Matthew 28:18-20

[W Jay Schroeder]

Why do people believe that the word BAPTISM in this Passage refers to water baptism. Or does making Disciples of men mean saving people and then water baptizing them. It means a spiritual Baptism which Jesus does and what Titus 3:4-8 shows and Rom 6 discribes. This is also considered the great commision

 

[St. Worm2]

Why do people believe that the word BAPTISM in this Passage refers to water baptism. Or does making Disciples of men mean saving people and then water baptizing them. It means a spiritual Baptism which Jesus does and what Titus 3:4-8 shows and Rom 6 discribes. This is also considered the great commision

Hi Jay, I don't believe we are regenerated by water baptism, but I've always thought this passage in Matthew was talking about water baptism. In fact, as I look over my various commentaries, I can't find any that agree with your interpretation, all consider this to be 'water' baptism. Anyway, since WE are the ones commanded to do this baptism, how could it be the baptism of the Spirit anyway ..

Yours and His,
David

 

[filosofer]

What makes you think there is a separation between water and Spirit? The text says BAPTIZW.

 

[St. Worm2]

What makes you think there is a separation between water and Spirit? The text says BAPTIZW.

Could be, I guess, if you are water baptized at the exact moment the Holy Spirit regenerates you, IOW, the moment you first believed and came to saving faith in Christ. That seems a bit unusual though, don't you think?

Yours and His,
David

 

[St. Worm2]

... does making Disciples of men mean saving people and then water baptizing them?

Here is a quote from the MacArthur Commentary on Matthew:

''Mathēteuō (make disciples) is the main verb and the central command of verses 19–20, which form the closing sentence of Matthew’s gospel. The root meaning of the term refers to believing and learning. Jesus was not referring simply to believers or simply to learners, or He would have used other words. Mathēteuō carries a beautiful combination of meanings. In this context it relates to those who place their trust in Jesus Christ and follow Him in lives of continual learning and obedience. “If you abide in My word,” Jesus said, “then you are truly disciples of Mine” (John 8:31). It should be noted that some disciples were not true (see John 6:66).

A person who is not Christ’s true disciple does not belong to Him and is not saved. When a person genuinely confesses Christ as Lord and Savior, he is immediately saved, immediately made a disciple, and immediately filled with the Holy Spirit. Not to be Christ’s disciple is therefore not to be Christ’s at all.


The "Great Commission" is a command to bring unbelievers throughout the world to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and the term the Lord uses in this commissioning is Mathēteuō (make disciples). (And) ... The initial act of obedience to Christ after salvation is to submit to baptism as a testimony to union with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection."

So the answer to your question above is, yes!

As a side note, if Dr. MacArthur is correct about his translation, this certainly makes a very strong argument for what has come to be called, "Lordship Salvation" (IOW, you cannot truly consider Jesus to be your "Savior" if you do not then follow Him as your "Lord").

Yours and His,
David

 

[Kaitsu]

Why do people believe that the word BAPTISM in this Passage refers to water baptism. Or does making Disciples of men mean saving people and then water baptizing them. It means a spiritual Baptism which Jesus does and what Titus 3:4-8 shows and Rom 6 discribes. This is also considered the great commision

I believe it refers to both Spirit and water baptism. Jesus' command is to do three things: 1) to bring people to open their hearts to Christ so that the Spirit may enter them (baptism in the Spirit), 2) to baptise them with water for the forgiveness of their sins, and 3) then to teach them what they need in order to continue as disciples:

".......go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Matt 28:19-20

It is unusual for these to occur simultaneously, and we usually see two main approaches: 1) adult water baptism following acceptance of Christ, 2) infant baptism followed by acceptance of Christ at some later stage in life. That these are two separate events is described in Acts when Paul goes to Ephesus:

"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John's baptism,” they replied.

Paul said, “John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all." Acts 19:1-7

But in Matt 28, Jesus starts by saying "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me", and what follows is therefore a delegation of that authority. Therefore I don't think there is any reason to doubt that the disciples were empowered to baptise people in the same way as Paul such that the Holy Spirit comes upon them as well as water baptism.

Kaitsu

 

[ischus]

As stated above, the focus of this verse is on making disciples. It is the only verb, and the main command. The other three actions (go, baptize, and teach) are all participles, dependent upon the verb (make disciples). Jesus is assuming that making disciples involves going to people, teaching them and baptizing them. The three participles are all descriptive parts of the main verb.

