Invalidating God's word

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Rather, we practice these things for their inherent value. For Water Baptism that is for the purpose of public demonstration of our commitment to Christ. For the Eucharist that is for the purpose of remembering what Christ did to give us his spiritual life and the hope of resurrection.

The Eucharist is the only sacrament for the "purpose of public demonstration." (your words in quotes)

I Cor 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

The reason "public proclamation" is in the Eucharist, the Christian is ACTIVE in taking the sacrament as in "Take Eat" and "Take Drink." We do not have anywhere in Scripture this kind of statement of public proclamation concerning baptism....the recipient is passive. No where does Scripture even hint that Baptism is public proclamation. You even admitted it. And anyone stating as such....is adding to Scripture.

Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Methodists FLATLY REJECT THIS DEFINITION OF BAPTISM. Baptism as a Public Proclamation is a post-reformation interpretation gained prominence here in American in the 18th Century onwards. And it has a bite of American nationalism to it also....after all what is more American than Mom, homemade apple pie, base ball and Baptist theology?

If it were truly the case that Baptism is a "public proclamation" then we would expect verses speaking about baptism to mention the individuals who witness the baptisms to be the focus, or the testimonies of individuals to be the focus. But we don't.

In the New Testament, but baptism is never spoken of as an event for the eyes of the audience. In most cases, people are baptized as soon as possible, often without audiences as in the Samaritans in Acts 8:12-13, Ethiopian eunuch 8:34-39, Saul of Tarsus 9:17-18, 22:12-16, Cornelius and family 10:14, 44-48, Lydia and family 16:13-15, the Philippian jailer and family 16:30-34, Crispus and family 18:7-8, and the Ephesian disciples 19:1-5. We also do not see any testimonies for the public before baptism, past “they believed” (present in some examples and not others).

Please demonstrate from Scripture a clear text that shows baptism as "public proclamation." Keeping in mind you stating there was none.

​

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

It appears the brother is "anti-Zwingli," which is less oriented than Luther was

As a Luther scholar you are, how am I less "oriented" than Luther himself (whatever that means).

 

[RandyPNW]

That's simple. Probably take me a minute and 32 seconds.

Scripture is the primal Means of Grace....ink and paper.

Baptism contains the Word of God....water and the word Eph. 5:26 just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the Word

Okay it took me 2 minutes.

Yes, and you're wrong if I don't think I understand that. I just don't agree with it. I don't agree that the Sacraments dispense grace, as if we put money into a candy dispenser and get a sucker or a candy bar. The Reformers did not abandon the Sacraments, but reduced them for the purpose of avoiding excessive Catholic mysticism or legalism.

In the end, I think the Reformers found themselves a little inconsistent with their own beliefs. By retaining any of the Sacraments as the "means of grace" they were peddling the same kind of mysticism and legalism that Catholics did...except for Zwingli, who was right with his symbolic interpretation of the Sacraments.

For his part, I understand that Zwingli may have emphasized Moral Law to an excess while retaining some of the Sacraments for their symbolic value. Luther retained Moral Law, but was very ambiguous about it inasmuch as he opposed any law in the matter of Justification.

Luther was therefore more focused on a changed Nature than on Moral Law. Zwingli could not have focused as much on a changed Nature when he was emphasizing Moral Law. Moral Law can be an external, perfunctory act and not spiritual or inspired by faith in Christ. All religions claim to be "Moral."

So you can see, the notion that the Sacraments can be retained in systems of Faith Only is a question not particularly focused upon by the Reformers. And even if they retained them as a "means of grace," that did not mean it was for Luther a means of Justification, nor for Zwingli.

Zwingli placed more emphasis on Moral Law than on the expediency of practicing sacraments, it seems. You tell me where you fall in all this, unless you think I'm failing to address the issues?

 

[RandyPNW]

...how am I less "oriented" than Luther himself (whatever that means).

My statement was: It appears the brother is "anti-Zwingli," which is less oriented than Luther was in terms of practicing Christianity through sacraments.

