poor uzzah

[Zebra1552]

Colossians 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

There is nothing in this passage which suggests that baptism is to be more exclusive in its application. It is more inclusive because females as well as males as baptized. There is nothing about baptism being a choice. There is nothing about baptism being a bare symbol. You are asking me to abandon the clear teaching that baptism is for the "remission of sins" for something that Scripture doesn't teach anywhere.

I'm asking you to read what's in Scripture rather than reading into it your 21st century thinking. Scripture does teach it as a symbol, and you've ignored it, claiming that it's talking about water baptism, though you have NO proof that ot does. There's not even anything in the passage talking about water.

I made the claim that baptism and teaching are the means through which disciples are made and although I've cited the passage many times, I will post it again.

Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

The participles "baptizing" and "teaching" are dependent upon the main verb "make disciples." They function as modal participles explaining how the task of "make disciples is to be carried out. They provide an explanation for how they are to make disciples.

And as I said before, it is not imperative. You're bringing this back to a duel of claims, and I've already told you and shown you how useless such a duel is.

Please see above. I have no reason to believe from Scripture that discipleship is to be carried out in any other way than baptizing and teaching. Matthew 28:19-20 is the only passage which deals specifically with how disciples are made.

Hardly. All of the Gospels talk about how disciples are made. You have no reason to believe it because of what you have been taught and blindly adhere to. I've given you reason. You ignored it. Multiple times. That tells me you've already decided what it says. That's not Bible interpretation.

I'm just thinking through all the stories of martyrdom that I've heard both in recent years and the ancient church and I can't think of anyone who has been killed because they were baptized. It's not something you can even see on someone once they've been baptized. Circumcision you could see. People did business in the gymnasium where everyone was naked and you could see if someone was circumcised or not. You wouldn't be able to tell if someone were baptized.

Then how come Voice of the Martyrs in its publications blacks out the eyes of baptism participants?

It seems far more likely that Jesus is saying to be good, kind, honest, and gentle with those around you but not to foolish enough to think that everyone else around you is going to be nice to you. Some of them will persecute you and try to kill you. It would be foolish to give up baptism because this is a means through which God gives forgiveness of sins and Jesus said to baptize in order to make disciples. If people start to become interested in Jesus and we start discussing the Bible with them they're going to think that we are a bunch of hypocrites if they come to this passage and tell them that we are to scared to be baptized. In this very same passage Jesus says that if we refuse to confess Him before men we are not worthy to be called His disciple.

And you are saying it's required for forgiveness and salvation, though you have nothing to support the idea that it's specifically water baptism that is needed. You're suggesting that what I have been formally taught is wrong just because you say so. That's not going to fly.

The above is the context of the shrewd as serpents saying and none of it seems to be saying not to be baptized. If persecution is faced in a city we are told to go on to another city but nothing about not baptizing anymore. The passage says that men will hate us and kill us and that if we lay down our life for the sake of Christ we will find it.

Jesus was not just talking literally when He spoke of laying down our lives for Christ. Your first sentence is a straw man argument. The concept of being shrewd involves being smart. Defying one's family for the sake of following what you interpret is not smart.

I have never heard that cliche from a Lutheran minister. My wife and I have had some very difficult times in the past couple of years. We lost identical twins and the pastoral care we received was far better than anywhere else I've been. The pastor did a wonderful job of comforting us with God's Word and just speaking of it abstractly but applying it to us directly in our current situation. The sacraments are wonderful gifts that God has given us because they provide us with something objective. Someone might believe that Jesus died but not necessarily believe that Jesus died for them. They see their sins and think that they are far too horrible and that Jesus could not possibly have paid for their sins. But the sacraments apply this forgiveness of sins in a very personal way. I know I have been baptized, I know have received Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper. I know Jesus loves me because He gives me these wonderful gifts.

Again, that's just your experience. Experience plays no role if you're outvoted. I could start quoting people who've gone to Lutheran churches that are jokes. And then we're back at a battle of claims. Which gets us nowhere.

Otherwise people start navel gazing--they start looking to their own lives to determine whether or not they are really a Christian. If they are looking at their own works and they are honest they will conclude that they are damned. If they look to their faith they end up putting their faith not in Christ but in faith itself and always have to wonder if they believed hard enough or said the unbiblical sinner's prayer just right. But I know from the Scriptures that I am a sinner. I know that Christ did not die for the righteous but for sinners. I know I have been baptized. I know that Jesus feeds me. All these things direct me away from myself and to Christ.

Hasty generalization and a slippery slope.

 

[wildboar]

Not water baptism. Baptism in general. The word has multiple meanings.

John 3:23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.

