought evidence against the
Mathew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula.
Men such as F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake,
J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake,
H. Kosmala, etc.”
-Analysis of Matthew 28:19 – in A study
of the Text of the New Testament
Randall Duane Hughes
“Conybeare is believed to have been the first
to write against it, following the discovery
of a variant reading of the verse, within the
writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times
in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes
Matthew 28:19 as “Go and make disciples of all
nations in my name” without mentioning the
Trinity baptism command.”
-Analysis of Matthew 28:19 – in A study
of the Text of the New Testament
Randall Duane Hughes
Timothy
Timothy,
thanks for some further interesting information on the Mt 28:19 matter.
Timothy
you mention “one noted KR writer” in the collection of quotes above
Well, I would like to know the biblical evidence and the historical evidence THAT JESUS COMMANDED HIS DISCIPLES TO BAPTIZE …
Now, please note — and read carefully (!) — I do NOT want to be quoted sections in Acts which use the word baptizo and then a comment like “see, here it says they baptized …” !! I want to read those places in Scripture where we read that JESUS COMMANDED HIS DISCIPLES TO BAPTIZE!
Furthermore, the implication of what this noted KR writer wrote seems to be that he or she is not talking about Jesus commanding his disciples to baptize during his earthly ministry, but about Jesus commanding his disciples, including those who would come centuries later after Pentecost and during the centuries afterwards to even today …
Wolfgang,
What makes me stand on my hind legs is:
A) The majority of contributer on KR seem to be associated with the College professor at McDonogh, Georgia.
B) They follow his doctrines and the doctrines of the some 400 year old organization that he is continuing.
C) I have spent many hours reading KR Novels(as Jas so appropriately calls them) and have found direct insults to you about your Guru VPW.
Even from der Anthoney Buzzard selbst.
D) I am sensitive about the same judgemental blames, as they apply to me, as well as my pastor. I have since adjusted to what my senor LHIM pastor teaches and the statement of beliefs found on his website. So far I have never found, in any of the hundreds of hours of teachings, and never heard anything about “now water baptism is necessary to swear to a commitment. This I merken as a religious, un-biblical tradition of men. Jesus warns about such.
Matthew 15:1
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
E) What I mean, if, “one now water baptizes to show, to self or others, that they are making a commitment”….it is like taking an oath or swearing.
James 5: (kjv)
12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
And I must add, that I find it strange, blaming TWI for uncovering many religious falsehoods and untruthful religious practices:
“Only in the twentieth century did one Christian ministry, The Way International, choose to not practice baptism. This seems a bit strange.â€
“accuracy verses religion”
PS…..is this still valid:
editor@biblecenter.de
Timothy
Timothy
I don’t care much about people’s attempts to use insulting comments about TWI and make me look as if I were still affiliated with them or if my biblical convictions were all due to false teaching by TWI …. they only show their own ignorance about a number of things, in particular how far I have left TWI doctrines behind and differ from them in my current understanding of the Scriptures.
I am not using TWI as basis for my beliefs …. like some here seem to use the Prod Buzzard’s doctrines as basis for their beliefs.
But then, I have perhaps a great advantage, namely the fact that I am not affiliated with any group or organization and their beliefs or doctrines. I can change my beliefs when I become aware of biblical grounds to do so … without having to deal with a long tail of “consequences” such as dealing with followers who may not like it
I trust you – and anyone else – can notice rather quickly that I endeavor to use scripture, in particular relying on context and overall scope, in conjunction with careful reading and logical thinking to arrive at my understanding of the Scriptures … and I am not afraid to “swim against the stream” of orthodoxy or traditionalism, no matter which group may be promoting it.
Without jumping headlong into this discussion, I just want to make a quick note about Matthew 28:19. The phrase “baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is found in all early manuscripts as well as the writings of early Christians. As Sean pointed out, the earliest writing that contains this phrase, outside of the New Testament, is the Didache or Teachings of the Apostles. Most scholars agree that this instructional book for Christian churches was written in the first century and is derived from the teaching of the twelve apostles. It contains specific instructions for water baptism and specifically teaches baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Here is one excerpt from Cyril C. Richardson’s translation:
“Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.. If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.”
