If baptism is essential

[- DRA -]

You and eisegesis get along too well. That's my problem with it. You don't evaluate the context. You only view the Scripture as to how it meets your needs and wants.

Nope. It's your eisegesis and that alone. And for the record, repentance goes before the Mosaic Law. Once again, context seems to be avoided by you.

If I am so far off with this thing that you call context, then perhaps you can go to Acts chapter 2 and explain to us what happened, who it happened to, how they responded to it, and how the Lord reacted to it. Why not give us something to work with?

It's not my job to harmonize the former with the latter. It's the other way around. The "New" Testament must get into agreement with the Tanakh. Even according to your Timothy passage, the Scripture FROM TIMOTHY'S CHILDBIRTH is the Tanakh.

The old covenant replaced the new (Heb. 8:13). Is this what that passage says? Isn't it the other way around? Do you accept the N.T. as Scripture? What is your scriptural basis for using the Old Testament to interpret the New? It sounds to me like you are making up the rules as you go. The Old Testament contained the copies, shadows, and types of things under the New Testament (see Heb. 10:1, Rom. 5:14, 1 Pet. 3:20-21).

If 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is referring to just the Old Testament, then you must believe that the Old Testament gives us what we need to "be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (verse 17). If so, then why the New Testament . . . the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25)?

Salvation is offered to Gentiles in the Tanakh. See the Exodus and Isaiah 56 and before Moshe.

Sorry, but I believe that Jesus is the one that came and blessed all families of the earth (see Gen. 12:3, Acts 3:25-26, and Acts 10:34-35). That is the reason He is presented as He is in Matt. 1:1 as the Son of Abraham.

Apparently, the three points taken together is above the realm of reason. I wasn't making it a race issue. Once again, I WAS PROVIDING CONTEXT.

I know exactly what your point was. It was a not-so-veiled threat and condemnation of me. Your thought process would proceed as such:

"I'm doing the work of G-d as Nehemiah did, and m.d. is just like Sanballat." And as v. 5 presents, I'm sure you feel the same way:

Nehemiah 4
5Do not forgive their iniquity and let not their sin be blotted out before You, for they have demoralized the builders.

That insinuation is absolutely ridiculous and derogatory. Unfortunately, that's what has become your modus operandi.

Tell me about all the Jews that didn't obey what Peter told them in Acts 2:38? Did they have their sins taken away?

I've addressed this mantra of yours over and over again. You refuse to acknowledge what I say. Therefore, I'll leave the vain repetitions to you: questions after questions after questions ALL WITHOUT CONTEXT AND UNDERSTANDING.

Once again, why not take just a few minutes and explain to us what Romans 6:3-11 is discussing? You can talk all day long about this thing that you call context, but you don't address passages where baptism is discussed. It sounds like you have formed an understanding of baptism under the gospel of Christ by looking at passages other than where baptism is discussed. Sorry, but that simply won't work for me. Take that passage that you have repeatedly brought up -- Isaiah 45:22. I accept that passage. I think that the Jews that had departed from faithfulness to God under the law of Moses and engaged in idolatry (determined by what I call context) needed to return to God. However, when I look at the New Testament, I do NOT find that only repentance was required for salvation under the gospel. If ignoring all the N.T. passages that discuss salvation under the gospel is what it takes for you and I to stand on common ground, then it "ain't" gonna happen. End of story.

Address my posts, 1635 and 1636, and let's see where that takes us. You base you whole 'baptism' ideology off of a few scant Scripture verses. Whereas, I'm trying to present you with the picture that the entire Word of G-d presents. Have I condemned you as a sinner who can't be saved? Not once, and I won't. Yet, that's all I, and the other people who don't believe as you do, get.

I certainly don't categorize every example of conversion in the book of Acts as a "few scant Scripture verses."

I am not condemning you. I am simply contending (Jude 3) for those things that the Lord says are necessary to be saved today under the gospel of Christ. The necessary inference is that those who don't obey them are condemned by the Lord (see Heb. 5:9, 2 Thess. 1:8) -- not by me. Credit needs to go to whom credit is due!

Because my eyes see things from the Judaic perspective: as Y'shua, Sha'ul, the Apostles, and first century believers would view it. Not from how things become manicured in the last 1800 years.

If this is true, then you have obeyed the Lord (see Mark 16:16) and teach as those in the first century taught, right? Just like in Acts 8:35-39, right?

