repent and be baptized

[lastpost]

Hi EW,

Forgive me but when people tell me my relationship with my Master is not as "correct" as tbeir relationship because of how they interpret scriptures, I tend to look to Jesus and shrug, then see the righteous tither, so I choose to obey Him.

The wonderful benefit of water baptism is there but I think it is more harmful to imply a loss to a person's soul through failure to undergo water baptism than to partake in it.

This is just my opinion as I wander around collecting rubbish for the next 7 hours.

Peace in Him,
Tony

[gregoryfl]

Concerning Mark 16, it seems to me that believing and not getting immersed is not even in the flow of thought. In other words, it appears as though it was assumed that one who believed would, under normal conditions, have been immersed in water.

It appears as though, at least back at that time, part of the good news being preached included something concerning water immersion (see Acts 8 as but one example).

Unlike today where it is more of an event that one waits for after believing...back then it appears to be tied very closely to the timing when one believed.

So one who heard the good news and believed it would necessarily have expected to be immersed in water. (It is what the Ethiopian believer expected, as an example)

Notice a similar correlation between the words of Yeshua:

and there is to be heralded in His name repentance for the pardon of sins, to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
(Luk 24:47)

and the words of Peter:
Now Peter is averring to them, "Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardon of your sins, and you shall be obtaining the gratuity of the holy spirit.
(Act 2:38)

Notice once again that immersion is not an added on thing one must do for the pardon of their sins (otherwise Yeshua would have spoken of it here), but was understood to be a part of what they would have done as a result of repenting (which is why Peter included it)...it was actually the repentance that was for the pardon of sin, not immersion.

All this to say...

It is not that if one believes and for whatever reason does not get immersed before they die, that they are condemned, but rather...
If one does not believe, they are condemned...no mention made here of immersion, simply because if one does not believe they will not be immersed.

I believe if immersion was indeed something separate that had to be done in order to be saved from sin, Yeshua would have said something more like...

'He who does not believe or is not immersed will be condemned.'

If I say, 'He who desires a juicy steak and picks up his fork and knife will be satisfied, but he who does not desire a juicy steak will starve', the picking up of a fork and knife is simply understood to be part of what naturally would follow someone's desire for a steak. It would not be seen as something separate that is disconnected from the desire for the steak, because one would not pick up a fork and knife if they did not have that desire.

Ronen

[WhiteWings]

Yep, another example of faith without works is dead. Many seem to think baptism is an optional Christian thing. In reality baptism/purification/mikvah was and still is part of Jewish culture. The first and last occurrences in the Bible (I know of) are Gen 1:10 an Rev 21:8.

[ed]

Yep, another example of faith without works is dead. Many seem to think baptism is an optional Christian thing. In reality baptism/purification/mikvah was and still is part of Jewish culture. The first and last occurrences in the Bible (I know of) are Gen 1:10 an Rev 21:8.

Yup, we can bring it back to Judaic law.  Should we?  Should gentiles bring it back to Judaic law?

I say in no way.  The problem is that Christianity is steeped in Jewish culture.  It is offensive for me to say, in no way must we follow Judaic law.  It is the sword that Jesus brought with the new heaven and earth.  Baptism for the Christian is spirit and truth.  Constantly we are dragged back to Judaism by well meaning individuals.

:hidebehindthecouch:

[WhiteWings]

Yep, another example of faith without works is dead. Many seem to think baptism is an optional Christian thing. In reality baptism/purification/mikvah was and still is part of Jewish culture. The first and last occurrences in the Bible (I know of) are Gen 1:10 an Rev 21:8.

Yup, we can bring it back to Judaic law.  Should we?  Should gentiles bring it back to Judaic law?

I say in no way.

I say that unBiblical selective reading.

The problem is that Christianity is steeped in Jewish culture.  It is offensive for me to say, in no way must we follow Judaic law.  It is the sword that Jesus brought with the new heaven and earth.  Baptism for the Christian is spirit and truth.

No. That forcing pagan/Greek thought into the Bible. Again selective reading.

Constantly we are dragged back to Judaism by well meaning individuals.

Constantly we are dragged back to paganism by well meaning individuals.
Like it or not the whole Bible teaches Judadism. Jesus practiced it. The fact that Jews messed up (with their interpretations) doesn't mean Judasim is flawed. It just means... well... their interpretation was/is flawed. When a law is misunderstood the misunderstanding must be removed, not the law itself.


I came not to destroy the law....

[lastpost]

Friends, what I found personally was that by surrendering to God let me find the Pearl of great price. One sells all to buy it after a solitary time seeking.

One does not abandon culture, one just sees that loving God and ones neighbour overrules all else which is no longer binding.