If this isn’t strong evidence that the early church baptized – including the first century church and the apostles chosen by Jesus himself while was on the earth, I don’t know what is. The Didache also shows that the first century church baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” which suggests that Matthew 28:19 is indeed genuine (not that any scholars seriously doubt its authenticity given the manuscript evidence).
We also have the testimony of Iranaeus (115-202), who, in his book “Against Heresies,” strongly defended baptism. In Book 1 Chapter 23 he even writes that those who reject baptism by immersion in water have been “instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith” (his words, not mine!).
We also have the testimony of Tertullian (160-220) who wrote a long treatise on baptism available here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm
In his treatise, he answers several objections to baptism, demonstrates that many Old Testament records are symbolic types representing baptism, and argues that baptism is necessary for salvation. The most notable part is chapter six, where he specifically mentions baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Tertullian probably wrote this in the second century. Along with the Didache, this provides further evidence that Matthew 28:19 and the baptismal formula “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” goes back very early in church history, even to the apostolic age.
As for the quotation of Eusebius, his fourth century quotation hardly overthrows the first and second century evidence we have in the Didache and Tertullian. I also question whether we should be basing our theology on Eusebius when he himself didn’t even believe in the coming Kingdom! Consider this except from Eusebius’ Church History 3:39:12 in which he attacks Papias for his faith in the Kingdom:
“He (Papias) says that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.”
Personally, I would rather believe the Word of God and the testimony of the first and second century church rather than what a Roman historian who rejected the Kingdom of God said in the fourth century.
Although baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” has been called a “Trinitarian formula” by some, it is unlikely that the early church interpreted it in this way, since the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully developed until the fourth century.
We have to be careful not to read into this phrase things that are not there. Jesus did NOT say “baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one!” Tertullian interpreted Matthew 28:19 in a very non-Trinitarian way when he wrote about “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” as “the three witnesses” and made no mention of these three being one or the same in any way. The Trinitarian interpretation of the three being one did not arise until the fourth century. This interpretation was then applied Matthew 28:19, even though the early church (1st and 2nd century) did not interpret Matthew 28:19 in that way.
Personally, I see no reason why a non-Trinitarian believer would take issue with Matthew 28:19. It’s not a Trinitarian formula. It makes no claim that the three are one or that they are the same. Rather, it simply says, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
I believe in the Father. I believe in the Son. And I believe in the Holy Spirit. So naturally, I completely agree with Matthew 28:19.
God bless,
Matt Elton
Matt
I dont think holding the Didache as a proof of anything since we have no early MSS or any mention of it till almost 3rd century. It has be given status by orthodoxy .It was never mentioned in the first canon.
Now I agree that even if Matt 28:19 is not an addition it would not support the trinity concept but is used by them anyway. But even as someone who accepts water baptism I believe the evidence is in support of Matt 28:19 having scribal additions.
Excellent comments, Matt. I find the Didache to be convincing proof that Matt 28:19 is accurate. And you’re exactly right – there is no need to be concerned by the fact that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together in this verse. They are actually mentioned in close proximity on many occasions in scripture, but that is a far cry from saying that God is three-in-one. I recently read an article in which it was said that some churches baptize people “In the name of Jesus, who brings you to the Father, who gives you the Holy Spirit.” I think this conveys the general sense of the baptismal formula.
Jas,
I agree … even the passage concerning baptism in water which Matt mentioned has some additional ideas which by themselves already “add” to what we can read in Scripture and are thus suspect (such as if not running water than at least some water, prior fasting to the ritual by both the one being baptized and the one doing the baptizing, etc.) …
Indeed …. and the decisive point for them doing so is the mention of a “singular name” for “a plurality of persons” mentioned in the verse. Whether a non-trinitarian wanting to hold on to water baptism argues that Mt 28:19 does not speak about “three in one” (as Matt does in his post) and “only mentions the three (Father, Son, Holy Ghost” is irrelevant, because the words in that baptism formula do promote the trinitarian concept and doctrine. As a non-trinitarian, one would have to use the names (plural) of the three, and then would run into the next problem that you don’t have a name mentioned in Scripture for that 3rd “supposed” person, “the Holy Ghost”. Just the fact that the phrase in question speaks of doing something in the name of (by the authority of) something which is not a person, should already be sufficient evidence to question the authenticity of the phrase …
Sarah
seems to me that this is a nice attempt by those in that church (who apparently recognize that none of the apostles ever baptized in the name of the trinity, but mention is made only to “the name of the Lord Jesus”) to solve the problem with the records in Acts etc not having that particular baptism formula … so they just change the text of the command they read in Mt 28:19 in a manner they see it “fit” with the rest of the scripture passages..