How can baptism "for the remission of sin" be a product of 1800 years of manicuring when the apostle Peter commanded it in the first-century (Acts 2:38)?

 

[- DRA -]

It's not a dreaded word, I love that word, I loved it so much I chose to be immersed just like those in the 1st century - just like Jesus, Paul, etc.

What is the outcome of those who say they love the Lord and don't do what He says (Luke 6:46, Matt. 7:21-23, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 -- remember, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God - 2 Tim. 3:16a -- Acts 8:12, Acts 8:35-39, Acts 10:43 & 47-48, Acts 16:30-34, Acts 18:8, Acts 19:1-5, and Acts 22:16).

Your dreaded word seems to be context - again, Scripture taken out of context creates a hermenutical gap in which Jesus and Christianity can be remade into whatever idea of point of view man choses.

It seems as if you and M.D. work from the same definition of "context". Now, if it's not too much trouble, perhaps you can go to the passages that I previously listed and tell me what I am taking out of context. For instance, I think those people needed the gospel of Christ, and when they received it they obeyed it. Show me exactly where I get derailed from "context"?

I chose to view Baptism as those who wrote the Scriptures (ie those Jewish authors living in the 1st century) not how some men in the 1500's decided it should mean.

I seems history is also lost on you in addition to context.

Can you show us what the Scriptural basis is for baptism under the gospel of Christ? I base my understanding on what the Scripture says, not upon reformationists in the 1500s. Take, for instance, Romans 6:3-11. Yea. I believe that would be a good starting point. Now, let's discuss "context", shall we?

 

[Jim Woodell]

Turn Signals

I am driving a car. I have an intention already established in my heart that I would like to change my direction. I turn my blinker on to the left or to the right. I have already purposed in my heart what I am going to. I then show the world what I have purposed in my heart. The turn signal is an outward expression of an inward heart condition.

The problem with your presentation is this, and I use the same analogy. You are sitting on the outside observing this car driving down the street. Only in this regard, your preconceived ideas are that turning to the left (Yochanan's baptism of repentance) denotes a different intent than turning to the right[baptism of the L-rd). Whereas, I am asserting the primary fact that baptisms are an outward expression of an inward heart condition. A baptism can be used to demonstrate a change regarding numerous purposes, but that never changes the fact that it is strictly symbolic and outward.

The problem with the "turn signal" analogy (that comes from post #1635 from the thread on the question by Wes Woodell, "Is baptism essential for salvation?"), is that we all know some who have turned on the signal but never turned. You haven't turned until you turn.

If the people who asked, "Men and brothers, What shall we do?", in Acts 2:37 were already saved, why were they told to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."?? The turn signal was on but they were not forgiven until they complied with the directions of God.

 

[Andyman_1970]

DRA - I will be more than happy to address your post however I have one question for you before I address your post point by point.

What is the outcome of those who say they love the Lord and don't do what He says

Are you implying that somehow I have not been obedient to the Lord? And are you implying that such "disobedience" renders me "unsaved"?

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

The problem with the "turn signal" analogy (that comes from post #1635 from the thread on the question by Wes Woodell, "Is baptism essential for salvation?"), is that we all know some who have turned on the signal but never turned. You haven't turned until you turn.

If the people who asked, "Men and brothers, What shall we do?", in Acts 2:37 were already saved, why were they told to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."?? The turn signal was on but they were not forgiven until they complied with the directions of God.

This"for remissions of sin" Or Forgiveness of sins, only after baptism is wrong. Read Acts 10: 43-44 who believes in him recieves FORGIVENESS of sins, 44 While speaking the holy Spirit fell on them, on ward it states afterward they were Baptised. How many examples have we given where it says believe and recieve forgivness. Well then this fits in with Mark 16:16 since it says believe and is baptised. so you believe your saved and then you get water baptised and are saved again. what thats not right, you must do both at once and your saved. how do you do that. Or you say the "and" means both together as one act. but that is ruined with the next part where it states but whoever does not BELIEVE is condemed. It leaves out the baptism part. So it must be one in the same, but it cant if its a spiritual and a physical, because Christ baptises with the holy spirit and to leave that out here would not be right because this is how we are cleansed Titus 3:5. Just believing doesnt cleans us Baptism of the Spirit does. So i just explained Mark 16 and Acts 2:38. I was wondering if you all have done what the rest of Mark 16:17-18. These signs which will accompany them. I doubt it. All the apostles did though.