To address your main question, I don't believe that his disciples knew any other form of baptism other than physical, water baptism. In light of the most recent baptism (John's) it should be fairly obvious what baptism entails here. Spirit baptism and Water baptism are always simultaneous (iow go together) in the NT, except for a few times when God is making a social/racial point of unity and brotherhood.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

As stated above, the focus of this verse is on making disciples. It is the only verb, and the main command. The other three actions (go, baptize, and teach) are all participles, dependent upon the verb (make disciples). Jesus is assuming that making disciples involves going to people, teaching them and baptizing them. The three participles are all descriptive parts of the main verb.

To address your main question, I don't believe that his disciples knew any other form of baptism other than physical, water baptism. In light of the most recent baptism (John's) it should be fairly obvious what baptism entails here. Spirit baptism and Water baptism are always simultaneous (iow go together) in the NT, except for a few times when God is making a social/racial point of unity and brotherhood.

I do not believe Christ assumes anything put it is we that assume. Disciples follow a certain person because of what they teach and they like it. So they were to make nations follow Christ, Or in essence teach them what I have taught you. The next verse says Baptize them. It could only mean of the Spirit because this is what saves you. This cleanses your spirit, or gives birth to the spirit. Read Titus 3:4-8. It then states to teach them to obey what was taught to them. All that Christ taught was the two commands Love they nieghbor and Love God with all your heart. Also if you look in Luke it says it differently with out the Baptism word, Or is this a entirely different conversation. If so it doesnt fit with Matt.Luke says repentance and forgiveness of sins will be taught to all nations. Sounds the same IF you read it has a spiritual baptism. Water and the spirit never go together in the New Testament. show me. Look at Acts 11:15-18 It shows the holy Spirit baptism and not water baptism, it also shows that Peter probably did know only of the water baptism , since this is what John the baptist taught. BUT he remembered what John said of Christ. Paul said in 1 Cor. 1:17 that He was not sent to baptize any one but to preach the Gospel. So here Paul states that its not that important. And if he who was personly taught by Christ and not the apostles states this then why would Christ have told the apostles to do it.

 

[St. Worm2]

Paul said in 1 Cor. 1:17 that He was not sent to baptize any one but to preach the Gospel. So here Paul states that its not that important. And if he who was personly taught by Christ and not the apostles states this then why would Christ have told the apostles to do it.

Hi Jay, while (as I stated above) I don't believe that water baptism is regenerative, we must not infer from this one passage in 1 Corinthians that it is "not that important". While I DO believe this passage clearly tells us that it is UN-Scriptural to hold water baptism as essential to salvation, it is, nevertheless, a clear act of disobedience to Christ (or Christ's teachings through the Apostles) to undervalue or neglect it (water baptism being both commanded by and participated in by Christ Himself .. see Matthew 3:13-17 & 28:19). In this passage, Paul most likely needed to focus on the ministry the Lord gave to him (teaching/preaching), and simply entrusted baptizing to others. (see Acts 10:48).


Again too, in verses like Matthew 28:19, we are the ones commanded to do the baptizing. How can a baptism that WE perform be the baptism of the Holy Spirit?


Finally, v19's principle command, Mathēteuō ("make disciples"), which includes as part of its meaning: "those who place their trust in Jesus Christ" (see post #5 above), was followed by the command to be baptized. And since we are talking about people who are already saved (and therefore already HAVE the Spirit .. see Romans 8:9b), the baptism that Christ speaks of here must be the church sacrament, water baptism!


Yours and His,
David

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Hi Jay, while (as I stated above) I don't believe that water baptism is regenerative, we must not infer from this one passage in 1 Corinthians that it is "not that important". While I DO believe this passage clearly tells us that it is UN-Scriptural to hold water baptism as essential to salvation, it is, nevertheless, a clear act of disobedience to Christ (or Christ's teachings through the Apostles) to undervalue or neglect it (water baptism being both commanded by and participated in by Christ Himself .. see Matthew 3:13-17 & 28:19). In this passage, Paul most likely needed to focus on the ministry the Lord gave to him (teaching/preaching), and simply entrusted baptizing to others. (see Acts 10:48).


Again too, in verses like Matthew 28:19, we are the ones commanded to do the baptizing. How can a baptism that WE perform be the baptism of the Holy Spirit?


