Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

Major1 said:

I do not know what you are tring to say but the fact is that there is no Biblical record of Jesus being washed before or after the cross.y

Click to expand...

Jesus' baptism was a "type" of washing.

DO you believe the scriptures talk of "types"?

If not, you need t go back and read some more.

God Bless

Till all are one.

kepha31 said:

Good question. I found this commentary:
John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM - Scripture Catholic

A penny for your thoughts.

​

Click to expand...

I'm going to say this so please, please don't be offended.

If we believe Jesus was the God-man, God made flesh, why would Jesus need the anointing of the Holy Spirit?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Let me explain a bit further.

From a "human" standpoint, if you were to have your DNA tested, both your mother and fathers DNA would be present.

So, from practical standpoint, scriptures tell us that Jesus was "conceived" of the Holy Spirit.

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." -Lk. 1:35 (KJV)

In the Greek, the word "overshadow" means:

"Tropically, of the Holy Spirit exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it, (a use of the word which seems to have been drawn from the familiar O. T. idea of a cloud as symbolizing the immediate presence and power of God): with the dat. Lk. i. 35."

Source

Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti, translated, revised, and enlarged. Corrected edition. New York: American Book Company, 1889. This complete, unabridged digital edition adds transliterations, Strong's numbers, and unicode Greek characters. These additions are ©2007 TheBible.org, all rights reserved worldwide.

Even one NT apocrypha books testify that Jesus was preforming miracles when He was but a child. (I only mention this as, not that I believe any apocrypha books)

Even John the Baptist was full of the Holy Spirit in the womb. (cf. Lk. 1:15)

And to go a bit further, scriptures say that immediately after being presented in the Temple as per the Law:

"And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." -Lk. 2:39-40 (KJV)

And here, the context mandates that Jesus was already filled, and continued to "strengthen":

"to strengthen, make strong, (Vulg. conforto [and in Eph. iii. 16 conroboro]); Pass. to be made strong, to increase in strength, to grow strong: pass, with dat. of respect, πνεύματι, Lk. i. 80; ii. 40 [here G L T Tr WH om. πνεύ ματι]; δυνάμει, Eph. iii. 16,"

Ibid

And don't forget that Jesus was teaching in the Temple long before He was baptized. (cf. Lk. 2:46-49)

No, Jesus did not need an anointing of the Holy Spirit.

The trinity as seen at Jesus' baptism was a testimony from them (trinity) as to the acceptance of Jesus to be our Passover Lamb, and as a witness to His Messiahship.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Jesus wasn't conceived in the same sense we understand conception, He was incarnated.

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

ScottySAM said:

If a local church has statements of belief that it admits go beyond the essentials (those core beliefs that unite us all in Christ), have they added to scripture? Are they no longer gathering around the Gospel, and instead gathering around their own specific system of thinking?

Let me give an example: Suppose a local church identifies two categories of doctrines: 1) The core Gospel message and doctrines which unite every believer in the body of Christ; and 2) The doctrines added to the core that unite this particular local body of believers - that one must hold in order to be a member of the local body.

Category 1 would include things like the sinfulness of man, the divinity of Christ, Christ's atonement for our sins, etc.

Category 2 would include additional doctrines - for the purpose of this example let's say the doctrine of Eternal Security.

By admitting that people can believe contrary to doctrines that fall in category 2 and still be brothers / sisters in Christ as long as they hold to all doctrine in category 1, has the local church elevated the category 2 doctrines to the level of scripture? Have they elevated their own personal beliefs to the level of God's Truth? Would this make this local body more of a club than a local church body? You can organize clubs around anything from an interest in stamp collecting to an affinity for Star Trek. But can you legitimately organize a local church around beliefs that are admittedly open for Christian debate?

When you stand behind the pulpit and declare eternal salvation as Fact without qualifying it with "I believe", and without pointing out that other saved Christians believe differently, are you raising your particular belief to a higher level to which it does not belong?

Long post. Thank you for your patience and your loving responses. This has been weighing on me lately. Trying to figure out how to rightly understand these questions.

Click to expand...

Bible is pretty clear about that.
Gospel - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Saved - Ephesians 1:13-14
Free gift - Ephesians 2:8-9
Any other gospel : Galatians 1:8-9

If your pastor want you to wash his car so you can be saved , you can leave that church or rebuke him and then leave .

Sea Horse said:

Bible is pretty clear about that.
Gospel - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Saved - Ephesians 1:13-14
Free gift - Ephesians 2:8-9
Any other gospel : Galatians 1:8-9

If your pastor want you to wash his car so you can be saved , you can leave that church or rebuke him and then leave .

Click to expand...

You are in agreement with the Council or Orange, 5th century, that condemned Pelagianism, a heresy that taught salvation by works. Salvation by works apart from the grace of Christ was also condemned at the Council of Trent. Yet the myth won't go away.

kepha31 said:

Jesus wasn't conceived in the same sense we understand conception, He was incarnated.

Click to expand...

In the first place, I NEVER advocated any such idea where the Lord Jesus Christ was conceived in any fashion like humans!