 

[Qoheleth]

It cant and doesnt. The Spirit of Christ gives you the Holy Spirit

Water baptism and the Spirit are again closely associated. When the Gentiles receive the Spirit, Peter concludes before his Jerusalem audience that who was he to "hinder" (koluein) God. Peter uses the same word "hinder" (koluein) in Acts 11 that he had used in Acts 10:47 in relation to the need for the people to be baptized. Even as no one should hinder baptism, so Peter says that he must not hinder God. To hinder the people from being baptized is to HINDER GOD. It is GOD who is at work in baptism.

Luke clearly establishes a connection between water baptism and the Spirit. In Acts 2:38 the Spirit is promised to those who are baptized. But in Acts 10 Cornelius' household receives the Spirit first and then is baptized. Acts 19 records the "disciples" first being baptized and then receiving the Spirit. Luke does not then seem to be establishing a clear sequence between the events. BUT: note how they are always in the immediate context of the other.

The Spirit is assuredly a promise in connection with baptism in Acts 2:38. It's a lot like John 3:8: you hear the sound of the wind but don't know where it's coming from or where it's going. The two are certainly connected.


Q

 

[muffler dragon]

The problem with the "turn signal" analogy (that comes from post #1635 from the thread on the question by Wes Woodell, "Is baptism essential for salvation?"), is that we all know some who have turned on the signal but never turned. You haven't turned until you turn.

Jim,

You're missing the point. There are exceptions to every rule. What I am presenting is the general consensus of action. The main point that I am getting to, is that for all your observation and consideration: you can never know when someone is forgiven, saved or anything of an internal nature. You can try to guage from the outside (viewing a car with a turn signal); but you don't know the intentions. Everything is symbolic to the outside person.

If the people who asked, "Men and brothers, What shall we do?", in Acts 2:37 were already saved, why were they told to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."?? The turn signal was on but they were not forgiven until they complied with the directions of God.

Let's say there is a total of 5 books in the Bible that talks about salvation and baptism (as you allude it does). It's just a guess of a number. Some might say more, some might say less. That is equivalent to 7.5% of the Bible, and less than 100 years in chronological time (considering this is only in the B'rit Chadasha). Are you that gung-ho on a doctrine that has such little support that you would go so far as to condemn as DRA has? Are you that ready to question the salvation of others over something that only a few denominations in the entire world of Christendom hold to? Sorry, but I find it to be trivial. You've treated me with more respect than your counterpart(s), and that is why I am asking you these questions. You're certainly free to not respond, and that would be fine. I'm just throwing it out there for internal reflection, if nothing else.

Lastly, I mentioned this before, and I believe we can use this as the litmus test that will give us a 'end' to the situation (it may just take a while). You go ahead and hold on to your belief that my salvation is somehow in jeopardy. I will go ahead and NOT get baptised as is prescribed, and we'll see how it all pans out after we're dead. How does that sound for a deal?

Regards,

m.d.

 

[Jim Woodell]

You're missing the point. There are exceptions to every rule. What I am presenting is the general consensus of action. The main point that I am getting to, is that for all your observation and consideration: you can never know when someone is forgiven, saved or anything of an internal nature. You can try to guage from the outside (viewing a car with a turn signal); but you don't know the intentions. Everything is symbolic to the outside person.

I don't think I am missing your point: Generally when people engage their turn signal they turn, but some don't. The rule is they do turn. So the rule I insist on, and the Bible supports, is that those who believe were (as a rule) baptized. Trees didn't fall on them on the way to the water and they didn't get killed in chariot wrecks. I know God will deal with the exceptions. Whether symbolic or not, people in the NT who believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God were baptized in water.

It is my observation that people today, you seem to be included, want to take POSSIBLE exceptions to the rule of baptizing believers immediately, as they did in the NT, to teaching baptism is not necessary or having special baptismal ceremonies every quarter, etc.

Where is the example in scripture where any believer delayed in getting baptized after the believed and repented?

 

[muffler dragon]

If I am so far off with this thing that you call context, then perhaps you can go to Acts chapter 2 and explain to us what happened, who it happened to, how they responded to it, and how the Lord reacted to it. Why not give us something to work with?

I have DRA. I've shown you extra-biblical and Jewish documentation on this situation, yet you refuse it out-of-hand, because of the myopic nature of this project. What point is there to a dialogue if one side refuses to acknowledge the truth outside of the box?

The old covenant replaced the new (Heb. 8:13). Is this what that passage says? Isn't it the other way around?