Finally, v19's principle command, Mathēteuō ("make disciples"), which includes as part of its meaning: "those who place their trust in Jesus Christ" (see post #5 above), was followed by the command to be baptized. And since we are talking about people who are already saved (and therefore already HAVE the Spirit .. see Romans 8:9b), the baptism that Christ speaks of here must be the church sacrament, water baptism!


Yours and His,
David

He is only speaking to the apostles in this instance. Why would he not ever in his life of teaching ever talk about water baptism. He never once said the word in any of his teachings. Yet he says it here out of now where just to the apostles right before he leaves with no instructions on the prober method and time and so on. Why is it not said the same in the other Gospels. And why if it was important or a command to these apostles not to Paul who wrote most of the new testement. I find that odd. Christ taught that we are all his servants. I doubt that the apostles were the only people spreading the good news, and people where turning to God and saved by them as well. Yet would they have known of water baptism if he only told the apostles. Why does it only say in Eph. 4:5 "one baptism" maybe this is only good for use in claiming that water baptism is not reguired for salvation. I find it hard to believe that this one verse Christ is making a command right before he assends to heaven. Oh by the way I'm commanding water baptism, but only for you guys to preach, not Paul, they will have to figure out that i commanded it some other way since he will tell them its not part of the gospel for which you they to teach. I just dont see this interpratation fitting with the other accounts in Mark and Luke. Am I going to be less saved if I dont get baptized or less blessed because I dont. And if so how would it be different by not doing any of his other commands. Of course i would be less blessed but no more then with not doing any other one.

 

[filosofer]

In this passage, Paul most likely needed to focus on the ministry the Lord gave to him (teaching/preaching), and simply entrusted baptizing to others.

The participles "Baptizing" and "Teaching" are how disciples are made, probably best translated "make disciples by baptizing... and by teaching". Notice the ones being made disciples are not the active ones in "baptizing and teaching".

Again too, in verses like Matthew 28:19, we are the ones commanded to do the baptizing. How can a baptism that WE perform be the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

The same way that the words we speak are used by the Holy Spirit to carry out God's work. Do you believe that when you tell about "Jesus Christ and him cruficied" that the Holy Spirit uses your words to "make alive" (Rom. 10:14-17; Eph. 2:4-5)? It's all God's work - using the means of baptizing and teaching to achieve his goal - "making disciples".

And since we are talking about people who are already saved (and therefore already HAVE the Spirit .. , the baptism that Christ speaks of here must be the church sacrament, water baptism!

Depends on who you mean by "people who are already saved". Yes, those who are disciples do the baptizing (of those who are not) and the teaching (of those who are not). But if you mean "people who are already saved" as referring to those who need to be baptized (so-called "believer's baptism"), then that is an assumption pushed into the text of Matthew 28.

 

[St. Worm2]

He is only speaking to the apostles in this instance. Why would he not ever in his life of teaching ever talk about water baptism.

He didn't? What about His command to John the Baptist to "fulfill all righteousness" by baptizing Him in the Jordon River? (Matthew 3:13-17) Clearly this was a water baptism (see v16)! Jay, water baptism was not some unknown practice in Israel, it was commonplace, and you need not look any futher than John the Baptist's ministry to understand that!

Also, on several occasions, John's and Jesus' 'baptisms' are compared with one another. In another, John's and the Apostles' were. Certainly you understand that John the Baptist baptized with water, yes (John 1:26)? Of that, there is no question, as God Himself sent John to baptize "in water" (John 1:33). Knowing that, what kind of baptisms do you believe Jesus, John, and the Apostles were performing? See below:

"Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized—for John had not yet been thrown into prison." (John 3:22-24)

"When the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were), He left Judea and went away again into Galilee." (John 4:1-3)

You continue:

Yet he says it here out of nowhere just to the apostles right before he leaves with no instructions on the prober method and time and so on. Why is it not said the same in the other Gospels. And why if it was important or a command to these apostles not to Paul who wrote most of the new testement. I find that odd.

That's because they had seen Christ baptizing in water during their entire time together, and, of course, had been doing it themselves (as you just saw above). This is what they were used to! Here below is another place that clearly demonstrates the Apostles could not have understood baptisms to only be baptisms by the Spirit. Peter speaking says:

“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he? And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

(Acts 10:47-48b)

And check this passage out as well. Those ALREADY baptized into the name of Christ in Samaria had yet to receive the Holy Spirit. So if their baptism wasn't a baptism of the Spirit, it must have been a baptism in ...