So John had no intention of using the water in baptism? He just liked the scenery? I don't think Thayer intended in entry 1b to suggest that John was not using water in baptism. It's certainly true that 1a does not involve water in such cases as when Jesus speaks of his crucifixion as a baptism. But Jesus was pretty clear on what he was talking about in that instance. The Bible is not some sort of puzzle. If John went somewhere to baptize and his reasoning for going there was that there was lots of water, I think it's pretty safe to conclude that he was doing water baptisms.

Jesus also had just gotten asked if one had to reenter their mother's womb. Thus, a physical and a spiritual birth. When babies are born they are certainly born of water.

Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus. The Greek word can mean either from above or again. Nicodemus thought that Jesus was telling him that he had to be born again and Jesus was telling him he had to be born from above. It seems odd that Jesus would be telling Nicodemus that part of what has to happen for seeing the kingdom of God is that they have to undergo an ordinary birth, especially since just a bit earlier baptism was being spoken of.

John 1:31 "I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water."

I know you don't think John was baptizing with water but I really don't see how you could get much clearer. Just a little bit after that passage we also read about baptism:

John 3:23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.

So it seems far more likely that water baptism is what is being spoken of in regards to being born of the water and the spirit and that's pretty much how all the ancient commentators took it who were much closer the historical situation than we are. I could see how some modern reader who just had a baby and had read John 3:5 without the surrounding context might conclude he is speaking of amniotic fluid but I just don't see that happening with the original audience.

It most certainly existed in their minds. Why do you think Jesus talked about being born of the Spirit? Why do you think Paul talked about being baptized 'immersed' into Christ's death and reborn with His resurrection? The separation exists, whether you want to admit it or not.

Jesus spoke of being born of water and the spirit as a single event. Paul said we are were buried with Christ in baptism. Jesus was not buried underground--he wasn't really immersed. He was buried in a tomb. But regardless, He said this occurs at baptism. It's not just some symbol. We really become united with Christ's death and resurrection in baptism.

Does water baptism literally wash sins away? No. It's metaphorical.

The Scriptures never describe baptism as a mere metaphor. My position as you already know is that people's sins are actually washed away in baptism and so simply saying metaphor without providing proof from the larger context is not going to change my mind. If I killed Christians and then saw Jesus and he made me blind and then some guy named Ananias told me receive my sight and then told me to be baptized and wash away my sins--I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be thinking--oh a metaphor! Unless of course I never actually received my sight back either and that was some metaphor. The whole event is pretty miraculous and I wouldn't doubt what Ananias says about baptism right after he makes me able to see again.

And as I said before, it is not imperative. You're bringing this back to a duel of claims, and I've already told you and shown you how useless such a duel is.

I'm very confused as to what you are saying is not an imperative. Are you claiming that "Make disciples" is not an imperative? Because that's the only imperative I have identified in the sentence. Are you still trying to say that "teaching" and "baptizing" are not participles?

Then how come Voice of the Martyrs in its publications blacks out the eyes of baptism participants?

This is getting really silly. Are you really scared to be baptized? Obviously they are taking pictures to send in to Voice of the Martyrs. If you're scared don't bring a camera. If there is no picture then nobody will know. Come to my house. I'll sneak you in through the back door and do a baptism in my basement. I promise not to tell anyone.

Jesus was not just talking literally when He spoke of laying down our lives for Christ. Your first sentence is a straw man argument. The concept of being shrewd involves being smart. Defying one's family for the sake of following what you interpret is not smart.

What do you mean Jesus wasn't speaking literally? All of the Apostle's except for John were martyred and the church grew on the blood of the martyrs. I think your statements are highly offensive especially to such people as are featured in Voice of the Martyrs. No, Jesus didn't really mean that you should still confess His name. It's all metaphorical. I suppose Jesus didn't lay down His life for us either. It's all just a big metaphor for being nice and building relationships.

You're suggesting that what I have been formally taught is wrong just because you say so. That's not going to fly.

There's people formally taught just about anything.

Again, that's just your experience. Experience plays no role if you're outvoted. I could start quoting people who've gone to Lutheran churches that are jokes. And then we're back at a battle of claims.

Do you have comprehensive scientific data to prove that I am outvoted? It doesn't matter anyhow. It's not a real argument. It's just an ad hominem.

 

[Zebra1552]

John 3:23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.

So John had no intention of using the water in baptism? He just liked the scenery? I don't think Thayer intended in entry 1b to suggest that John was not using water in baptism. It's certainly true that 1a does not involve water in such cases as when Jesus speaks of his crucifixion as a baptism. But Jesus was pretty clear on what he was talking about in that instance. The Bible is not some sort of puzzle. If John went somewhere to baptize and his reasoning for going there was that there was lots of water, I think it's pretty safe to conclude that he was doing water baptisms.

Nice job ripping the verse out of context:
Joh 3:22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.
Joh 3:23 John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized--
Joh 3:24 for John had not yet been thrown into prison.