Sorry, what I meant to say was that "Zwingliism" is less oriented towards Sacramentalism than Luther was, in my view. Luther held to a more "Catholic view" of the Sacraments than Zwingli's "symbolic view." You appear to not like Zwingli's "symbolic interpretation" of the Sacraments?

Zwingli was not focused on the Sacraments as a "means of grace" in the mystical/legal sense. Getting Baptized was not getting saved, as I understand it. Taking Communion was not partaking of Christ either physically or spiritually, but was spiritual only in the sense of practicing a routine that "remembered" Christian truth. That practice, nevertheless, would still be deemed to be "Christian spirituality."

Luther held to a more Catholic view of the Sacraments, thinking that Christ's presence, being everywhere, was even in the bread and in the wine. In partaking of Communion one actually partakes of Christ. In drinking the wine one actually imbibes Christ. Not transubstantiation but consubstantiation.

In participating in Baptism one actually accepts Christ for Salvation because Scripture says, "Baptism now saves you." And, "he who believes and is baptized will be saved." I don't happen to agree with this interpretation, nevertheless. I'm just sharing how I think Luther and Zwingli viewed these things as the "means of grace."

I hold to more of the Zwingli position, although I'm sure there are areas where I would disagree with him. Whenever someone claims Sola Scriptura there will be the danger of personal judgment. Why should Scripture elaborate on all the freedoms we have in Christ? Why shouldn't the Scriptures simply proscribe things generally, and let our Christian nature dictate how we put into practice our Christian lives?

Rigid interpretations of "Scripture Only" will always lead to sectarianism. We need to not focus so much on the externals but on our common internal heritage of Christ. Clean the inside of the cup, and if necessary, throw the whole dirty old cup away.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

except for Zwingli, who was right with his symbolic interpretation of the Sacraments.

The greek word for symbol is symbolia. It is not found in the NT nor in the LXX. Why do you say the Sacraments are "symbolic" when the word doesn't exist in the NT.

 

[RandyPNW]

The Eucharist is the only sacrament for the "purpose of public demonstration." (your words in quotes)

If I said that it was a spelling error. The Eucharist is part of our confession, for purposes of remembrance. We are remembering that Christ already lives inside us, enabling us to benefit from his redemption. We'll live sanctified lives and have Eternal Life in our glorification as a result. In this sense, we're remembering how we should live, and what our hope is.

In my view, the Eucharist is not a mystical, legal participation in Christ in the act itself, but only a display of our Christian right to access Christ as a matter of confession. It is a kind of ritualistic confession, like reciting a creed in dramatic form. It clearly obtains its meaning in the act by our willingness to confess and display its symbolic truths.

I Cor 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

The reason "public proclamation" is in the Eucharist, the Christian is ACTIVE in taking the sacrament as in "Take Eat" and "Take Drink." We do not have anywhere in Scripture this kind of statement of public proclamation concerning baptism....the recipient is passive. No where does Scripture even hint that Baptism is public proclamation. You even admitted it. And anyone stating as such....is adding to Scripture.

I've only admitted that "common sense" by definition does not require elaboration or delineation. You might as well explain that I'm using a device to communicate to you right now. Do I need to validate that by proving it from Scripture? No. Neither does Water Baptism have to be proven from Scripture that it is a public display of Christian conversion.

When we're asked to "confess our sins to one another," do we need to prove that our sins are not being kept private? Neither do we need to prove that Baptism is a public proclamation. Not only does one have to perform it, but the context of these references seem to indicate a public setting.

Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Methodists FLATLY REJECT THIS DEFINITION OF BAPTISM. Baptism as a Public Proclamation is a post-reformation interpretation gained prominence here in American in the 18th Century onwards. And it has a bite of American nationalism to it also....after all what is more American than Mom, homemade apple pie, base ball and Baptist theology?

As I said, I hold to Reform truths up to a certain point. The Apostles and the Scriptures trump the Reformers. I showed you where I disagree with both Luther and Zwingli. They had issues in their time, and we have issues in our own time. We should focus on our commonalities, and try to figure out where and why we have differed?

I believe in Water Baptism the way perhaps Zwingli did, that it was symbolic. Whether we call it a "means of grace" is subject to how we interpret that term?