"When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8:14-17)

You continue:

Christ taught that we are all his servants. I doubt that the apostles were the only people spreading the good news, and people where turning to God and saved by them as well. Yet would they have known of water baptism if he only told the apostles.

Again, Christ and the Apostles were baptizing in water during His entire ministry. This was commonplace and common knowledge among the people of Israel (who were already accustomed to water baptisms anyway).

I'm going to stop since this is getting too long and most of the rest of your questions have already been answered I think. I hope this has helped. If not, let me know and I'll try again.

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[St. Worm2]

The participles "Baptizing" and "Teaching" are how disciples are made, probably best translated "make disciples by baptizing... and by teaching". Notice the ones being made disciples are not the active ones in "baptizing and teaching".

I'm missing something I think. What does this have to do with the verse, 1 Corinthians 1:17, that I was commenting on .. Please explain a little further. Thanks! You continue:

The same way that the words we speak are used by the Holy Spirit to carry out God's work. Do you believe that when you tell about "Jesus Christ and him cruficied" that the Holy Spirit uses your words to "make alive" (Rom. 10:14-17; Eph. 2:4-5)? It's all God's work - using the means of baptizing and teaching to achieve his goal - "making disciples".

I know this argument was a bit weak, but this is how I approached it with Jay. Christ has commanded us to baptize disciples in v19, so this is something that He intends for us to do. While humans can perform a "water" baptism, how is it that we can now perform a "Spirit" baptism instead (which is what Jay was saying)? Is this not something that God alone can do, or am I missing something? You continue:

Depends on who you mean by "people who are already saved". Yes, those who are disciples do the baptizing (of those who are not) and the teaching (of those who are not). But if you mean "people who are already saved" as referring to those who need to be baptized (so-called "believer's baptism"), then that is an assumption pushed into the text of Matthew 28.

Again, perhaps I am not following you here, so please take a look at post #5 in this thread again, especially at the translation of the Greek verb, "Mathēteuō" (make disciples) which carries with it the idea of preaching AND response. "Disciples" (in this passage) are believers who are continually growing in Christ by learning from Him and walking in obedience to Him.

V19 commands us to "make disciples", yes? We are then told that those who have become disciples are to be baptized. So I will have to respectfully disagree with you, 'disciples' baptize other 'disciples', NOT non-believers (again, please see the 2nd paragraph of post #5 in this thread).

Here is a quote from D A Carson's commentary on Matthew that may help:

"The syntax of the Greek participles for baptizing and teaching forbids the conclusion that baptizing and teaching are ... the (sole) means of making disciples. Luke 6:35 has a close syntactic parallel: "Lend anything to them without expecting to get anything back". Not expecting anything in return is certainly not the means of lending, but it is modal in that it characterizes the lending. Baptizing and teaching are not the 'means' of making disciples, but they do characterize it."

This is starting to feel like 'much ado about nothing', but we've started, so I guess we should finish -- if possible ..

Yours and His,
David

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

He didn't? What about His command to John the Baptist to "fulfill all righteousness" by baptizing Him in the Jordon River? (Matthew 3:13-17) Clearly this was a water baptism (see v16)! Jay, water baptism was not some unknown practice in Israel, it was commonplace, and you need not look any futher than John the Baptist's ministry to understand that!

To fulfill all righteuosness was to fulfill prophecy concerning the coming Saviour. I know it was of water because thats what the prophecies said how he would be revealed John 1:29-34. I know it was not uncomman it was very comman it was part of there many cleansing rituals which is why God choose this way to reveal Christ.

Also, on several occasions, John's and Jesus' 'baptisms' are compared with one another. In another, John's and the Apostles' were. Certainly you understand that John the Baptist baptized with water, yes (John 1:26)? Of that, there is no question, as God Himself sent John to baptize "in water" (John 1:33). Knowing that, what kind of baptisms do you believe Jesus, John, and the Apostles were performing? See below:

I dont see them compared anywhere. when baptism is mentioned it is explained in Rom. 6 and Titus 3:4-8 , except when it clearly states baptism by water which is how many places. Acts 10-11 which would be a much better place to show it is commanded. God sent him to baptism in water only to reveal Christ as the coming Saviour. The apostles did water baptize but does it mean the same or is it the same baptism because the people were not saved, then baptized were they. They were still doing Johns baptism which Jesus said in Matt. 3:15 "Let it be so for now;..." .