Here is something for you to consider:

There is a process within the heavenlies where the lunar schedule is set upon 28 days. Within this lunar schedule, there are a number of different phases of the moon. One of these phases is the New Moon. Do you realilze that the word used for "New" in New Moon is the same word used when describing the B'rit Chadasha. I assure you that it is. Therefore, what insight can this give us? The very fact that the moon does not re-create itself every 28 days. Instead, the cycle is refreshed; it is RENEWED. The exact same thing is considered with the "reNEWed" Covenant. It's not a creation from scratch. It's a renewing. And in this situation, the contract is the same: the Torah.

Do you accept the N.T. as Scripture?

How many times do I need to explain my view of this? I view the B'rit Chadasha as inspired. However, there are different levels of inspiration (and this is even a Jewish consideration): the highest inspiration is the Torah. The next level involved the Tanakh, and thirdly, there is commentary. I rank the B'rit Chadasha somewhere between the Tanakh and the commentary.

What is your scriptural basis for using the Old Testament to interpret the New? It sounds to me like you are making up the rules as you go.

It's a Judaic concept. Something I would presume you can't understand.

The Old Testament contained the copies, shadows, and types of things under the New Testament (see Heb. 10:1, Rom. 5:14, 1 Pet. 3:20-21).

And? What's your point? Is that supposed to make the Tanakh suspect or of less meaning than the B'rit Chadasha? As I've mentioned numerous times, the only Scripture that Y'shua and Sha'ul held as "inspired" was the Tanakh. What's good enough for them is good enough for me. If you've got a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with them.

If 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is referring to just the Old Testament, then you must believe that the Old Testament gives us what we need to "be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (verse 17). If so, then why the New Testament . . . the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25)?

Let me walk you through this passage:

James 1
22But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.


23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;


24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.


25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.

DRA, do you know what Ya'acov is referencing here? Let me show you, and then we'll discuss it:

Exodus 19

8(A)All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do!" And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

Exodus 24

3Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, "(D)All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!"

7Then he took (I)the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, "(J)All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!"

The Lord has spoken = to hear or be a hearer of the Word.
We will do = doer of the Word.

Therefore, what is Ya'acov talking about above with the "the perfect law, the law of liberty"? HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE TORAH. And he admonishes us not to just be "hearers" of it, but also "doers". The Torah frees us from the "law of sin". This is the same thing that Sha'ul talks about; yet is so confused by people of a non-Jewish persuasion. Once again, this is why context is crucial.

Sorry, but I believe that Jesus is the one that came and blessed all families of the earth (see Gen. 12:3, Acts 3:25-26, and Acts 10:34-35). That is the reason He is presented as He is in Matt. 1:1 as the Son of Abraham.

You prove my point over and over again. You only see what fits your dogma. I don't care what your opinion is. I have presented Scripture with the fact of the matter. Salvation was available before 2000 years ago. It's visible in the Tanakh. If you can't accept that, then take it up with G-d.

Tell me about all the Jews that didn't obey what Peter told them in Acts 2:38? Did they have their sins taken away?

When you become G-d how about you let me know? As for me, I have no idea when a person's sins are taken away. Nor does anyone else for that matter. G-d is the One Who takes care of that issue.

Once again, why not take just a few minutes and explain to us what Romans 6:3-11 is discussing?

I've dealt with before. Sha'ul is talking about symbolism. Do you not recall that I asked you if believe you were physically crucified and resurrected with Christ? It's called symbolism. Just like baptism: it's a symbolic expression of an inward heart condition. That's the part you can't get past.

You can talk all day long about this thing that you call context, but you don't address passages where baptism is discussed.

Let's not get into a discussion about who addresses who's arguments. I have been a lot more forthright in addressing your arguments and your tangents, then you ever have been of mine. The part that you fail to realize is the fact that you never counter my "context" argument. Do you realize that Y'shua (your Jesus) was a Jew in the first century, who was a Jewish rabbi? Do you cognitively comprehend that? If you do, then why not accept the context of the situation? If you don't, then at least admit it.

It sounds like you have formed an understanding of baptism under the gospel of Christ by looking at passages other than where baptism is discussed.

And you seem to ignore the myriad of passages that talk about salvation OUTSIDE of baptism. The proof is overwhelmingly on my side; not just by numbers, but also by substance.