I was baptized as an infant--I believe it was more a Dedication than a Baptism. I was later submerged as an adolescent repenting from my backsliding--I don't believe this Baptism was necessary as if I was a new convert from paganism. I had been a Christian from birth.

I think Christians in history have made the same mistake the Jewish leaders did in Jesus' time. They made overly mystical and overly legalistic certain ritual practices that ordinarily seemed pretty "spiritual."

They produced Sacraments and then declared, with supposed "Scriptural Authority," that they were required as a "means of grace." Baloney to both the Pharisees and the Catholic/Reform view of the sacraments as the "means of grace."

The Eucharist was a memory device, a kind of confession of our belief that we have directly ingested Christ into our nature. And Baptism was an initiation ceremony for new converts--a public recanting of previous practices in the society, a public confession of faith in Jesus.

Please demonstrate from Scripture a clear text that shows baptism as "public proclamation." Keeping in mind you stating there was none.

Well, that's pretty silly! You say I've stated there are none, and yet ask me for some?? I don't believe I've denied there is any Scriptural evidence that Water Baptism is a public profession? What I do know I've said is that it is a common sense issue and doesn't really require of me that I research the Scriptures to prove it.

Acts 2.41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

I would agree with you that Baptism does not *have to* be so public. The Ethiopian got baptized only in the presence of Philip. But it is something to be done and recognized, both personally and witnessed to by somebody. And in effect, as I've seen it in my life, it can be a very public proclamation of one's choice to convert to Christianity.

Baptism is no more necessary to conversion than a marriage ceremony is necessary to make a marriage. The marriage consists of a vow. The marriage ceremony is required only as a matter of formality.

Similarly, Jesus required Water Baptism early on of his immediate Disciples. There is no extensive theology on the subject for purposes of formalizing it in history. Whether it needed to be done for those raised up in Christ is not an issue even raised. How it is to be administered, immersed or dipped, is not even delved into.

It is an initiation ceremony for people who had been living as pagans. It formalized their conversion in front of a witness or in public. It is less important than what it represents--conversion to Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hyperbole...buddy.

I take that to mean that you have no scriptural validation for your "Means of Grace".

 

[bbbbbbb]

It appears the brother is "anti-Zwingli," which is less oriented than Luther was in terms of practicing Christianity through sacraments. I'm neither pro-Luther nor pro-Zwingli in my theology, though there are elements in both which I find of great value. I don't think anybody who has contributed to theology is perfectly balanced, except for those commissioned by Jesus to found the Church, ie the Apostles--not perfect, but accurate.

There is a differentiation, in my mind, between finding Salvation or Regeneration through a sacrament like Water Baptism and experiencing Christ through a sacrament like the Eucharist/Communion. Like Zwingli, I find these "Sacraments" of symbolic value only, that they do not *mediate* grace through them, as if we "put in a quarter and get a little song."

Rather, we practice these things for their inherent value. For Water Baptism that is for the purpose of public demonstration of our commitment to Christ. For the Eucharist that is for the purpose of remembering what Christ did to give us his spiritual life and the hope of resurrection.

Thank you. I am in complete agreement with your position.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's simple. Probably take me a minute and 32 seconds.

Scripture is the primal Means of Grace....ink and paper.

Baptism contains the Word of God....water and the word Eph. 5:26 just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the Word

Okay it took me 2 minutes.

How do you know that scripture is "the primal Means of Grace". There are hundreds of millions of printed Bibles in this world which are gathering dust on shelves. In what sense are these bound pieces of printed paper "Means of Grace"?

Where does it say that baptism is a "Means of Grace"?

Exactly what is your definition of "Means of Grace"? As I understand the term it is something by which God uniquely confers His grace upon the recipient apart from all other forms of activity which a recipient could reasonably hope for grace. Thus, in the Roman Catholic world, marriage is a unique means by which God confers His grace upon the couple. However, for other Christians marriage is not a Means of Grace.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

How do you know that scripture is "the primal Means of Grace". There are hundreds of millions of printed Bibles in this world which are gathering dust on shelves. In what sense are these bound pieces of printed paper "Means of Grace"?

