baptism

[Raf]

Clearly the verse, taken in its context has nothing to do with the efficacy of baptism. Rather Paul is thanking God that he didn't baptise any of them!

Because Paul was not sent to baptize!

The immediate context is entirely in keeping with the remote context. Your shock is utterly misplaced. The fact that Christ sent him not to baptize explains why he did not baptize so many of these people. People were using "who baptized whom" as evidence of some kind of greater spirituality, and Paul is telling them that the person performing the baptism is of no importance. Why? He wasn't even SENT to baptize! They were putting the emphasis on the physical, the carnal, rather than the Christ, who performed baptisms on none of these people. He was putting the focus back on Christ and taking it away from the ritual.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Raf

[Raf]

====

Mark, it's clear we're not going to persuade each other. Care to move on to something else?

[Belle]

It's been fun watching the discussion, guys. Thanks and thanks for being so civil about it, too.

I think you both agree that it's NOT NECESSARY, though, right? It's merely the symbolism and whether or not it was condoned and promoted where you disagree?

[Raf]

Belle,

We are not in agreement on that issue. We agree that it was promoted, condoned, practiced, etc.

[Belle]

Ahhhh, I see where I mis-understood. Sorry about that, must have been wishful thinking on my part.

I'm in the symbolic, metaphorical camp. I can't imagine the God that we're supposed to be worshipping requiring us to jump through hoops to be saved, especially when we're in the GRACE administration and not under the law.

[markomalley]

====

Mark, it's clear we're not going to persuade each other. Care to move on to something else?

Raf, absolutely.

Let me buy you a beer and we can discuss something we agree on.

Perhaps something about Hurricanes?

Cheers!

[Raf]

Woohoo!

[markomalley]

Or maybe buy you a hurricane and we can discuss something we agree on, beer.

One way or the other

It's been fun watching the discussion, guys. Thanks and thanks for being so civil about it, too.

I think you both agree that it's NOT NECESSARY, though, right? It's merely the symbolism and whether or not it was condoned and promoted where you disagree?

Belle, as Raf said, we are not in agreement at all here.

But you point out the important point is that we can be civil about it!

[sirguessalot]

when it comes to religious and ritual acts such as baptism,

sometimes i think this simple distinction can help:

1) are we trying to add meaning to a ritual?

2) are we trying to add ritual to a meaning?

...neither of which are better than the other

...both of which can be abused

...but both of which can bring profound benefits to self and others

for what its worth

[Mark Clarke]

So Mark..using your statement of the OT 'baptism' being a 'foreshadow' of Johns' baptism..why is it not possible that Johns' baptism (of the gospel period) was a 'foreshadow' of the new birth, pentecostal baptism of spirit ?

It would be possible if there were scripture that said so. But the scriptures don't say that John's baptism was only a forshadowing of the new birth. As I have pointed out, the records in Acts indicate that Christian baptism included both elements of water and spirit.

Can I show any scripture that says it's an optional extra? Sure I can. The Romans Peter witnessed to were saved before they were baptized in water.

If you read Acts 10 and 11 in context, you see that the whole point was that the Jewish Christians had to be convinced that Gentiles could receive the same salvation. Only the receiving of holy spirit would have convinced them of that, which is why it came first. But Peter, when he saw that they received the holy spirit, said "Can any man forbid water..." In Greek it literally reads, "Can any man forbid the water..." This shows that water and spirit were the normal and expected elements involved. (Add to that the record in Acts 8 where they had been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ but had not received holy spirit. Both instances were considered unusual.)

Because Paul was not sent to baptize!

The immediate context is entirely in keeping with the remote context. Your shock is utterly misplaced. The fact that Christ sent him not to baptize explains why he did not baptize so many of these people. People were using "who baptized whom" as evidence of some kind of greater spirituality, and Paul is telling them that the person performing the baptism is of no importance. Why? He wasn't even SENT to baptize! They were putting the emphasis on the physical, the carnal, rather than the Christ, who performed baptisms on none of these people. He was putting the focus back on Christ and taking it away from the ritual.

True, the problem was that they were putting emphasis on who baptized them. He was putting the focus back on Christ into whom we are baptized, rather than the person who performed the baptism, which was of no consequence to him.