Sorry, but that simply won't work for me. Take that passage that you have repeatedly brought up -- Isaiah 45:22. I accept that passage. I think that the Jews that had departed from faithfulness to God under the law of Moses and engaged in idolatry (determined by what I call context) needed to return to God.

It's addressed to Cyrus, a GENTILE Ruler. It's addressed to ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH. That would include EVERYONE. Do you honestly miss that? It's not just the Jews.

However, when I look at the New Testament, I do NOT find that only repentance was required for salvation under the gospel. If ignoring all the N.T. passages that discuss salvation under the gospel is what it takes for you and I to stand on common ground, then it "ain't" gonna happen. End of story.

The Tanakh is all that was available to Y'shua and Sha'ul. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I will gladly ignore the B'rit Chadasha and take the Tanakh. You, unfortunately, do the exact opposite and ignore the Tanakh. And by doing so, you take the foundation out from underneath your feet. Without the Tanakh, you don't have a leg to stand on. And that, my friend, is context.

As far as salvation goes, I have also shown how it is addressed in the B'rit Chadasha. As you may recall (or may not), there are no verses in the Brit Chadasha that say "baptism is essential to salvation". I don't see that anywhere. I also don't see any verses where baptism and salvation are even in the same sentence. Even in your beloved KJV there is no verse where the two words are used together. I have given you figures that show that salvation is in the Tanakh more than two times the amount in the B'rit Chadasha. The word saved is used on a 1:1 basis. Yet, this makes no impression upon you? Is this sacred cow becoming a little too golden? Myopic is the only word I can think of to describe it.

I certainly don't categorize every example of conversion in the book of Acts as a "few scant Scripture verses."

Are we talking about conversion or instances of baptism. Let's talk about actual baptism occurrences in the B'rit Chadasha.

1) Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3,
2) Luke 7
3) John 3
4) Acts 2
5) Acts 8:12
6) Acts 8:36
7) Acts 9
8) Acts 10
9) Acts 16:15
10) Acts 16:33
11) Acts 18
12) Acts 19
13) Acts 22

There are thirteen different occurrences within the B'rit Chadasha that discuss people getting baptised.

Now, let's look at the ones after the gospels, because these would supposedly be the baptism for this new forgiveness or remission of sins (explicitly stated by someone):

1) Acts 2 (check)
2) Acts 8:12 (no)
3) Acts 8:36 (no) *and btw, you do realize that "eunuch" is a mistranslation, correct?
4) Acts 9 (no)
5) Acts 10 (no) this time Kefa made no mention of "forgiveness/remission of sins"
6) Acts 16:15 (no)
7) Acts 16:33 (no)
8) Acts 18 (no)
9) Acts 19 (no)
10) Acts 22 (no)

Only one time is 'baptism' said to be for the 'remission of sins'; and even Kefa was not consistent in making this known. So, out of all this mess, there is only one verse that blatantly says, "be baptized for the remission/forgiveness of sins". I find that to be scant.

I am not condemning you. I am simply contending (Jude 3) for those things that the Lord says are necessary to be saved today under the gospel of Christ.

Color it however you want. Condemnation is condemnation. There is no reason why salvation would be any more intricate under the 'gospel of Christ' than it would have been before hand.

The necessary inference is that those who don't obey them are condemned by the Lord (see Heb. 5:9, 2 Thess. 1:8) -- not by me. Credit needs to go to whom credit is due!

The understanding of 'obedience' is even quite different between you and me.

If this is true, then you have obeyed the Lord (see Mark 16:16) and teach as those in the first century taught, right? Just like in Acts 8:35-39, right?

My goal is to operate under the example of Jewish rabbi 2000 years ago; not in how you would interpret it. I care much more about not being labed "lawless" than I do about your ideology of baptism.

How can baptism "for the remission of sin" be a product of 1800 years of manicuring when the apostle Peter commanded it in the first-century (Acts 2:38)?

Well, DRA, since Kefa only says this once, and it's only said by him that might lead to a lack of exegesis on the part of the folks within your congregation. That's not for me to evaluate, because I don't care. It's you who is trying to divorce Y'shua, Sha'ul, and the Apostles from being Jews; not me. Therefore, I can't help you on how you may or may not construe their messages.

 

[muffler dragon]

So the rule I insist on, and the Bible supports, is that those who believe were (as a rule) baptized.

And somehow you read into that that 'baptism is essential for salvation"? According to the Jewish perspective, baptism is an outward expression of an inward heart condition. According to a Jewish perspective, baptism can be performed more than once. Do you agree with these two premises of context?