Where does it say that baptism is a "Means of Grace"?

Exactly what is your definition of "Means of Grace"? As I understand the term it is something by which God uniquely confers His grace upon the recipient apart from all other forms of activity which a recipient could reasonably hope for grace. Thus, in the Roman Catholic world, marriage is a unique means by which God confers His grace upon the couple. However, for other Christians marriage is not a Means of Grace.

I'm sorry if my answer is above your pay grade. Of course the Bible is the primary means of Grace....in "Scriptured" Word is of ink and paper.

 

[CoreyD]

I would disagree. Contextually, only the twelve received tongues of fire. I shall marshal my evidence.

There is NO EVIDENCE any of the 120 present in the upper room were present on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2 makes clear ONLY the twelve disciples now called Apostles were present.

In Acts 1 prior to Jesus ascension and the gathering of the 120 in the upper room, Luke states, “Gathering them together, Jesus commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

All the witnesses of Jesus ascension then go to Jerusalem per Jesus' command to the upper room. This is a few days prior to Day of Pentecost. Notice there is a time to time difference between the upper room meeting and the day of Pentecost which will occur "not many days from now."

On the same day Jesus ascended into heaven we have a listing of the 120 present in Jerusalem 1) each disciple by name, 2) women, 3) Mary 4) others and 5) Matthias and Barsabbas Justus, of whom Matthias was chose to replace Judas. Luke now calls the Matthias and the Eleven for the first time “apostles.” (1:26) And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.

The major question here is who are the "they" in vs. 1? Is it the 120 from the upper room a few days before, or is it just the twelve disciples on this specific day of Penetocst.

Evidence from Acts 2 indicates that only the 12 disciples now called apostles are present when the Holy Spirit descends upon them with the pillar of fire and the ability to speak known unlearned languages. This is evidence by:

1) the text explicit states “only Peter and the eleven” (Acts 2:14) were present speaking in tongues.

2) countering the accusation the Apostles are drunk, (Acts 2:15) Peter states "these men are not drunk." The Greek οὗτοι is a plural masculine demonstrative pronoun only referring to males, as “these MEN are not drunk.” If Luke wanted to refer to “both men and women not being drunk” he would have used Ταῦτα the neuter form of the pronoun. And if Luke only wanted to refer to women as in “these women are not drunk” he would have used αὗταί or the feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun.

The pillar of fire is at least a divine marker indicating the 12 disciples have the authority to begin Christian baptism. The pillar of fire demonstrates apostolic authority where as the speaking in tongue demonstrates the unleasing of the Holy Spirit and can be bestowed on any believer.

3) vs. 42 places emphasis only on the Apostles and nothing of the 120. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.

Good to see you are looking at the context.
Let's make sure we haven't missed anything.

Acts 1:12-17
12 ...the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Acts 2:1-4
1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Acts 2:14 is a good observation.
Acts 2:14

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem

However, can we say that Peter standing up with the 11, to address the crowd, is evidences that only the 12 were present?

We have to consider a number of facts all together.

1. It was the custom for the disciples to gather together for worship. Acts 1:14; Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
2. The day of Pentecost is a day when all of Jesus' followers, including the women, gathered. Not just the apostles. (Acts 2:1 - When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place). The day of Pentecost is the same day they celebrated the Lord's Evening Meal. 1 Corinthians 11:20-34
3. The anointing by holy spirit was not promised to the apostles alone, but all of the congregation - the body of Christ. Acts 1:5; Acts 2:16-18, 33; Mark 1:8; John 14:26 This promise was fulfilled then, as well as on other occasions from that time onward. Acts 11:15-17 - “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’"
4. Because those taking the lead stood up, that is not evidence that they alone were present. To reason this way, we would have to apply that reasoning to all the places where persons stood up to speak. Acts 1:15; Acts 11:27, 28; Acts 13:13-16; Acts 15:7 The 12 stood as a body, yet one person - Peter - spoke.
5. There is no suggestion that only the twelve were present, since from Chapter 1 to 2 there is no specific reference to the 12. It does not read... When the day of Pentecost came, the twelve were all together in one place.