I go by what the scriptures say, and I even provided the Greek for you.

To suggest any different is wrong! Period!

God Bless

Till all are one.

nm

Neither did I.

kepha31 said:

Neither did I.

Click to expand...

I am pleased that we are in agreement for a change.

Fidelibus said:

Interesting sceneiro. Do you believe that this "roll of scripture" would have included the New Testament as we know it today in the first century?

Click to expand...

You start from the assumption that I am ignorant.

Always a good way to derail the discussion.

Dale said:

You start from the assumption that I am ignorant.

Always a good way to derail the discussion.

Click to expand...

Actually, in my personal experience I have found a great deal of truth in the expression that ignorance is bliss.

DeaconDean said:

Jesus' baptism was a "type" of washing.

DO you believe the scriptures talk of "types"?

If not, you need t go back and read some more.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

1). I do not think so. Jesus had nothing to be cleansed from.
John's baptism was for repentance of sin, and as a sign of total commitment to their soon to be new life in the Messiah, (Christ). It was to show that everyone has to come to God on the same terms. That did not apply to Jesus.

Water Baptism can be likened to marriage rings. In marriage, people wear wedding rings to indicate their total commitment to one another, and so that others will know they are married.

Water baptism lets the world know they have been born-again and are now members of the Bride of Christ, totally committed to Him as their Lord and Savior.

2). YES.

Major1 said:

1). I do not think so. Jesus had nothing to be cleansed from.
John's baptism was for repentance of sin, and as a sign of total commitment to their soon to be new life in the Messiah, (Christ). It was to show that everyone has to come to God on the same terms. That did not apply to Jesus.

Water Baptism can be likened to marriage rings. In marriage, people wear wedding rings to indicate their total commitment to one another, and so that others will know they are married.

Water baptism lets the world know they have been born-again and are now members of the Bride of Christ, totally committed to Him as their Lord and Savior.

2). YES.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I read in the commentary by Donald Grey Barnhouse on the baptism of Jesus in Romans where he pointed out that Jesus' baptism is compared to the washing of the sacrifice in Leviticus.

I agree, Jesus had no sins, He had nothing to be cleansed from.

The only reason to explain why Jesus' submitted to Baptism was because of His coming sacrifice.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Matthew 3:16
And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him.

"As by the immersion of His body He dedicated the laver of baptism, He has shewn that to us also, after baptism received, the entrance to heaven is open and the Holy Spirit is given, as it follows, "and the heavens were opened."

This is a great passage proving the necessity of Baptism for Salvation.,

DeaconDean said:

Like I said, I read in the commentary by Donald Grey Barnhouse on the baptism of Jesus in Romans where he pointed out that Jesus' baptism is compared to the washing of the sacrifice in Leviticus.

I agree, Jesus had no sins, He had nothing to be cleansed from.

The only reason to explain why Jesus' submitted to Baptism was because of His coming sacrifice.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

I would say the the only reason was to set an example of obedience.

Major1 said:

I would say the the only reason was to set an example of obedience.

Click to expand...

I am inclined to agree.

Jesus did not lead from the rear. He never asked anyone to do anything He wasn't willing to do himself.

concretecamper said:

Matthew 3:16
And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him.

"As by the immersion of His body He dedicated the laver of baptism, He has shewn that to us also, after baptism received, the entrance to heaven is open and the Holy Spirit is given, as it follows, "and the heavens were opened."

This is a great passage proving the necessity of Baptism for Salvation.,

Click to expand...

Absolutely a wrong exegesis of Scripture.

You said................
"This is a great passage proving the necessity of Baptism for Salvation."

Why in the world would you think that the Man-God, Jesus Christ who was 100% man and 100% God require baptism for salvation??????

Do you realize how absurd your comment is????

Jesus was baptized to identify with humanity.
Jesus was baptized to show obedience.
Jesus was baptized because it is symbolic to death and the resurrection.
Jesus was baptized so as to be set aside for His office as Priest.

But to say that Matt. 3:16 show that Jesus proved the necessity of baptism for salvation is so wrong that it is scary.

"The heavens appear to open or give way."
Something of this kind probably appeared to John at this time. The same appearance took place at Stephen‘s death, Acts 7:56 so do you then say that we all need to be stoned to be saved???????

John Gill says in his commentaries.............
"the airy heaven was materially and really opened, parted, rent, or cloven asunder, as in Mark 1:10 which made way for the visible descent of the Holy Ghost in a bodily shape. A difficulty arises here, whether the words, "to him", are to be referred to Christ, or to John; no doubt but the opening of the heavens was seen by them both: but to me it seems that John is particularly designed, since this vision was upon his account, and for his sake, and to him the following words belong; "and he", that is,".

Major1 said:

Absolutely a wrong exegesis of Scripture.

You said................
"This is a great passage proving the necessity of Baptism for Salvation."

Why in the world would you think that the Man-God, Jesus Christ who was 100% man and 100% God require baptism for salvation?????.

Click to expand...

I never said Jesus needed baptism for salvation. So the rest of your post is meaningless.