And there is no proof positive consideration that all believers throughout eternity were baptised. Therefore, you can't say that it is the rule.

Whether symbolic or not, people in the NT who believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God were baptized in water.

Then why do you believe it was more than symbolic? There's nothing to suggest from history and Scripture that it was anything more than symbolic.

It is my observation that people today, you seem to be included, want to take POSSIBLE exceptions to the rule of baptizing believers immediately, as they did in the NT, to teaching baptism is not necessary or having special baptismal ceremonies every quarter, etc.

I don't care if someone gets baptised. It's an outward expression of an inward heart condition. IF ONE DOES NOT GET BAPTIZED, THEN THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEIR HEART CONDITION IS ANY LESS SINCERE.

Where is the example in scripture where any believer delayed in getting baptized after the believed and repented?

Show me proof that every believer in eternity got baptised IN ORDER TO BE SAVED, and I'll answer your request.

 

[Qoheleth]

baptism is an outward expression of an inward heart condition

There's nothing to suggest from history and Scripture that it was anything more than symbolic

I feel that it is safe to assume that you do not subscribe to infant baptism, no matter. I am not attempting to prove its validity. What I would like to demonstrate to you is that Baptism was not considered what you have above labeled it as being in your quote from early church History.

Although I use quotes from the early church, this will provide a basis of information from credible church History. Indeed, church history shows the need for baptism, even in infants (which is not our dispute, but it is telling).

Secondly, Look at the words used in relation to the act of baptism: Remission, Sanctification, Grace, Mercy, Sacred, Forgiveness, Washed, Purified, Regenerated, Sacrament and so on.

These words assuredly are attach to baptism and are more than an "inward condition". Our salvation is hinged upon our being righteous and perfect before the Father. We only have this condition through Christ and his sacrifice which gained for us the forgiveness of sins and therefore the righteous standing before the Father. Without being forgiven, we do not have paradise to call our home. This is the History that needs to be considered.


[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).


Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).


Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"Well enough, some will say, for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too? Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).


John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christs] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christs] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christs Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V
"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the [/font]sacraments[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II
"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the catholic church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

[/font]

 

[muffler dragon]

I feel that it is safe to assume that you do not subscribe to infant baptism, no matter. I am not attempting to prove its validity. What I would like to demonstrate to you is that Baptism was not considered what you have above labeled it as being in your quote from early church History.

No, I do not believe in infant baptism either. I think dedication is fine, but that's neither here nor there.

Although I use quotes from the early church, this will provide a basis of information from credible church History. Indeed, church history shows the need for baptism, even in infants (which is not our dispute, but it is telling).

Secondly, Look at the words used in relation to the act of baptism: Remission, Sanctification, Grace, Mercy, Sacred, Forgiveness, Washed, Purified, Regenerated, Sacrament and so on.

These words assuredly are attach to baptism and are more than an "inward condition". Our salvation is hinged upon our being righteous and perfect before the Father. We only have this condition through Christ and his sacrifice which gained for us the forgiveness of sins and therefore the righteous standing before the Father. Without being forgiven, we do not have paradise to call our home. This is the History that needs to be considered.

I do, sincerely, appreciate you taking the time to present your argument. And I have to admit that it is rather disconcerting that you had not been involved from beforehand, not only for our benefit; but also for your own.

The reason I say that is because I have been driving home a main point from day one, and I'll share it with you here: baptism is not something that was novel to Christianity. It was a part of Judaism, and therefore, the proper context and understanding of baptism will come from a Judaic understanding, perspective and context. None of the people you write of below were Jews. None of them present an argument/statement/belief based on a Judaic perspective of 'baptism'. Only one even uses a passage from the Tanakh, and it takes one singular instance of a baptism and adopts it as the "plumb line" by which all other instances are adopted. Therefore, I have to admit that, while I understand exactly what you are presenting, I don't see how it becomes any more relevant to the situation than what is presented by the other pro-essentials. To me, the context is still absent, and therefore anything that comes afterwards is not based on a clear understanding of what is going on.

Regards,

m.d.

 

[Qoheleth]

To me, the context is still absent, and therefore anything that comes afterwards is not based on a clear understanding of what is going on.

You are trying to establish the similarities of the Jewish use of baptism as compared and contrasted to the Christian use. Indeed, I understand your purpose.