SAD,I am so heavy of heart for the mind has taken the heart away from my people and has resisted my cmmandments for truly john baptized with water but you shall be baptized with holy spirit not many days hence,that which hath been fortold of has begun,surely you have turned so quickly like a boat that has no tiller for I have given and you refuse that which will help you to walk
George,
Thanks, but would you give a little more information.
Are you meaning that the boat has lost its rudder…I am a seasoned off shore sailor and understand that Predicament.
It is ok to speak your mind.
Timothy
Jas,
coming back to post 74, mine and 75, yours.
I did not give the link to that conversation to open another window for criticism, but to bring our quest for truth to a boil.
My wish is, so that you would see, with your minds ear, the deceitful interpretation of Acts 10 & 11 and specifically Acts 11:17.
Jas, it is at the near end where they are suggesting that GOD gave peter revelation to baptize with water and they say that Peter said that how could he resist GODs revelation to baptize with water. When in truth and fact, that is not what Peter said. It is these subtle little, seemingly white lies that continue to pollute GODs word.
Look at acts 11:17
http://interlinear.biblos.com/acts/11.htm
Acts 11:17
“if therefore the same gift gave them the GOD as also us believing on the lord Jesus Christ I who was I could stand the GOD”
Peter was saying, that since GOD gave the same gift of holy spirit to them by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, as he gave us, how can I withstand GOD for so doing.
Peter did not say that he, Peter, could not stand against GODs saying to baptize the household of Cornelius with water.
There sure is a lot of side stepping and denial because we bring some historical evidence to the table, all inclusive. The first thing people do is to belittle their error and eventually blaming another for their error.
Wolfgang has pointed out, that actually the scripture themselves show that the Matthew 28:19 forgery can been seen by a simple garden variety keen mind, just by reading with understanding.
I have heard, many times, that the way to recognize counterfeit money, is by looking at a lot of real money…..as a bank teller does.
Eh Wolfgang?
Timothy
Timothy
Jas, it is at the near end where they are suggesting that GOD gave peter revelation to baptize with water and they say that Peter said that how could he resist GODs revelation to baptize with water.
IF that were the case, God would have contradicted what the Lord Jesus had told the apostles shortly before his ascension (cap Acts 1:5ff) and what Peter actually remembered (cp Acts 11)!
Seems to me to be an interpretation based on one’s own liking of a certain practice trying to justify it by means of a “strange interpretation” of the scripture passage in Acts 10 and 11.
Timothy
IF that were the case, God would have contradicted what the Lord Jesus had told the apostles shortly before his ascension (cap Acts 1:5ff) and what Peter actually remembered (cp Acts 11)!
Seems to me to be an interpretation based on one’s own liking of a certain practice trying to justify it by means of a “strange interpretation†of the scripture passage in Acts 10 and 11.
Wolfgang,Timothy
What necessity would I be putting on baptism in water when I myself have not been water baptized yet ? So if ever you feel my views belittle you for not being water baptized it would be belittling myself. Act 10 is a very important passage which I see both baptisms which puts the importance of water baptism even after receiving certain gifts of The Holy Spirit. I have read the greek and the order of wording of this passage which does not support your interpretation
Acts 11:1
NET © Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God.
NRSV ©
Now the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God.
This verse provides the context of what these uncircumcised took hold of to receive the Holy Spirit. These were the Words of the Covenants and how Jesus’ is applied in them. That he had replaced the Sacrifices ,That he replaced the Priesthood and Temple ceremonies . Water baptism may just be like signing the contract(covenant) with God as the sacrifice was in Abraham’s and Mosaic Covenants
Hi All
Just a few thoughts that come to mind.
Jesus, the 12 apostles and John the Baptist preached “the kingdom of God is at hand”. Only Paul preached the new revelation which he received directly from Jesus.