John's not going to be baptizing people at night. And verse 22 CLEARLY says 'after these things'.

Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus. The Greek word can mean either from above or again. Nicodemus thought that Jesus was telling him that he had to be born again and Jesus was telling him he had to be born from above. It seems odd that Jesus would be telling Nicodemus that part of what has to happen for seeing the kingdom of God is that they have to undergo an ordinary birth, especially since just a bit earlier baptism was being spoken of.

Go read John 3:
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
Joh 3:8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Note that Jesus first says 'unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter', then says, 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit'. Sounds like a contrast between physical birth and spiritual birth.

John 1:31 "I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water."

I know you don't think John was baptizing with water but I really don't see how you could get much clearer. Just a little bit after that passage we also read about baptism:

John 3:23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.

And I've already shown that you're ripping 3:23 out of context.

So it seems far more likely that water baptism is what is being spoken of in regards to being born of the water and the spirit and that's pretty much how all the ancient commentators took it who were much closer the historical situation than we are. I could see how some modern reader who just had a baby and had read John 3:5 without the surrounding context might conclude he is speaking of amniotic fluid but I just don't see that happening with the original audience.

If it's the same, then why do the writers of the NT specify 'water baptism' on the rare occasion and just talk about baptism otherwise? You reference commentators. What commentators? Where? Are you talking about the Bible writers? Be sure to give citations.

Jesus spoke of being born of water and the spirit as a single event. Paul said we are were buried with Christ in baptism. Jesus was not buried underground--he wasn't really immersed. He was buried in a tomb.

A tomb is in the earth. That's immersion in death and the earth, don't you think? Their idea of burial was far different than ours.

But regardless, He said this occurs at baptism. It's not just some symbol. We really become united with Christ's death and resurrection in baptism.

You have nothing but a faulty interpretation of Scripture to support this. Jesus did not say this occurs at baptism, nor did Paul.

The Scriptures never describe baptism as a mere metaphor. My position as you already know is that people's sins are actually washed away in baptism and so simply saying metaphor without providing proof from the larger context is not going to change my mind.

I've already given context. Again, you've ignored it. You do so in this same post I'm quoting, and you pull John 3:23 out of context to do so.

If I killed Christians and then saw Jesus and he made me blind and then some guy named Ananias told me receive my sight and then told me to be baptized and wash away my sins--I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be thinking--oh a metaphor! Unless of course I never actually received my sight back either and that was some metaphor. The whole event is pretty miraculous and I wouldn't doubt what Ananias says about baptism right after he makes me able to see again.

Paul had not just been baptized when Romans was written. And you want to talk about context?

I'm very confused as to what you are saying is not an imperative. Are you claiming that "Make disciples" is not an imperative? Because that's the only imperative I have identified in the sentence. Are you still trying to say that "teaching" and "baptizing" are not participles?

I'm telling you that make disciples is the essential part, not 'baptizing and teaching'. As I've said all along. And like I said before, forget the details if the conclusion is wrong.

This is getting really silly. Are you really scared to be baptized? Obviously they are taking pictures to send in to Voice of the Martyrs. If you're scared don't bring a camera. If there is no picture then nobody will know. Come to my house. I'll sneak you in through the back door and do a baptism in my basement. I promise not to tell anyone.

Cut the sarcasm and red herring. I've already been baptized, and not because it's necessary. And I'm the one who approached the church. That's called a choice.

What do you mean Jesus wasn't speaking literally? All of the Apostle's except for John were martyred and the church grew on the blood of the martyrs. I think your statements are highly offensive especially to such people as are featured in Voice of the Martyrs. No, Jesus didn't really mean that you should still confess His name. It's all metaphorical. I suppose Jesus didn't lay down His life for us either. It's all just a big metaphor for being nice and building relationships.

Straw man argument, and again cut the sarcasm. Pay attention to the Bible verses you quote. You quoted the bit about laying down/losing our life to find it. That phrase is found in multiple places, and in all of them it traces back to John 12, where Jesus is talking very metaphorically.

The passage says that men will hate us and kill us and that if we lay down our life for the sake of Christ we will find it.

Jesus was not just talking literally when He spoke of laying down our lives for Christ. Your first sentence is a straw man argument. The concept of being shrewd involves being smart. Defying one's family for the sake of following what you interpret is not smart.

Mat 10:37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
Mat 10:38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
Mat 10:39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

Luk 17:28 "It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building;
Luk 17:29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.
Luk 17:30 "It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.
Luk 17:31 "On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back.
Luk 17:32 "Remember Lot's wife.
Luk 17:33 "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.
Luk 17:34 "I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left.
Luk 17:35 "There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.
Luk 17:36 ["Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."]
Luk 17:37 And answering they *said to Him, "Where, Lord?" And He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered."

Joh 12:23 And Jesus *answered them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
Joh 12:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
Joh 12:25 "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.
Joh 12:26 "If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there
My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.