With this body of facts, we ought to see that the evidence is in favor of "they were all together in one place", referring to all the disciples who were present in the upper room, after they returned to Jerusalem.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

It was the custom for the disciples to gather together for worship. Acts 1:14;

There is a time to time difference between Acts 1:14 and 2:1 and possibly a location to location difference also. No one knows if the 2:1 is the same location as 1.14. This is an assumption not fact.

The text in 2:1 does not say before 9 AM "they" were gathered for worship. This is an assumption not fact.

The day of Pentecost is a day when all of Jesus' followers, including the women, gathered.

This is the point of dispute and you mention as fact. Women present is assumption not fact. What is NOT an assumption and what is FACT is the 12 disciples were present when the pillar of fire were visible. This is fact.

What is also fact not an assumption, Peter says these MEN are not drunk. You avoided the grammatical argument here. οὗτοι is used for MEN ONLY not Ταῦτα which would include both men and women. Powerful argument which can not be overlooked since the 120 clearly had women in it.

Since baptism is 1) water applied to the human body 2) in the true name of God 3) another Christian baptizing you.....this begs the question "Who baptized the disciples?" Jesus tells us for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” The Holy Spirit baptized the disciples with the public divine marker of the pillar of fire. This is only done once....a sort of public ordination for the disciples which gives them the authority to baptize and teach/preach in Jesus name but also to do signs and wonders.

Everything about Acts 2 is about Apostolic authority.....not the authority of 120

42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.

We don't have any suggestion that early church devoted themselves to the 120 individuals teaching only 12.....and the many signs and wonders were also not mention with the 120 doing those things also.

Because those taking the lead stood up, that is not evidence that they alone were present. To reason this way, we would have to apply that reasoning to all the places where persons stood up to speak. Acts 1:15; Acts 11:27, 28; Acts 13:13-16; Acts 15:7 The 12 stood as a body, yet one person - Peter - spoke.

Two things occurred in the Day of Pentecost....the pillar of fire and speaking in tongues. The pillar of fire is not in these additional texts and therefore can not apply.

There is no suggestion that only the twelve were present, since from Chapter 1 to 2 there is no specific reference to the 12. It does not read... When the day of Pentecost came, the twelve were all together in one place.

False. The text does not When the day of Pentecost came, the twelve 120 were all together in one place. There is no suggestion that only the twelve 120 were present on the Day of Pentecost only the suggestion that 12 were present.

The clear passages of Scripture interpret the more obscure. The clear reading of the text is the 12 were present.

 

[CoreyD]

I notice you keep mentioning this link to Matthew 19:28

Any scripture you are using to make a link like that or did you make that up?

You won't find me making up things. Here is the link to the thread.

 

[CoreyD]

Sure. On a superficial level, I can agree with you on that.

Again, on a certain level, I can agree with you here too.

This is where it gets tricky, because NOW you're actually moving to the area of Epistemology and not merely analyzing some simple, discernible factors of identity and difference between conceptual entities. So, while it is usually best to identify and reduce biases as much as possible, one can't really fully get out of one's own subjective perceptual view. And moreover, "evidences" are almost always open to interpretations and have to be discussed and evaluated on many academic levels for verification of explanations to fully adhere and be seen as "true."

So, validation the Bible in juxtaposition with the concept of "evidence" is not a clear and straight conceptual application that can be made.


Lack of evidence for the Bible doesn't necessarily invalidate it, that's true. But your last paragraph here has some vague and inconsistent notions built into it, especially the part where you've said, "If there is enough evidence the Bible is true." The problem, epistemologically, is that it becomes a personal measure as to what constitutes sufficient evidence for each individual person.

I would suggest you read some books/sources on the various forms and problems in Epistemology, as well as some more on forms of Logic, and forms of Truth.

In every investigation there are interpretation - even in science and the so-called evidence for the evolution theory.
That's what we have to live with.
Investigating the validity of the Bible is no different.

 

[jas3]

That term "baptismal regeneration" is subject to different theological presuppositions. Are you saying that the act, apart from faith, produces regeneration?