That's because they had seen Christ baptizing in water during their entire time together, and, of course, had been doing it themselves (as you just saw above). This is what they were used to! Here below is another place that clearly demonstrates the Apostles could not have understood baptisms to only be baptisms by the Spirit. Peter speaking says:

I believe this to be true butI dont think it was meant to last but to just for a time. Kind of like whening a baby off a bottle. What of Hebrews 9:10 Cerimonial washings and external regulations applying UNTIL the time of the new order. The apostles themselves had trouble understanding it all untill God helped them.

And check this passage out as well. Those ALREADY baptized into the name of Christ in Samaria had yet to receive the Holy Spirit. So if their baptism wasn't a baptism of the Spirit, it must have been a baptism in ...

as stated above this is a better place to make your claim because it is very clear not Matt. 28.

Again, Christ and the Apostles were baptizing in water during His entire ministry. This was commonplace and common knowledge among the people of Israel (who were already accustomed to water baptisms anyway).

I'm going to stop since this is getting too long and most of the rest of your questions have already been answered I think. I hope this has helped. If not, let me know and I'll try again.

Yours in Christ,
David

Yes they were and it is why I said above the reason God chose this way to reveal Christ. So why not usae it for a time Matt. 3:15. Read Galations 3:26,27 When baptized into christ you are clothed with Christ. So in Matt. It says Baptizing them INTO the name of... Many put "in" but "into" is more the right word. verse 29 shows how the nations then become Heirs according to the promise. but you can be a heir if your not saved. Making discilples is not a good word to explain your death and ressurection with Christ. Baptism is much better, Rom. 6 Titus 3:4-8. I'm being stubborn sorry.

 

[St. Worm2]

I'm being stubborn sorry.

Hey Jay, I could argue your latest points once again with Scripture and logic, but I think you've said it best, you're being stubborn .. (so I'll just say I gave it my best shot)! I will add this one final point though, that the Trinitarian formula (which has surely been employed for the vast majority of baptisms over the centuries, as I'm sure you already know) was derived from this very verse, Matthew 28:19. This is the 'go to' verse (so to speak) for water baptism by the church, Greek/Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant.

You are, of course, free to believe what you want to believe, but I don't think you're going to find any support in church history (or the modern church) for a 'dry' baptism where Matthew 28:19 is concerned. I would be interested if you do! I have more than 20 commentaries, from both Protestant and Catholic authors, that mention this portion of Matthew, but none of them lend any support to your position (in fact, your position is so unique, it's not even eluded to, much less supported OR condemned). The good news is (I guess for both of us), this is basically a non-issue as far as eternal consequence is concerned, so it doesn't really matter if you hold to the teaching of the church or choose to go it alone ..

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - Have you asked your pastor about this subject? If so, what was his response?

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Hey Jay, I could argue your latest points once again with Scripture and logic, but I think you've said it best, you're being stubborn .. (so I'll just say I gave it my best shot)! I will add this one final point though, that the Trinitarian formula (which has surely been employed for the vast majority of baptisms over the centuries, as I'm sure you already know) was derived from this very verse, Matthew 28:19. This is the 'go to' verse (so to speak) for water baptism by the church, Greek/Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant.

You are, of course, free to believe what you want to believe, but I don't think you're going to find any support in church history (or the modern church) for a 'dry' baptism where Matthew 28:19 is concerned. I would be interested if you do! I have more than 20 commentaries, from both Protestant and Catholic authors, that mention this portion of Matthew, but none of them lend any support to your position (in fact, your position is so unique, it's not even eluded to, much less supported OR condemned). The good news is (I guess for both of us), this is basically a non-issue as far as eternal consequence is concerned, so it doesn't really matter if you hold to the teaching of the church or choose to go it alone ..

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - Have you asked your pastor about this subject? If so, what was his response?