During this time we see that all three did not preach Pauls “secret gospel” the gospel of “GRACE” which Paul only received LATER. Paul preached to the gentiles and we know that they were saved by FAITH through GRACE. They were not under the law only the Jews were. So by the Jews rejecting Christ the gentiles and the church come into existence. Now the Jews could also be saved like the gentiles, by Faith through Grace. So the tables were turned, the word says that the gentiles will be blessed by the Jews, but through their rejecting Christ the Jews were also NOW able to saved without the sacrifices and the law.
Jesus did not preach the gospel of grace before the cross, even after the cross, the 12 still preached the kingdom of God is at hand, they still obeyed the law, did all the rituals until around 70 AD when the temple was destroyed. Paul was preaching the NEW WAY of salvation “by faith you are saved by GRACE. Which applies to us today?
The transition period must have been difficult, from the Jews obeying the law and rituals, then God does not speak to his people for about 400 years, then suddenly John the Baptist starts baptizing people for the forgiveness of sin, while they were still sacrificing animals for the forgiveness of sins. Then Jesus appears and he says he is the CHRIST, and during this period Jesus, the 12 and John the baptist still keep the rituals and the law.
Baptism through Noah’s righteousness all the people were baptized into Noah and saved through the flood. Through Moses righteousness all the people were baptized into Moses and were saved through the red sea.
Through Jesus baptism, through his righteousness we are all baptized into Jesus. The people in Noah’s and Moses time were saved as they were baptized into the righteousness of that person, they went through dry baptism and they never got wet.
So through Jesus baptism we are baptized into him, as John the Baptist said, “I baptise you with water but Jesus who comes after me will baptise you with the “THE HOLY SPIRIT AND FIRE”.HOW by faith through Grace and not water baptism or rituals or by the law.
With regards to Cornelius and the Ethiopian we see that they were gentiles. How were gentiles accepted into Judaism, they had to 1) water baptised 2) BE CIRCUMCISED 3) SACRIFICE TWO TURTLE DOVES and other things. So thats why they were water baptised. They way the gentiles become “proselytes” was this way.
Interesting when we read the passage with Philip we see that the Eunuch is the one that said there is water let me get baptised. It was not Philip that commanded him to get baptized.
Mario
Then WHY Philip did not refuse to Eunuch to Baptise him in Water? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
It was the best time that Philip can teach him to not to baptise in water instead of baptising him in WATER.
I wrote to the SBC and asked these questions:
1. Is Baptism a command or is it not necessary?
2. At what point is a person’s sins are forgiving?
3. Is saying the “Sinner Prayer” necessary? I can’t find an example in the Scriptures.
4. When is a person a “New Creation” or when does the “New Creation” start?
5. Can a person still be “saved” without baptism?
6. Can a person be “saved” without living a Christian life all their life or can a person lose their salvation?
Their answers:
1) Baptism is a command, but Baptists do not believe it is necessary for salvation even though we encourage all believers to be baptized (Matthew 28:18-20);
2) Sins are forgiven when one asks the Almighty to accept your confession of sin—he is gracious to accept our confessions;
3) The sinner’s prayer is not found in the scripture as we know it, but one should tell the Almighty that you believe in Him (John 3:16);
4) “New Creation” starts when you accept Christ;
5) Yes—the thief on the cross is an example, but believers should publicly show their newfound belief in Christ by baptism;
6) This is tricky, and demands a long answer that cannot be covered in a brief email—but those who are saved must certainly show evidence of their salvation in the long run. Yes, we sin, and we should ask God to forgive us. Salvation without a change of heart, and a change of life, is for naught. It is not that they lose their salvation, but rather they never had it in the first place. Many people have false professions that they never lived up to. A person genuinely saved, perseveres to the end.
My comments:
1. Baptism is a command, but Baptists do not believe it is necessary for salvation even though we encourage all believers to be baptized (Matthew 28:18-20) Can a person still be “saved”, if they are not baptized? You state that a person is “saved” without following a command (baptism) by Christ. How is this possible? You state that a person is “saved” by following Christ all their lives, see your answer in 6? You gave no Scripture to back up your statement. If your statement holds true about a “saved” person following Christ all their lives and if they don’t, then they were not really not “saved”, according to you. I see a contradiction. How can a “saved” person still be “saved” by disobey a command from Christ? See #5.