As you said, of course not, but not because it's faith alone that causes regeneration. And I would understand the faith here to be supplied either by the person being baptized having faith himself, in the case of an adult, or his parents having faith, in the case of a child.

I agree that "Spirit Baptism" appears to be a higher form of Water Baptism than John's Baptism, and yet remains connected to the ritual of Water Baptism. But it shows that the spiritual elements, though connected to the physical element of water, are distinct from and superior to the element of water.

Sure, I would agree with that.

And we are told that the element of water itself is symbolic, the salvation through the Flood being symbolic of salvation through the waters of Baptism.

In a qualified way, sure, but not in a way where we would say that the baptism of Jesus doesn't actually cleanse us of prior sins. Water can be said to be symbolic in that it is used to clean things, and in that the water of the Flood destroyed the wicked, and so on. But that is external to 1 Peter 3:21, which is only saying that baptism is an antitype of the Flood.

This is not saying, however, that Water Baptism saves us by water--only that the Flood waters symbolized Water Baptism in the Christian sense, which is spiritual and not strictly "water." Peter says that by denying that the water itself possesses the ability to cleanse from sin or to ritually guarantee physical resurrection/Salvation. That comes by faith in Jesus, which is what, then, the Water Baptism represents.

Peter doesn't say that, he says it's "not by a removal of dirt from the body." I think at best you could make the argument that "dirt" indicates ritual uncleanness under the Old Covenant (which required physical washing - i.e. removal of dirt from the body - to remedy), but not sin in general (which is unaffected by physical washing).

Right, John's Baptism, as I said, is a Water Baptism of repentance *under the Law of Moses.* Jesus' Baptism was a Water Baptism of repentance *under the terms of the Gospel,* which does not require ritual observances.

Then I'm not sure why you would say that baptism is symbolic, because it seemed to me from your last response that your reasoning was based on John's baptism being inadequate for a Christian and the shared element of water between the baptisms of John and Jesus. If that's not the case, then the argument that the element of water can't ordinarily cleanse us of sin seems to ignore that the case of baptism is not ordinary, and we're not talking about water being present apart from the Holy Spirit. Handkerchiefs and aprons can't ordinarily heal people either, but they did by God's grace in Acts 19:12 they did.

 

[CoreyD]

There is a time to time difference between Acts 1:14 and 2:1 and possibly a location to location difference also. No one knows if the 2:1 is the same location as 1.14. This is an assumption not fact.

Of course it's an assumption.... one I never mentioned.

The text in 2:1 does not say before 9 AM "they" were gathered for worship. This is an assumption not fact.

I don't know why you are mentioning these assumptions, since I did not include them in anything I said.

This is the point of dispute and you mention as fact. Women present is assumption not fact. What is NOT an assumption and what is FACT is the 12 disciples were present when the pillar of fire were visible. This is fact.

It cannot be an assumption.
However, one can indeed ignore the evidence provided, and call it an assumption, but that is not how honest investigation works, is it.
More than one piece of evidence needs to be considered. That's how they arrived at the theory of evolution.

What is also fact not an assumption, Peter says these MEN are not drunk. You avoided the grammatical argument here. οὗτοι is used for MEN ONLY not Ταῦτα which would include both men and women. Powerful argument which can not be overlooked since the 120 clearly had women in it.

That is a translation error, or an assumption.
In the Greek we don't find any word there for "men". It was inserted.
Please see Acts 2:15 Interlinear: for these are not drunken, as ye take it up, for it is the third hour of the day.

Since baptism is 1) water applied to the human body 2) in the true name of God 3) another Christian baptizing you.....this begs the question "Who baptized the disciples?"

We know that Jesus took the lead in setting the example for his apostles.
Why do you think Jesus did not baptize the 12?
John 3:22 After these things, Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was staying with them, and was baptizing.

Jesus tells us for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” The Holy Spirit baptized the disciples with the public divine marker of the pillar of fire. This is only done once....a sort of public ordination for the disciples which gives them the authority to baptize and teach/preach in Jesus name but also to do signs and wonders.