The fact that he was not sent to baptize doesn't prove that we are not supposed to be baptized. Not everyone that preaches the gospel will have occasion to perform a baptism. But the proper response to believing the gospel is to repent and be baptized.

***

Many of you seem to have a problem with the idea of an outward symbol being required. But this is because of the way our thinking has been so dominated by Greek thinking. It was Greek philosophy, and especially Gnosticism, that put such a division between the physical and the spiritual. To the Hebrew mind, one's faith was demonstrated by one's actions, and without those actions there was no faith, even though there could certainly be actions without faith. True faith involves the heart and the action; either one without the other is not true faith.

Jesus said we should remember his suffering and death in the practice of communion. Would anyone suggest that it is sufficient to just use "spiritual" bread and wine (whatever that may be) as long as our heart is in the right place? I doubt it. But does that mean the bread and wine have power in and of themselves? No. It is what they represent that gives them any significance. But there is still the need to have bread and wine, because that is what our Lord commanded.

Would anyone suggest that a wedding is not necessary, as long as they are married "in their hearts?" Of course, this is what the world promotes all the time, but I think we agree that it is not God's will. It is only an outward ceremony, but it is what it represents that gives it significance. The same is true with baptism. And we can see this from the records throughout Acts, as well as references elsewhere.

***

By the way, for the sake of clarity, there are two Marks posting here. I post as Mark Clarke, and the other one (whomever he may be) posts as simply Mark.

As for whether or not I persuade anyone, my hope is that people reading this will take a serious look at what we always thought was a "given." Like so many other Way doctrines, I have discovered that when you allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves without preconceived notions, there turns out to be no basis for many of the beliefs we were taught. I don't expect to persuade anyone with my words, but if we can take an honest look at just the scriptures, and see how our previous understanding of them may have been wrong, it will be worth while.

Edited November 17, 2005 by Mark Clarke

[Allan]

Peter when recanting the story went on to say.." Then (denotes time) REMEMBERED I how Jesus said John indeed baptised WITH WATER, BUT you shall be baptised with HOLY SPIRIT...etc..."

My question before was..am I saved even though I have never been water baptised, it's a simple question isn't it ?

[Mark Clarke]

Peter when recanting the story went on to say.." Then (denotes time) REMEMBERED I how Jesus said John indeed baptised WITH WATER, BUT you shall be baptised with HOLY SPIRIT...etc..."

Please read those chapters again in context. It does not say he recanted; we were taught to look at it that way. When he said "Then remembered I," he was remembering the words of Jesus. I already dealt in a previous post about why "John indeed baptised with water, but you shall be baptised with holy spirit" is not saying that one would replace the other.

The whole point of this passage is convincing the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles would now be able to be members of the Church as well as they. That there was some conflict between forms of baptism in the first century church is simply not the issue in these chapters. Remember, Peter commanded them "in the name of the Lord" to be baptized in water.

My question before was..am I saved even though I have never been water baptised, it's a simple question isn't it ?

The scriptures tell us that salvation depends on believing the gospel, and then repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins. Perhaps, as Raf pointed out, we have a different definition of saved. If I have truly made Jesus my Lord, why would I not want to demonstrate it the way he has told me to do? Isn't that the definiton of making him Lord?

Edited November 17, 2005 by Mark Clarke

[markomalley]

By the way, for the sake of clarity, there are two Marks posting here. I post as Mark Clarke, and the other one (whomever he may be) posts as simply Mark.

Mark,

In response to this comment, I have petitioned the management to add my last name to my handle so as not to contribute to any confusion.

Regards,

Mark :D

[Raf]

This shows that water and spirit were the normal and expected elements involved.

Expected, yes. Normal, yes. Necessary, clearly not.

Edited November 17, 2005 by Raf

[Mark Clarke]

Expected, yes. Normal, yes. Necessary, clearly not.

What Scripture do you base this statement on?

[Raf]

We've already gone over that.

The Romans Peter witnessed to were saved before they were water baptized. The subsequent baptism in that case was normal, agreed. Expected, agreed. But they were not saved "pending subsequent water baptism." They were saved. They were filled with the holy spirit. And they were not water baptized. It is therefore possible.