Romans 6:1-2 “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?”
2. Sins are forgiven when one asks the Almighty to accept your confession of sin—he is gracious to accept our confessions; I take this comment as being the “Sinner’s Prayer”? I could not find this in Scripture. With baptism one is “united” with Christ’s death and burial as the person goes under the water and as the person comes out of the water, it represents Jesus’ resurrection. The old self (life) is dead and the new self (life) has begun and we live. In Romans 6 verse 7, “For anyone who has died has been freed from sin “, through baptism the new life starts and all of our sins, past, present and future have been cleansed, freed from or some translation uses the word, justified, which means just or innocent: – free, justify or just has it never happened. The power of the blood of Jesus to forgive sins. Acts 2:38. Question: How is it possible for a person that has faith and believes, if the person has not been buried or raised to a new life, be saved?
Acts 2:38-41: “Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
Without the death, burial and resurrection through baptism, there is no forgiveness of sins.
3. The sinner’s prayer is not found in the scripture as we know it, but one should tell the Almighty that you believe in Him (John 3:16); Acts 16:31-34: They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” (Finish the story) They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.” Did you noticed that the rejoicing did not come after baptism, not before?
Does that mean a child 2-6 years old that says the “Sinner’s Prayer” is saved, even though the child does NOT know fully what is involved in becoming a Christian?
4. “New Creation” starts when you accept Christ; I count not find this in Scripture. You state that a person is a “New Creation” upon confession of Christ (#2) and sins are forgiving at the same way. No Scripture is given to back this up. As 2 Corinthians 5:17 states: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the New Creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” So how does one get into Christ? This leads to your answer in #3, about the Sinner’s Prayer, which also had no Scripture of proof. So, how does a person be “in Christ”?
Romans 6:3-4: “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life (or new creation).”
This death in verse 8, “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him.”
Galatians 3:27 “For as many as were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ.”
“We may never be martyrs but we can die to self, to sin, to the world, to our plans and ambitions. That is the significance of baptism; we died with Christ and rose to new life” Vance Haver
5. Yes—the thief on the cross is an example, but believers should publicly show their newfound belief in Christ by baptism; The thief on the cross could not be used. How does one know the thief “was not baptized? Did the criminal know Jesus? Apparently, he did. He could have heard Jesus talk or he also could have been taught by John the Baptizer and was baptized. The Scriptures do not speak about his life history. He did know about or heard about Jesus’ Kingdom, which John the Baptizer preached. Let’s go back to put the whole event in context.: Luke 23:39-43: “One of the criminals who hung their hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
The thief could have been baptized by one of Jesus’ disciples, John 3:22. To say that the thief was not baptized is not really true and not knowing all the facts of the event. There are good possibilities that he was by Jesus’ disciples or John the Baptizer. If you look at Matthew, Mark and Luke’s account of this event, it tells the whole story.
In Matthew’s and Mark’s account: “Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him”.
In Luke’s account: “Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, ‘If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us’” Luke 23:39 Let’s continue the event, verse 40-43 “But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
This proves that the one of the criminals knew who God and Jesus was and what Jesus taught and a follower of Him. The criminal also knew about the Kingdom that John the Baptizer, Jesus or Jesus’ disciples talked about during their life. The criminal was a Jew. Jesus went to the lost sheep of Israel.
6. This is tricky, and demands a long answer that cannot be covered in a brief email—but those who are saved must certainly show evidence of their salvation in the long run. Yes, we sin, and we should ask God to forgive us. Salvation without a change of heart, and a change of life, is for naught. It is not that they lose their salvation, but rather they never had it in the first place. Many people have false professions that they never lived up to. A person genuinely saved, perseveres to the end. Explain Matthew 13:19-23: “When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. (If someone falls away, they had to fall from something) The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”
Yes, we sin, and we should ask God to forgive us. Does the person who is “saved” and NOT baptize just keep asking forgiveness, See #1
Using the thief on the cross is assuming, he was not baptized facts that are not there. To say that baptism is not needed today, one must look at the WHOLE picture. Does what event forgiveness of sins happens get change, how does one be united with Christ get changed and the more questions could be asked.
Who decides what Scriptures is to be used or not?