The first part is correct, but your last sentence seem to be doctrine.
Can you please provide scripture to prove what you said here - a sort of public ordination for the disciples which gives them the authority to baptize and teach/preach in Jesus name but also to do signs and wonders...
As far as I know, the disciples had "authority to baptize and teach/preach in Jesus name but also to do signs and wonders" before Pentecost 33. Luke 8:1, 2; Luke 9:1-6; Luke 10:1-9; John 4:1, 2

Everything about Acts 2 is about Apostolic authority.....not the authority of 120

42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.

We don't have any suggestion that early church devoted themselves to the 120 individuals teaching only 12.....and the many signs and wonders were also not mention with the 120 doing those things also.

Are you basing your argument on the fact that the 12 apostles took the lead in the congregation, over the 108 disciples, and the 3,000 later added, as well as the 5,000 added later?
May I ask why you are doing that and what does the 12 taking the lead have to do with who was baptized with holy spirit?

Two things occurred in the Day of Pentecost....the pillar of fire and speaking in tongues. The pillar of fire is not in these additional texts and therefore can not apply.

Pardon me.
I'm not sure how this applies to what I said.

Evidence from Acts 2 indicates that only the 12 disciples now called apostles are present when the Holy Spirit descends upon them with the pillar of fire and the ability to speak known unlearned languages.

I'm saying to you, that is not evidence, for this reason:
Because those taking the lead stood up, that is not evidence that they alone were present. To reason this way, we would have to apply that reasoning to all the places where persons stood up to speak. Acts 1:15; Acts 11:27, 28; Acts 13:13-16; Acts 15:7 The 12 stood as a body, yet one person - Peter - spoke.

False. The text does not When the day of Pentecost came, the twelve 120 were all together in one place. There is no suggestion that only the twelve 120 were present on the Day of Pentecost only the suggestion that 12 were present.

There is no suggestion that only the twelve were present, since from Chapter 1 to 2 there is no specific reference to the 12. It does not read... When the day of Pentecost came, the twelve were all together in one place.
Are you claiming this is false?
Can you please provide the text that says, When the day of Pentecost came, the twelve were all together in one place.

The clear passages of Scripture interpret the more obscure. The clear reading of the text is the 12 were present.

The twelve were present. No one disputes that.
The scriptures show that the other disciples were also present, including the women.

Peter confirms this at Acts 2:16-18
But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

 

[RandyPNW]

The greek word for symbol is symbolia. It is not found in the NT nor in the LXX. Why do you say the Sacraments are "symbolic" when the word doesn't exist in the NT.

This is the same problem as Sola Scriptura. A rigid dependence on "words" results in binding rules designed to control and defend belief systems.

There is no rule about the necessity of certain words having to be used to determine the orthodoxy of a particular position. Words have synonyms, and someone's ideas often need to be interpreted to others with different frames of thinking.

The "Trinity" did not need to be expressed as such until the Gospel emerged in a pagan environment where certain truths were dissected and scrutinized. The Trinity is not therefore to be disposed of when similar concepts exist within the Bible but were not expressed as such.

For example, in the Bible, we have Father as God, Son as Word of God, and Spirit as Spirit of God. We can legitimately call this "the Trinity" without trespassing against some law requiring the word "Trinity" to be used in the Bible!

When we read that the Law contained elements that were a pattern of Christ and his redemption, we do not throw out Christ as lacking a precursor, simply because he had not been represented as such before his incarnation and atonement. Some things evolve with time, and words with it.

Somebody's "Bible" at one time did not yet spell out "atonement via the death of Christ." Christ's atonement is not therefore thrown out because at one point temporary redemption took place only through animal sacrifices. That's why the NT calls these things "mysteries" that in the New Testament were revealed.

However, the Sacraments were not even titled as "sacraments." What we do know is that Christ established various traditions that were later institutionalized outside of Judaism. It was up to the Church to give them names.

But these "sacraments" were not said to be a "means of grace," that is, dispensers of God's presence and salvation. Someone has to insert those ideas, and they should be questioned because conceptually they had neither precursory terms nor preliminary notions of such.