Well I come from the Quaker background which do no ordances at all, at least the first Quakers. The Dry baptism is of the Holy Spirit. I dont mean to be arguementive but this Trinitarian way of baptism is not any where in scripture is it. There are no passages that show this way or order of water baptism "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". So I dont see why they would assume such a method. How do you compare them with the other gospels of the same account. If your not tierd of discussing it with me. If you wish to know my point of view look at Quaker history. (Religious Society of Friends). But you are right I have very few Theologians on my side. I have been baptized in water though so its not an issue of doing it. I did it for renewal or recommitment to my Faith. I do not believe it right to press the issue on a person for reason showing salvation or church membership. It is not our badge of faith so to speak because we do not need to show it just to the Curch but to the World and God. God only see our hearts. Our Badge is 1 Cor. 13 and showing this Love to others. Also Phill. 2:1-18. I really like verse 15 "so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which YOU SHINE LIKE STARS IN THE UNIVERSE......" But I've injoyed our conversation if you wish to continue. There is a peace in your words or softness i like.

 

[St. Worm2]

Well I come from the Quaker background which do no ordances at all, at least the first Quakers. The Dry baptism is of the Holy Spirit. I dont mean to be arguementive but this Trinitarian way of baptism is not any where in scripture is it. There are no passages that show this way or order of water baptism "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". So I dont see why they would assume such a method. How do you compare them with the other gospels of the same account. If your not tierd of discussing it with me. If you wish to know my point of view look at Quaker history. (Religious Society of Friends). But you are right I have very few Theologians on my side. I have been baptized in water though so its not an issue of doing it. I did it for renewal or recommitment to my Faith. I do not believe it right to press the issue on a person for reason showing salvation or church membership. It is not our badge of faith so to speak because we do not need to show it just to the Curch but to the World and God. God only see our hearts. Our Badge is 1 Cor. 13 and showing this Love to others. Also Phill. 2:1-18. I really like verse 15 "so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which YOU SHINE LIKE STARS IN THE UNIVERSE......" But I've injoyed our conversation if you wish to continue. There is a peace in your words or softness i like.

Hey Jay, I have some friends who are "Friends" .. That's another name for Quakers, right?

As to the issue at hand, it seems that our only point of disagreement is over the 'wetness' or the 'dryness' of Matthew 28:19's command to baptize, well, and the fact that I would look at the practice as an ordinance or sacrament (though I do not believe that grace is imparted by it).

As for 'wet' baptisms that use the Trinitarian formula, yes, Matthew 28:19 does not teach that emphatically (at least in the strictest sense the word), but because of the wide-spread practice of baptism (even before the days of Christ), it certainly seems to. Much is simply assumed because of common knowledge and now, tradition.

The Greek is also a BIG help in this verse since it tells us via the word Mathēteuō (make disciples) that these folks who are being baptized are ALREADY saved (remember that this word fundamentally speaks to "preaching and response" and specifically, in this context, speaks of "those who have placed their trust in Christ"). Sooooooooooooooooo, the long and the short of this is, the baptism talked about in this verse can NOT be regenerative since the "disciples" being baptized are already believers. This is one of the sure indicators that water is not required to be saved, but in your case, in particular, it also tells us that it can't be the kind of baptism you are pressing for either (again, because these new 'disciples' that v19 has in view are ALREADY saved). The baptism the Holy Spirit performs is salvific, yes? So, if what you say is true, then the HS is, in essence, saving the 'saved' ... which seems just a bit redundant and unnecessary, yes!? .. Considering Who we're talk'n about, I'm betting He gets things right the first time around ..

Well, I can't believe I started down this road again .. One FINAL thing I will try to find for you is early evidence of 'wet' baptism 'form and practice'. While we have nothing that I know of extra-Biblically on baptism from the 1st Century, there is quite a bit of data available (in the form of personal correspondence from family to family, etc.) from the earliest years of the second century and on. This is one of the strongest evidences and supports for infant baptism as it shows that the Christians of that time were already practicing it (so it will be interesting to see if they mention the method they employed to baptize as well).

Thanks for the compliment on my 'style' of writing .. I certainly prefer "discussion" over "debate" if you know what I mean.(?) I have enjoyed talking with you as well, and now that I know you are a Quaker, I understand the stance you have taken a little better too.

I'll get back to you when I have found something from history (it will mostly likely take a long time to do so, just to forewarn you). I'll also be around (Dv) if you want to continue this discussion for awhile (though I do believe I have exhausted all that I have to say on this subject).