Mar 8:34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
Mar 8:35 "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it.
Mar 8:36 "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?
Mar 8:37 "For what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
Mar 8:38 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."

There's people formally taught just about anything.

I don't much care. You're asking me to throw out what I've been taught by a prof at a respectable Bible college just because you misinterpret a few verses. That's not going to fly, and you're not going to win if you're fighting against that using the tactics you have been up to this point in the posts.

Do you have comprehensive scientific data to prove that I am outvoted? It doesn't matter anyhow. It's not a real argument. It's just an ad hominem.

I don't need scientific data to show your claim about Lutheran churches/teaching to be wrong. I'd merely need a few testimonies. I can give my own, or I can cite others. The point is that Lutheran churches have flaws in them that detract from the message of the Gospels, part of which you're espousing in this thread.

 

[wildboar]

Godschild:

If you don't mind I'd really like to get back to the Matthew 28 passage. How do you believe that the participles function in relation to the main verb of "Make disciples"? I've already stated that I believe they are to be understood modally indicating the manner in which the command "make disciples" is to be carried out. How do you believe they should be understood within the sentence?

 

[Zebra1552]

Godschild:

If you don't mind I'd really like to get back to the Matthew 28 passage. How do you believe that the participles function in relation to the main verb of "Make disciples"?.

I've already stated that I believe they are to be understood modally indicating the manner in which the command "make disciples" is to be carried out.

You're making me feel like a broken record. If the conclusion is wrong, the details don't matter.

How do you believe they should be understood within the sentence?

Given the audience? I understand it to mean that the disciples should be making disciples as they go places and that they should be teaching them about God and helping them get to the point where sin has no hold over their lives and the Spirit reigns, or immersing them in Godly character:
G3686
ὄνομα
onoma
Thayer Definition:
1) name: univ. of proper names
2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one’s rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.
3) persons reckoned up by name
4) the cause or reason named: on this account, because he suffers as a Christian, for this reason
Part of Speech: noun neuter


In other words, helping them cast off their 'old' or sinful selves and being reborn in the Spirit.

And you may want to note the charges against you in my last post and respond to them, unless you like the idea of you ripping things out of context.

 

[wildboar]

And you may want to note the charges against you in my last post and respond to them, unless you like the idea of you ripping things out of context.

I'm trying to keep the conversation focused on this particular passage because this appears to me to be the clearest statement as to how disciples are to made in Scripture and if we don't stay focused we're going to continue down these fruitless rabbit trails.

You're making me feel like a broken record. If the conclusion is wrong, the details don't matter.

You are going backwards with it. You are starting with the assumption that the conclusion must be wrong and so you are completely ignoring the premises upon which the conclusion is based.

Given the audience? I understand it to mean that the disciples should be making disciples as they go places and that they should be teaching them about God and helping them get to the point where sin has no hold over their lives and the Spirit reigns, or immersing them in Godly character:
G3686
ὄνομα
onoma
Thayer Definition:
1) name: univ. of proper names
2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one’s rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.
3) persons reckoned up by name
4) the cause or reason named: on this account, because he suffers as a Christian, for this reason
Part of Speech: noun neuter

Onoma is the Greek word for name. It occurs in the verse but I don't know why you think that the presence of "name" means that water baptism is not taking place. They are baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit meaning that they become united with the Holy Trinity.

The Scriptures do not teach that water and Holy Spirit baptism are separate and need to be distinguished. There is one baptism.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

So am I correct in thinking that you now agree that "baptizing" and "teaching" are participles and that they are to be understood modally and dependent upon the command to "make disciples" but disagree on what "baptizing" actually means?

 

[Zebra1552]

I'm trying to keep the conversation focused on this particular passage because this appears to me to be the clearest statement as to how disciples are to made in Scripture and if we don't stay focused we're going to continue down these fruitless rabbit trails.

They're hardly rabbit trails if you're willing to take Scripture out of context on one of them. And certainly not if you're willing to resort to sarcasm and straw man arguments on them. There are other verses that talk about baptism, whether you like it or not.

You are going backwards with it. You are starting with the assumption that the conclusion must be wrong and so you are completely ignoring the premises upon which the conclusion is based.

Sounds like what you've been doing. I start with the assumption that the conclusion is wrong because the conclusion contradicts other parts of the Bible and reality.

Onoma is the Greek word for name. It occurs in the verse but I don't know why you think that the presence of "name" means that water baptism is not taking place. They are baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit meaning that they become united with the Holy Trinity.

Why do I think it means water baptism is not taking place? Because water baptism does not automatically usher in forgiveness and new life. There are people who have been baptized that do not display fruit that aligns with being united with the Holy Trinity, or immersed in God's character. Under your understanding of it, there is a contradiction between the Bible and reality. Under mine there is not.