"But, this custom, though observed as a religious action, yet has scarce any appearance of religion and devotion in it; but looks rather like a civil affair, it being in some cases under the cognizance and by the direction of the Sanhedrim, or court of judicature. There was no divine solemnity in the performance of it. It was not administered in the name of the God of Israel, whom the Jews professed; nor in the name of the Messiah to come, expected by them, as was the baptism of John; nor in the name of the Three divine Persons in the Trinity, which yet the ancient Jews believed.(Gill)

"To suppose that John took up the practice of baptizing as he found it among the Jews, and from a tradition and custom of theirs, greatly detracts from the character of John, his divine mission, and the credit of baptism, as administered by him; and is contrary to what the scriptures say concerning him. They represent him as the first administrator of baptism, and, for a while, the sole administrator of it; for, for what other reason do they call him the Baptist, and distinguish him by this title, if it was then a common thing, and had been usual in time past, to baptize persons?

The scriptures say he was a man sent of God, and sent by him "to baptize with water" (John 1:6, 33). But what need was there of a mission and commission to what was in common use, and had been so time out of mind? The Jews hearing of John’s baptizing persons, sent messengers to him, to know who he was that took upon him to baptize; who asked, "Why baptizest thou, if thou art not that Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet?" As if it was a new thing; and that it was expected he should be some extraordinary person who baptized. But why should such questions be put to him, if this was in common use, and if any ordinary person, however any common doctor or Rabbi, had then, and in former times, been used to baptize persons(JG)?

The scriptures speak of John’s baptism as the "counsel of God": but according to this notion, it was a device and tradition of men; and had this been the case, the Jews would not have been at a loss, nor under any difficulty, to answer the question Christ put to them, nor indeed, would he ever have put such an one; "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men?" for his putting the question thus, supposes the contrary, that it was not from men, but from God: and if it was not of God, but a tradition of men, they could have readily said, "Of men"; without being confuted by him, or exposed to the people; but being thrown into a dilemma, they took the wisest way for themselves, and answered, "We cannot tell". "

 

[Toney]

Here is the link to an informative essay on Myth, Ritual and Initiation. That is what is being discussed, in a rather myopic way, in this thread. This is a quote from that essay (emphasis mine):

The crucial experience of the initiate is that of death to the old self–and the rebirth of a new. In traditional puberty initiations, the initiate dies to her or his childhood and is reborn as an adult member of the society. In initiatory rites like the ones depicted at the Villa of the Mysteries, the initiate is entering a single-sex, secret society. Unlike the puberty initiation, this ritual is not obligatory for all members of the society, and its secrets are carefully guarded from the uninitiated. Again Eliade explains, "It is an almost universal religious idea that the physical birth produces only a physical man and that the living spirit has to be brought into being by a second birth" (Myths, Dreams and Mysteries, 179). Today we are familiar with the idea of a second, spiritual birth via the Christian ritual of baptism, in which one is accepted into the community of Christian believers. In the case of the cult of the Villa of the Mysteries, the Roman matron, feeling a need for spiritual, inner rejuvenation, "died" to her profane condition as a social being, and through the initiatory ordeal, was born again, this time on a deep, archetypal level.

These rituals are entirely symbolic. Water is a universal religious symbol for regeneration, rebirth, renewal, etc.

 

[Toney]

"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men?" for his putting the question thus, supposes the contrary, that it was not from men, but from God: and if it was not of God, but a tradition of men, they could have readily said, "Of men"; without being confuted by him, or exposed to the people; but being thrown into a dilemma, they took the wisest way for themselves, and answered, "We cannot tell". "

Nice quote from John Gill. Why not put it in context? The question was not answered because of fear of John's disciples (Mt 21) since John was considered a prophet. The discussion went to authority, not to the nature of baptism itself.

Why quote John Gill in the first place? Our understanding of the Bible has come a long way since the 1700's what with Biblical scholarship, don't you agree?

(Sorry to but in on this fine discussion, m.d. I will but back out. There is little point in arguing John Gill's sermons with Fundies.)

 

[muffler dragon]

Toney,

Do you feel that baptism is essential for salvation? I am reading into your statements above that you do not, but I would like to be corrected if wrong.

m.d.

 

[Toney]

Toney,

Do you feel that baptism is essential for salvation? I am reading into your statements above that you do not, but I would like to be corrected if wrong.

m.d.

Of course not. Contrary to the religious thought of the great Agustine, I do not believe infant exorcism is necessary.