Yours in Christ,
David
P.S. - just so you'll know, my denomination is the Evangelical Free Church of America. We hold to what is commonly called, "Believer's Baptism", but do not allow "Infant Baptism" (though we do have a dedication service for our children).

 

[mark kennedy]

Why do people believe that the word BAPTISM in this Passage refers to water baptism. Or does making Disciples of men mean saving people and then water baptizing them. It means a spiritual Baptism which Jesus does and what Titus 3:4-8 shows and Rom 6 discribes. This is also considered the great commision

Well, the truth is that this is a referance to water baptism, but all he said was that they were to baptise disciples. Now, you are right that there are more important issues involved as the cross references indicate. Jesus was not talking figurativly, he meant to say that disciples are to be baptised in the same way the even Jesus was. There is no indication that he means anything else.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Well, the truth is that this is a referance to water baptism, but all he said was that they were to baptise disciples. Now, you are right that there are more important issues involved as the cross references indicate. Jesus was not talking figurativly, he meant to say that disciples are to be baptised in the same way the even Jesus was. There is no indication that he means anything else.

I'm not here to explain my view bcause I have in the above post, but just to say hey and good job on the evolutionist/creation forum, they really dont like you or I there and just say we are ignorant of what we know of evolution, but its expected i quess. just wanted to say keep up the good work over there and whether we change minds or not at least they wont think they can convince anyone its true. anyone that knows a little bit about it anyways.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Hey Jay, I have some friends who are "Friends" ..That's another name for Quakers, right?

As to the issue at hand, it seems that our only point of disagreement is over the 'wetness' or the 'dryness' of Matthew 28:19's command to baptize, well, and the fact that I would look at the practice as an ordinance or sacrament (though I do not believe that grace is imparted by it).

As for 'wet' baptisms that use the Trinitarian formula, yes, Matthew 28:19 does not teach that emphatically (at least in the strictest sense the word), but because of the wide-spread practice of baptism (even before the days of Christ), it certainly seems to. Much is simply assumed because of common knowledge and now, tradition.

The Greek is also a BIG help in this verse since it tells us via the word Mathēteuō (make disciples) that these folks who are being baptized are ALREADY saved (remember that this word fundamentally speaks to "preaching and response" and specifically, in this context, speaks of "those who have placed their trust in Christ"). Sooooooooooooooooo, the long and the short of this is, the baptism talked about in this verse can NOT be regenerative since the "disciples" being baptized are already believers. This is one of the sure indicators that water is not required to be saved, but in your case, in particular, it also tells us that it can't be the kind of baptism you are pressing for either (again, because these new 'disciples' that v19 has in view are ALREADY saved). The baptism the Holy Spirit performs is salvific, yes? So, if what you say is true, then the HS is, in essence, saving the 'saved' ... which seems just a bit redundant and unnecessary, yes!? ..Considering Who we're talk'n about, I'm betting He gets things right the first time around

Well, I can't believe I started down this road again .. One FINAL thing I will try to find for you is early evidence of 'wet' baptism 'form and practice'. While we have nothing that I know of extra-Biblically on baptism from the 1st Century, there is quite a bit of data available (in the form of personal correspondence from family to family, etc.) from the earliest years of the second century and on. This is one of the strongest evidences and supports for infant baptism as it shows that the Christians of that time were already practicing it (so it will be interesting to see if they mention the method they employed to baptize as well).

Thanks for the compliment on my 'style' of writing ..I certainly prefer "discussion" over "debate" if you know what I mean.(?) I have enjoyed talking with you as well, and now that I know you are a Quaker, I understand the stance you have taken a little better too.

I'll get back to you when I have found something from history (it will mostly likely take a long time to do so, just to forewarn you). I'll also be around (Dv) if you want to continue this discussion for awhile (though I do believe I have exhausted all that I have to say on this subject).

Yours in Christ,
David
P.S. - just so you'll know, my denomination is the Evangelical Free Church of America. We hold to what is commonly called, "Believer's Baptism", but do not allow "Infant Baptism" (though we do have a dedication service for our children).

Well I'm still not seeing it but I will look at this greek word and see if it explains it the way you say and get back to you. I have read about this passage in the Barclay's Apology and he should know a little greek and he didnt mention this so either he avoided it because it would prove him wrong or you are strechting the words meaning, So I'll look it up and see. I'm not accusing you really just that I've read to views so I quess i should look for my self.