The Scriptures do not teach that water and Holy Spirit baptism are separate and need to be distinguished. There is one baptism.
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

First of all, if that's the case, then why does John distinguish water baptism from the other times he uses the word?

Second, you really should stop taking verses out of context:
Eph 4:1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,
Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,
Eph 4:3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
Eph 4:7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.
Eph 4:8 Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."
Eph 4:9 (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?
Eph 4:10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)
Eph 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.


It's talking about preserving unity among believers. Paul talks in his letters to the Corinthians about some who follow Paul because Paul baptized them, or Peter because Peter baptized them. It's talking about who baptized whom and what it means being the same, not only one kind of baptism. Other cultures and religions baptize as well, and some sprinkle and some dunk and some use things other than water and some talk about it as a metaphor only. So yes, there are different kinds of baptism. Unless, of course, you think that the Bible contradicts reality.

So am I correct in thinking that you now agree that "baptizing" and "teaching" are participles and that they are to be understood modally and dependent upon the command to "make disciples" but disagree on what "baptizing" actually means?

They are not dependent on the command to make disciples for us, because we are not part of the 11 Jesus was addressing.

 

[wildboar]

They're hardly rabbit trails if you're willing to take Scripture out of context on one of them. And certainly not if you're willing to resort to sarcasm and straw man arguments on them. There are other verses that talk about baptism, whether you like it or not.

But let's just look at these passages one at a time. I apologize for any of the instances in which you believe I have mischaracterized your position. But in order for me to understand it properly we're going to have to go more slowly and get into the details of it all. I will avoid all use of sarcasm and personal attacks.

So, I would like to make sure I am clear as to your position on Matthew 28 before we move on to these other passages.

They are not dependent on the command to make disciples for us, because we are not part of the 11 Jesus was addressing.

So if they are not part of God's command to make disciples for us, were they part of God's command to the eleven?

If Matthew 28:19-20 only applied to the eleven who were present, what are some good principles we can use in determining when Jesus says something that it only applies to those people he is speaking directly to? Does all of Scripture only apply to those who happened to be present when it was written or spoken of? For instance, does the Epistle to the Romans only have application to the church that existed in Rome in the first century?

 

[Zebra1552]

But let's just look at these passages one at a time. I apologize for any of the instances in which you believe I have mischaracterized your position. But in order for me to understand it properly we're going to have to go more slowly and get into the details of it all. I will avoid all use of sarcasm and personal attacks.

So, I would like to make sure I am clear as to your position on Matthew 28 before we move on to these other passages.

I've already given you my position. The meaning of 'baptizing' is metaphorical because of its usages elsewhere.

So if they are not part of God's command to make disciples for us, were they part of God's command to the eleven?

I believe I just said that.

If Matthew 28:19-20 only applied to the eleven who were present, what are some good principles we can use in determining when Jesus says something that it only applies to those people he is speaking directly to?

The same good principles that apply to all of Jesus' teachings- that the concept of the law- love- is far more important than the letter of the law, just as the concepts behind NT doctrines are more important than the doctrines themselves. For example, the concept of having the right attitude is more important than not murdering someone (OT). Or the concept of being open to God changing our lives is more important than just obeying God.

Does all of Scripture only apply to those who happened to be present when it was written or spoken of? For instance, does the Epistle to the Romans only have application to the church that existed in Rome in the first century?

It applies especially to its target audience and its target audience must be kept in mind when one is reading it. Not all are called to raise people up in the faith, Paul touches on this concept of gifts in at least 3 places. Just as not all are called to baptize others, just as not all are called to be baptized.

Are you trying to get me to reveal an inconsistency in my understanding? If so, good luck.

 

[wildboar]

I've already given you my position. The meaning of 'baptizing' is metaphorical because of its usages elsewhere.

You've said a number of conflicting things in regards to this passage so I'm just trying to be clear. At first you were denying that baptizing and teaching were participles and so forth. I'm not convinced that baptism is being used as a metaphor here or that it ever is used as a metaphor in the New Testament but I think we shouldn't finish looking at this passage first.

The same good principles that apply to all of Jesus' teachings- that the concept of the law- love- is far more important than the letter of the law, just as the concepts behind NT doctrines are more important than the doctrines themselves. For example, the concept of having the right attitude is more important than not murdering someone (OT). Or the concept of being open to God changing our lives is more important than just obeying God.

But in the examples you provided, wouldn't that include not murdering the person physically? Jesus is showing everyone that they are all guilty of breaking the law. Their superficial reading of the law made them think they could keep it.

It applies especially to its target audience and its target audience must be kept in mind when one is reading it. Not all are called to raise people up in the faith, Paul touches on this concept of gifts in at least 3 places. Just as not all are called to baptize others, just as not all are called to be baptized.