I will go this far, though. All of the adornments and infrastructure of the Law were viewed as sacred. So I think we can look at certain traditions of the Church as "sacred" as well. I'm fine with calling them "sacraments." What I'm not fine with is calling them "dispensers of grace," if by that it means without them people are separated from Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm sorry if my answer is above your pay grade. Of course the Bible is the primary means of Grace....in "Scriptured" Word is of ink and paper.

Thank you for fobbing me off yet again.

 

[RandyPNW]

Peter doesn't say that, he says it's "not by a removal of dirt from the body." I think at best you could make the argument that "dirt" indicates ritual uncleanness under the Old Covenant (which required physical washing - i.e. removal of dirt from the body - to remedy), but not sin in general (which is unaffected by physical washing).

Yes, I think I see where you're going with this. You think, if I may, that the mechanical action of Water Baptism is the active ingredient that spiritually cleanses?

By contrast, I see the mechanical action of "getting baptized" as meaningless with respect to getting spiritually cleansed. I see it simply as a religious ritual used as an initiation ceremony into Christianity.

Its value is not cause and effect, to unlock spirituality, but purely a form of theater to express a confession. It's more like a skit than a legal action to obtain a permit to pass. I hate to put it as such, but the distinction is, I think, very important. One is a legal requirement to effect a change whereas the other is purely an external confession.

The "waters" of the Flood were symbolic of the "waters" of Christian Baptism. But unlike the true properties of water, used to either drown or cleanse of impurity, the water itself, whether of the Flood or of John's Baptism, were purely symbolic of the cleansing action of faith, which purified of sin by spiritual means.

I understand you don't see it this way, but I do. The "water" symbolized Jesus' Baptism which had a completely different agent for cleansing. In fact, Spirit Baptism, though associated with Christian Water Baptism, did not even seem to require water baptism at all! This is more argument for "water" in the Flood and in John's Baptism being symbolic of something greater in the Baptism of the Spirit.

Then I'm not sure why you would say that baptism is symbolic, because it seemed to me from your last response that your reasoning was based on John's baptism being inadequate for a Christian and the shared element of water between the baptisms of John and Jesus. If that's not the case, then the argument that the element of water can't ordinarily cleanse us of sin seems to ignore that the case of baptism is not ordinary, and we're not talking about water being present apart from the Holy Spirit. Handkerchiefs and aprons can't ordinarily heal people either, but they did by God's grace in Acts 19:12 they did.

Handkerchiefs and aprons didn't actually heal. The grace they appeared to dispense were actually produced by God's word apart from these agencies which cannot, as you suggest, heal at all!

Water and the Spirit were indeed both present in John's Baptism, as well as in Jesus' Baptism. The water, in all cases, were inadequate for what they hoped to represent in Christian Baptism spiritually.

What distinguishes Jesus' Baptism is the spiritual component, symbolized by the water, which relies on the atonement of Christ. In this way Jesus' Baptism was able to surpass the limitations of water to forgive the transgressions of the Law.

Water could not do this--not even as a ritual. As a mechanical instrument it was a temporary stand in for the eternal reality it was intended to substitute for. Ritual Baptism was temporary mitigation for Sin under the Law. In the NT era, sacramental Baptism represents the final resolution of the Sin problem.

In my view, the paraphernalia God uses to convey His word is less important than His word itself. How He does things is less important than the fact He does them. The fact people get saved is more important than whether they fall on their faces or throw themselves into a river to confess their belief in Jesus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In every investigation there are interpretation - even in science and the so-called evidence for the evolution theory.
That's what we have to live with.
Investigating the validity of the Bible is no different.

Right. Exactly. This is why it is so difficult to validate the Bible, particularly by people who are either overly skeptical of it OR are thinking primarily within the boundaries of 21st century science and philosophy.

Usually, I find that fellow Christians who think it relatively easy to validate the Bible do so because they've rarely or barely engaged anything in the way of Historical Criticism of the Bible.

Anyway, the whole point of this is that in line with Blaise Pascal, we should be charitable to those who would like to believe but admit to us that they have a difficult time doing so.