If I have truly made Jesus my Lord, why would I not want to demonstrate it the way he has told me to do?

That's why I did it. But I was saved long before that.

[CM]

i'm back with the encouragment and faith of greasespot

Fire baptism includes water baptism

a cleansing

a vaporizing of the old into the new

new wine into new bottles

don't bust the old with the new

let it flow like water

the latter rain

a refreshing

don't kid your self - it is real

[Mark Clarke]

The Romans Peter witnessed to were saved before they were water baptized. The subsequent baptism in that case was normal, agreed. Expected, agreed. But they were not saved "pending subsequent water baptism." They were saved. They were filled with the holy spirit. And they were not water baptized. It is therefore possible.

Part of the difficulty is, as you said before, a difference in the definition of "saved." From your quote, it seems like you are equating receiving the holy spirit with being saved. Would this be a correct assumption?

That's why I did it. But I was saved long before that.

I don't understand. You say you did it to demonstrate your faith in the way that he tells us to. Yet you say it's not necessary. That seems like a contradiction. If making Jesus Lord is necessary for salvation, and making him Lord involves obeying his commands, and baptism is a command of the Lord, how can you say it is not necessary?

Edited November 17, 2005 by Mark Clarke

[TheInvisibleDan]

As for whether or not I persuade anyone, my hope is that people reading this will take a serious look at what we always thought was a "given." Like so many other Way doctrines, I have discovered that when you allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves without preconceived notions, there turns out to be no basis for many of the beliefs we were taught.

Forgive me for intruding, but is this not an old Way "preconceived notion" in and of itself? Namely, that "all scripture interprets itself"? Such a position would also seem to presume the old Way "given" of the infallibility of "The Scriptures", which view, if subjected to an "honest" examination through certain considerations oft raised in the approach of "higher criticism" (which not a few zealous Bible-believers tend to avoid like the plague) may not lead to a conclusion neither sought for nor expected.

Danny

[Raf]

Mark,

I said I did it to demonstrate my faith. Had I not done it, I still would have had that faith, and I still would have been saved. I have demonstrated my faith in many ways over the years. Recently, I demonstrated it by getting baptized. If YOU think I was not saved until Sept. of this year, that's very nice. But it is not true. I was saved years ago, praise God, by the work of Christ on the cross, not by the work of mine on Pompano Beach.

[Raf]

If making Jesus Lord is necessary for salvation, and making him Lord involves obeying his commands, and baptism is a command of the Lord, how can you say it is not necessary?

Like this: it is not necessary for salvation, which was paid for by his blood, not by your actions.

But if you're going to profess him as Lord, then you should do the things he asks. Like baptism, like witnessing, like beating a dead horse, like hitting your head against a wall... None of those things save you, but you do them because they're his commands.

[Raf]

So, Mark C, how about joining me and Mark O. for a "we're not going to convince each other" adult beverage?

Edited November 17, 2005 by Raf

[Allan]

Enjoy your beers guys whilst I finish off with this...

I have NEVER been water baptised.

I have obeyed Romans 10:9,10.

I speak in tongues fluently.

I have helped a number of people into the 'new birth' also.

I believe that 'rightly divided' Word practically will always line up doctrinally.

God Bless ya!

[What The Hey]

If making Jesus Lord is necessary for salvation, and making him Lord involves obeying his commands, and baptism is a comand of the Lord, how can you say it is not necessary?

Because it was a part of the old testament law, just as circumcision was. Peter could just have easily said, Can any man forbid circumcision there in Acts 10:47 as he did water. When reading the book of Acts one MUST remember the book of Acts is not a doctrinal epistle written to the church to establish church doctrine. The book of Acts was written to show us the transition between the Gospels and the Epistles. The book of Acts shows us the practices, functions, works and actions of God in the believers in the first century. It also shows us how God intervened (on a number of occassions) to correct the early believers wrong practices and actions.