I wouldn't the so-called Great Commission as applying to every individual Christian either. I believe the commission was given to the church through the Apostles and the church as a whole carries it out. The church is built on the foundation of the Apostles.

But I'm still confused. Are you saying that water baptism was never intended by Matthew 28:19 but that even this spiritual baptism is not to be carried out by anyone in the modern age? Does this also apply to teaching? Are we not supposed to teach anyone anything?

Are you trying to get me to reveal an inconsistency in my understanding? If so, good luck.

No need to get defensive, I'm just trying to understand what your position actually is in regards to these specific passages.

 

[Zebra1552]

You've said a number of conflicting things in regards to this passage so I'm just trying to be clear. At first you were denying that baptizing and teaching were participles and so forth.

At first I denied that they're required for being a disciple. I still do.

I'm not convinced that baptism is being used as a metaphor here or that it ever is used as a metaphor in the New Testament but I think we shouldn't finish looking at this passage first.

I don't care if you're convinced or not. I care what's in the Bible, and it's in the Bible as a metaphor on at least 3 occasions.

But in the examples you provided, wouldn't that include not murdering the person physically? Jesus is showing everyone that they are all guilty of breaking the law. Their superficial reading of the law made them think they could keep it.

That's the point. The concept is more important than the letter of the law. In other words, what the law means is more important than what it says.

I wouldn't the so-called Great Commission as applying to every individual Christian either. I believe the commission was given to the church through the Apostles and the church as a whole carries it out. The church is built on the foundation of the Apostles.

Define church.

But I'm still confused. Are you saying that water baptism was never intended by Matthew 28:19 but that even this spiritual baptism is not to be carried out by anyone in the modern age? Does this also apply to teaching? Are we not supposed to teach anyone anything?

I'm saying that water baptism is not required for salvation, discipleship, or forgiveness and I'm saying that spiritual rebirth, also known as 'being born again' or 'having Christ come into your life' or 'being filled with the Holy Spirit', is required. In other words, the meaning of the symbol is more important than the symbol itself and does not require the symbol to take place in order to have meaning.

No need to get defensive, I'm just trying to understand what your position actually is in regards to these specific passages.

I'm not getting defensive. I'm telling you that my theology is consistent and that if you're trying to show otherwise you will be unable to.

 

[wildboar]

At first I denied that they're required for being a disciple. I still do.

So were teaching and baptizing never required for making disciples? What is the relationship between the participles and the main verb?

That's the point. The concept is more important than the letter of the law. In other words, what the law means is more important than what it says.

The examples you provided all had to do with situations in which Jesus said that the outward thing was not enough. He did not say you shouldn't do the outward thing. Is it okay to murder people if you claim to have some deep love for them in your heart?

I'm saying that water baptism is not required for salvation, discipleship, or forgiveness and I'm saying that spiritual rebirth, also known as 'being born again' or 'having Christ come into your life' or 'being filled with the Holy Spirit', is required. In other words, the meaning of the symbol is more important than the symbol itself and does not require the symbol to take place in order to have meaning.

How does any of this happen apart from teaching? How does someone even know who Jesus is or what He did apart from teaching?

Define church.

I think this may sidetrack us a bit but Luther defined the church as "the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd." The Apology for the Augsburg Confession says that "at its core, it [the Church] is a fellowship of faith and the Holy Spirit in hearts." The church is "no Platonic state, as some wickedly charge. But we do say that this Church exists: truly believing and righteous people, scattered throughout the world." The Church is "the congregation of saints" among whom the Gospel is purely taught and the Sacraments are correctly administered. The Church is the one assembly of believers. It is not many local assemblies but one assembly. The local congregation manifests the assembly of all believers. As someone else puts it, "When we worship together, gathered in the Divine Name and receiving the saving Gospel and interceding for the world, and partaking of the Lamb's Feast, we are not present with some piece, some miniscule fraction of the Church. We are present with the whole of it. Hebrews 12 bears this out when it describes what you have come to when you gather as Church, where there is the blood that speaks a better word than Abel's. But it is also shown in numerous other ways in the Sacred Scriptures. Find Jesus the Lord, the Head of the Body, and you will invariably find not pieces, but the whole of the Body with Him."

 

[Zebra1552]

So were teaching and baptizing never required for making disciples? What is the relationship between the participles and the main verb?

I believe I said it was for the 11. Which means it's not for us, not literally.

The examples you provided all had to do with situations in which Jesus said that the outward thing was not enough. He did not say you shouldn't do the outward thing. Is it okay to murder people if you claim to have some deep love for them in your heart?

Is even being angry/jealous/impatient/whatever enough TO murder them consistent with loving them?

How does any of this happen apart from teaching? How does someone even know who Jesus is or what He did apart from teaching?

Where have I said that it doesn't happen apart from teaching?