I am, however, baptized as are my children and grandchildren. If one is to be raised in the Christian tradition, it is, IMO, essential. Males in this same group of people to whom I refer are also circumcized, for religious reasons. That was not necessary either, but just makes us all feel that we are part of something big.

 

[Qoheleth]

Why quote John Gill in the first place? Our understanding of the Bible has come a long way since the 1700's what with Biblical scholarship, don't you agree?

I have not seen arguments, with as much validity as his put forth (why I quoted him anyway) since.

If scholarship has "come a long way", than has the church been in complete error since the beginning? Is it Logic and scholarship that guides the scripture only or is the Holy spirit present to guide also.

Was the Holy spirit absent for many centuries and scholarship the only means available?

Q

 

[muffler dragon]

You are trying to establish the similarities of the Jewish use of baptism as compared and contrasted to the Christian use. Indeed, I understand your purpose.

Glad to hear it.

But, this custom, though observed as a religious action, yet has scarce any appearance of religion and devotion in it; but looks rather like a civil affair, it being in some cases under the cognizance and by the direction of the Sanhedrim, or court of judicature. There was no divine solemnity in the performance of it. It was not administered in the name of the God of Israel, whom the Jews professed; nor in the name of the Messiah to come, expected by them, as was the baptism of John; nor in the name of the Three divine Persons in the Trinity, which yet the ancient Jews believed.

You add some qualifiers on this that might be of interest to discuss:

1) appearance of religion and devotion. I disagree. If my premise is correct, then there is plenty of "religion and devotion" in it. If baptism is an outward expression of an inward heart condition, then what is that heart condition? Repentant. I view that as a religious and devotional act. However, I do not view it as more than that.

2) under the direction of the Sanhedrin. I don't believe that you need to have a clergical figure in order to 'sanctify' such a situation. That appears to be more of a modern consideration (modern being within the last 2000 years).

3) no divine solemnity in the performance. I would consider this strictly an opinionated statement considering we don't know how much was given or not. I find repentance to be very solemn.

4) administered in the name of the God of Israel. Baptisms and cleansings are spoken of in the Torah. If something is written through G-d's inspiration, then isn't it also performed under His Supervision. Besides, you need to remember that great care was taken by Jews not to profane the actual name of G-d. Therefore, I don't think this can be a negator of the practice already established.

"To suppose that John took up the practice of baptizing as he found it among the Jews, and from a tradition and custom of theirs, greatly detracts from the character of John, his divine mission, and the credit of baptism, as administered by him; and is contrary to what the scriptures say concerning him. They represent him as the first administrator of baptism, and, for a while, the sole administrator of it; for, for what other reason do they call him the Baptist, and distinguish him by this title, if it was then a common thing, and had been usual in time past, to baptize persons?

I find there to be no valid consideration that shows that Yochanan was the first person to perform baptisms. Mikvehs were common prior to his existence.

The scriptures say he was a man sent of God, and sent by him "to baptize with water" (John 1:6, 33). But what need was there of a mission and commission to what was in common use, and had been so time out of mind? The Jews hearing of John’s baptizing persons, sent messengers to him, to know who he was that took upon him to baptize; who asked, "Why baptizest thou, if thou art not that Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet?" As if it was a new thing; and that it was expected he should be some extraordinary person who baptized. But why should such questions be put to him, if this was in common use, and if any ordinary person, however any common doctor or Rabbi, had then, and in former times, been used to baptize persons?

I believe that Toney has addressed this issue. If not, I shall come back to it. However, I would like to make note of his statement, and give my twist:

The Jews did not send messengers to Yochanan to ask about his baptism. It was the Sanhedrin, and as Toney said, it dealt with authority not baptism.

The scriptures speak of John’s baptism as the "counsel of God": but according to this notion, it was a device and tradition of men; and had this been the case, the Jews would not have been at a loss, nor under any difficulty, to answer the question Christ put to them, nor indeed, would he ever have put such an one; "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men?" for his putting the question thus, supposes the contrary, that it was not from men, but from God: and if it was not of God, but a tradition of men, they could have readily said, "Of men"; without being confuted by him, or exposed to the people; but being thrown into a dilemma, they took the wisest way for themselves, and answered, "We cannot tell". "

I think this is addressed in my previous statement and that by Toney.

 

[Qoheleth]

If one is to be raised in the Christian tradition, it is, IMO, essential.

Is this not simply Law and legalism with no real end if grace and forgiveness and salvation are not attached to it??

Q