The first century believers did not get everything right - doctrinally speaking. To assume the early Christians did do everything right would to be blind to God's intevention in their lives in many cases. We see God's intervention in the lives of these early believers to correct their actions because they did not clearly understand that Jesus Christ was the end of the law. This is one of the reasons why they kept many legalistic practices, such as water baptism, and circumcision, and not eating things common or unclean. It was Peter who stated, Can any man forbid water. Why did he say that? Because Peter was Judean, and being Judean he was still being bound to many Jewish traditions and to the law. He even discipled himself to not eating anything considered to be common or unclean as well as water baptism. We recognize this in the book of Acts in chapter 10, and also how God had intervened in Peters life to correct his thinking and eventually his actions in Acts 11 regarding both these practices. (God also intervened in Pauls life when he was headed to Jerusalem and that wasn't God's will.) In v. 11 and 12 of Acts 10, Peter ... saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the corners, and let down to earth. Later on he retells this vision to those of the circumcision in Acts 11.

Acts 10:12

Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creaping things, and fowls of the air. To Peter this vision represented unclean animals that were forbidden as food sources by Judean tradition and the law of Moses.

Acts 10:13, 14

And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.

Pretty funny. Here we recognize Peter is calling God his Lord, but at the exact same time he said in essence. "No Lord, I'm not going to do what your telling me to do here." We see at this particular point in time Peter had disciplined himself to Judean law (not to the will of the Lord though) so he could truthfully declare that he had never eaten anything that was considered common or unclean. This is the reason why Peter also stated, "Can any man forbid water."

Acts 10:15

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

We see God's intervention here in Acts to enlighten Peter's understanding. Acts 10:16 says this was done not only once, but it was done three times - but the vessel was received up again into heaven. But we also see here that Peter never got around to rising, killing and eating here in this record, did he. Why? Because God never forced Himself on Peter to: 'rise, kill and eat'. Likewise, He won't force someone into NOT being water baptised either, and He still won't force someone into doing what is right. No, God never forced Peter into acting properly. But we do know now from this record that Peter started to doubt his Jewish traditions on account of and because of this particular vision that God gave him. Acts 10:17 says:

Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean... Peter doubted, meaning he started to consider deeply which was necessary for him to eventually believe the lesson that was within this startling vision.

It is interesting to note it was this vision that not only caused Peter to question his Jewish tradition about eating things called common or unclean, but eventually caused him to doubt water baptism. We see this in Acts 11:16. (This record is where Peter is recounting to the circumcision the vision that God gave to him earlier in Acts 10).

Acts 11:16

Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said John indeed baptised with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Why did Peter say this to the Jews instead of saying to them, Can any man forbid water like he did earlier on? Because in Acts 11:15 the gift of Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the Word, and Acts 10:46 it says... they heard them speak with tounges and magnify God. In Acts 11:14 this happened before there was any 'water baptism' because here in this record Peter is only unfolding to these Jews by undeniable evidence of how God moved to bring the new birth into manifestation... in Acts 11: 14 it says, who shall tell thee words, (not water) whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

It wasn't 'water baptism' that convinced these Jews the Gentiles received the holy spirit, it was the evidence of 'speaking in tounges'. All the water in the world would never have convice these hardened Judeans that the Gentiles had also received the holy spirit. Even prior to this record, Peter wouldn't have even touched, let alone eaten anything considered common or unclean. Here these Jews were questioning Peter why he went in to men who were uncircumcised, and also why he ate with them. (Maybe it had something to do with the vision the Lord gave to him in Act 10 earlier?)

So what was it that convinced these Jews in Acts 11 that the Gentiles were saved and had received the Holy Ghost? Was it Peter relaying to these Judeans about the Gentiles "Can any man forbid baptismal water? No, it was only this one thing - they (the Gentiles) had spoken in tounges. Then in Acts 11:15 it says, it happened to them also as it did on us ... AS he was speaking to those of the circumcision. WHERE'S THE COMMAND OF WATER TO THESE OF THE CIRCUMCISION? Once these Judeans heard this testimony of how the Gentiles spoke in tounges, they were convinced beyond a doubt. That is why Acts 11:16 records Peter remembering the Lord's commandment - and it was not a command to be baptised in water, but rather the commandment of the LORD to be baptised with the Holy Ghost. We also see from this record that Peter here himself is just now getting around to remembering the Lords commandment.

[Mark Clarke]

So, Mark C, how about joining me and Mark O. for a "we're not going to convince each other" adult beverage?

OK. Cheers!