I think this may sidetrack us a bit but Luther defined the church as "the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd." The Apology for the Augsburg Confession says that "at its core, it [the Church] is a fellowship of faith and the Holy Spirit in hearts." The church is "no Platonic state, as some wickedly charge. But we do say that this Church exists: truly believing and righteous people, scattered throughout the world." The Church is "the congregation of saints" among whom the Gospel is purely taught and the Sacraments are correctly administered. The Church is the one assembly of believers. It is not many local assemblies but one assembly. The local congregation manifests the assembly of all believers. As someone else puts it, "When we worship together, gathered in the Divine Name and receiving the saving Gospel and interceding for the world, and partaking of the Lamb's Feast, we are not present with some piece, some miniscule fraction of the Church. We are present with the whole of it. Hebrews 12 bears this out when it describes what you have come to when you gather as Church, where there is the blood that speaks a better word than Abel's. But it is also shown in numerous other ways in the Sacred Scriptures. Find Jesus the Lord, the Head of the Body, and you will invariably find not pieces, but the whole of the Body with Him."

"The body of Christ" would suffice.

I wouldn't the so-called Great Commission as applying to every individual Christian either.

Good. That would be a bit extreme of you.

I believe the commission was given to the church through the Apostles and the church as a whole carries it out.

Then under you understanding, anyone can baptize.

The church is built on the foundation of the Apostles.

And where is that written? I thought it was founded on Christ.

 

[wildboar]

I believe I said it was for the 11. Which means it's not for us, not literally.

So is the teaching literal teaching or does it apply to us at all? Did it apply literally for them? You still haven't answered what you believe the relationship between the participles and the main verb are or at least were.

Where have I said that it doesn't happen apart from teaching?

I don't understand what you are saying. I said that you made the claim that teaching was not necessary for being a disciple.

You wrote previously when I was saying that baptism and teaching were the means by which disciples are made:

At first I denied that they're required for being a disciple. I still do.

You said in an earlier post:

They are not dependent on the command to make disciples for us, because we are not part of the 11 Jesus was addressing.

Then under you understanding, anyone can baptize.

Ordinarily because things should be done decently and in good order, the minister baptizes but I believe that anyone could baptize. I recognize any Trinitarian baptism as valid as does my church. When my wife gave birth to our daughter a month ago, my pastor was on hand but encouraged me to baptize her if something went wrong and he was not available prior to her scheduled baptism.

And where is that written? I thought it was founded on Christ.

Christ is the head of the church and the chief cornerstone but the Scriptures speak of the apostles as being the foundation.

Revelation 21:14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Ephesians 2:19 - 22 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

 

[Zebra1552]

So is the teaching literal teaching or does it apply to us at all? Did it apply literally for them? You still haven't answered what you believe the relationship between the participles and the main verb are or at least were.

I have answered it. I've said it doesn't apply to us all. Multiple times. I've said it applies to the disciples. Multiple times. I've also talked about what baptism is. Multiple times. You'd think one could put it all together.

I don't understand what you are saying. I said that you made the claim that teaching was not necessary for being a disciple.

And where did I make that claim?

You wrote previously when I was saying that baptism and teaching were the means by which disciples are made:

Yeah, I said being a disciple isn't dependent on them. In other words, every single disciple does not need baptism and teaching to be a disciple. That might be true in most cases, but not all. Like my sig says, grammar is important.

Ordinarily because things should be done decently and in good order, the minister baptizes but I believe that anyone could baptize. I recognize any Trinitarian baptism as valid as does my church. When my wife gave birth to our daughter a month ago, my pastor was on hand but encouraged me to baptize her if something went wrong and he was not available prior to her scheduled baptism.

You've yet to show that baptism saves.

Christ is the head of the church and the chief cornerstone but the Scriptures speak of the apostles as being the foundation.

Revelation 21:14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

So you quote Revelation at me? One of the most hotly debated books in the Bible? I hope you have something better than that.

Ephesians 2:19 - 22 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

You just quoted a verse that says it's not just the apostles who are the foundation. Good job.

 

[wildboar]

I have answered it. I've said it doesn't apply to us all. Multiple times. I've said it applies to the disciples. Multiple times. I've also talked about what baptism is. Multiple times. You'd think one could put it all together.

I would think that you could answer some simple questions.

1. What is the relationship between the participles and the main verb?

2. What is the purpose for recording this commission if it does not apply to us?

Yeah, I said being a disciple isn't dependent on them. In other words, every single disciple does not need baptism and teaching to be a disciple. That might be true in most cases, but not all. Like my sig says, grammar is important.

Yes, grammar is absolutely important which is why it is important to answer the question of what the relationship of the participles and the main verb are. In what way would someone become a disciple apart from teaching?

You just quoted a verse that says it's not just the apostles who are the foundation. Good job.

Think the Scriptures call me to put the best construction on things I will assume you are giving me a genuine compliment and not just being argumentative. I never denied that the church is built on the foundation of the prophets as well so I don't see how this causes any problem for what I said.

 

[Zebra1552]

I would think that you could answer some simple questions.

1. What is the relationship between the participles and the main verb?

2. What is the purpose for recording this commission if it does not apply to us?

I do not respond to framed questions.

Yes, grammar is absolutely important which is why it is important to answer the question of what the relationship of the participles and the main verb are. In what way would someone become a disciple apart from teaching?

Probably be reading the Bible?

Think the Scriptures call me to put the best construction on things I will assume you are giving me a genuine compliment and not just being argumentative. I never denied that the church is built on the foundation of the prophets as well so I don't see how this causes any problem for what I said.

And it's not just the prophets and the apostles that the church are built on. Argument from silence.

 

[wildboar]

I do not respond to framed questions.

Why not? I will respond directly to any questions you frame. I believe the answers to these questions are important in how we are to understand the passage. As I understand it you are starting with the presupposition based on empirical observation that baptism is unnecessary for discipleship without a serious examination of the Biblical texts and then reading your own empirical observation into the Scriptures. As long as you refuse to answer serious exegetical questions, there is no point in even discussing what the Scriptures say or mean.

Probably be reading the Bible?

So discipleship should be done just by throwing a Bible at people? Does this mean that until the 16th century the church was incapable of carrying out discipleship or does it mean that baptism and teaching became unnecessary after the invention of the printing press? Doesn't the Bible contain alot of teaching?

And it's not just the prophets and the apostles that the church are built on. Argument from silence.

How can it be an argument from silence when the text explicitly says what I said.

Ephesians 2:19 - 22 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

It says that Jesus is the cornerstone and that the foundation is composed of the apostles and prophets and that we are incorporated into that building. That's what it says. So how is it silent on the matter of who forms the foundation of the church?

 

[Zebra1552]

Why not? I will respond directly to any questions you frame. I believe the answers to these questions are important in how we are to understand the passage. As I understand it you are starting with the presupposition based on empirical observation that baptism is unnecessary for discipleship without a serious examination of the Biblical texts and then reading your own empirical observation into the Scriptures. As long as you refuse to answer serious exegetical questions, there is no point in even discussing what the Scriptures say or mean.

See, that's the kind of framing I'm talking about. You assume things about how I interpret Scripture, just because you disagree with it. I've gone over the Scripture that supports what I say, yet you've simply denied it. The only Scripture you posted that 'negates' it was where you ripped John 3:23 out of context. You don't know how I originally came to my conclusions, so you can't possibly judge how I interpret this.

So discipleship should be done just by throwing a Bible at people?

Did I say it should?

Does this mean that until the 16th century the church was incapable of carrying out discipleship or does it mean that baptism and teaching became unnecessary after the invention of the printing press? Doesn't the Bible contain alot of teaching?

Teaching requires another person doing the teaching. Logically, people can learn things in other ways. Therefore, teaching is not the only method through which one can be a disciple.

How can it be an argument from silence when the text explicitly says what I said.

It's an argument from silence because you're stating that it's built on the prophets and apostles without mentioning any other possible parties- based on what the Bible doesn't say.

It says that Jesus is the cornerstone and that the foundation is composed of the apostles and prophets and that we are incorporated into that building. That's what it says. So how is it silent on the matter of who forms the foundation of the church?

The Bible is silent about many things. Does the Bible say that creation is a cause of sin? No. Does the Bible say that God is THE foundation for all that exists? No. It doesn't mean the statements are not true.

 

[wildboar]

See, that's the kind of framing I'm talking about.

A framed question is simply a question that is designed to get an answer to a specific question. It's the opposite of saying, "Hey, what do you think about Matthew 28:19?" I'm interested in a serious conversation and don't know why can't just answer the simple and direct questions I provided. I don't know why you would refuse to answer a simple grammatical question.

Teaching requires another person doing the teaching. Logically, people can learn things in other ways. Therefore, teaching is not the only method through which one can be a disciple.

You seem pretty dogmatic about the idea that Matthew 28:19-20 no longer applies when it comes to discipleship but seem very vague when it comes to what has taken its place. I'm just trying to get some specific answers. I believe that discipling is done through baptism and teaching. Could you provide a similar statement describing how you believe discipling is done?

It's an argument from silence because you're stating that it's built on the prophets and apostles without mentioning any other possible parties- based on what the Bible doesn't say.

So do you think there could be multiple chief cornerstones as well since the Bible does not specifically say in the passage that Jesus is the chief cornerstone?

Regardless, my original statement was that the church was built on the foundation of the apostles. This remains true whether or not multiple parties are involved. If someone says they built a house out of brick are you going to call them a liar and say that there was mortar there too?