Jesus Christ has become everything and all else is sold.

Peace in our time

[Tom]

I think the confusion is all about misplacing that which is for the Jews with the nations who aren't subject to Jewish law or culture despite the fact that some early proselytes probably were beginning with Cornelius who obviously received the spirit before water baptism I'd say to begin to teach the Jews that the nations would also be saved even though they didn't accept the fact easily. I've said before, and I still think the fulfillment of the promised kingdom of the heavens in Israel, which water baptism and repentance are the means of entry, has been paused until all those chosen are called out of the nations to be in the body of Christ, which is achieved through baptism of holy spirit through Christ himself. Despite the idea of two evangels being opposed on the forum, I still see that in scripture because I think the one evangel believed to be operating today in the church is the very same distorted evangel Paul warned against and even cursed in Galatians. I think there's a reason, Jesus himself said he was only commissioned to the house of Israel, and he told his disciples not even to go on a road of the nations, but the risen Christ commissioned Paul outside Israel for the eonian celestial destiny of the body of Christ. I think that's the reason Paul distinguished the two evangels as the circumcision and uncircumcision. It's futile to discuss this though with those who believe there is one evangel, and the church is spiritual Israel. We of the nations do not belong to the house of Israel even though, in spirit, we're a joint body with the Jewish believers according to what Paul wrote in Ephesians, but, even though we are one in spirit, I believe God plans to use the Jewish people to evangelize the nations on earth in the coming eon while those of us in the body of Christ will have been snatched away to minister in the celestial realm. I think that is the purpose of the two evangels. I don't think the fact that there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, and male or female in Christ Jesus negates God's plan to operate two methods of ministering to earth and the celestials in the future. We're all one in spirit, but we'll be in two different places in the day of the Lord in the coming eon one in fleshly bodies that have been spiritually regenerated and one in spiritual bodies that are a new creation.

See the attachments for some information on the subject.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Seth]

Ronen, I think immersion in water is an interpretation that you are placing on the Mark 16 text. Jesus didn't actually say "in water." Plus he refers to the gifts of the spirit directly afterward. He also said the those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. The baptism that Peter says saves us is a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[ed]

I say that unBiblical selective reading.

Constantly we are dragged back to paganism by well meaning individuals.
Like it or not the whole Bible teaches Judadism. Jesus practiced it. The fact that Jews messed up (with their interpretations) doesn't mean Judasim is flawed. It just means... well... their interpretation was/is flawed. When a law is misunderstood the misunderstanding must be removed, not the law itself.


I came not to destroy the law....

Peace to WhiteWings,

I have a certain way of arguing the point with the 119 ministries..........it is a Judiazed Christian cult.  I have learned a lot from arguing with them. 

I won't do it here.  Google 119 ministries and you will see where I am coming from on this. 

Anyhows, I bow out of such a debate here.

Peace.

[ed]

Friends, what I found personally was that by surrendering to God let me find the Pearl of great price. One sells all to buy it after a solitary time seeking.

One does not abandon culture, one just sees that loving God and ones neighbour overrules all else which is no longer binding.

Jesus Christ has become everything and all else is sold.

Peace in our time

:iagree:

[Seth]

Yep, another example of faith without works is dead.

Except that when James said that, his context was loving thy neighbor not water baptism, which goes along with what John said are Christ's commandments: "believe in Jesus and love eachother."

Those who love have fulfilled the whole law which is why the Gentile non-circumcision is counted as circumcision when they love (Romans 2).

[Seth]

If this is going to a place where we are saying that people who do not believe in water baptism have dead faith, I strongly disagree, because then we are saying that water baptism is necessary for justification.

[gregoryfl]

Ronen, I think immersion in water is an interpretation that you are placing on the Mark 16 text. Jesus didn't actually say "in water." Plus he refers to the gifts of the spirit directly afterward. He also said the those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. The baptism that Peter says saves us is a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Shalom Seth,

Yes, it is definitely an interpretation (what I would call a Midrash), one that comes (for me) from an examination of the continuous story found in the what we find happening in the book of acts. Such was always seen as a sign of something starting fresh, a birth into a new life. It did not have its origin in Judaism, but preceeded even the creation of man.

The text does indeed say those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. The text of course goes on to say that those who do not believe will be condemned. The word 'water' is not in the text, and so we can look for other clues to see whether water was understood or not. One such clue that I look at is who is initiating the act? In Matthew's account, it is disciples who were to immerse new disciples, so this clues me in that this is a physical immersion with water (by looking at Acts).

Mark records Yeshua as a parallel to Matthew's account. Here they are together:

Going, then, disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,
(Mat 28:19)

"Go into all the world; herald the evangel to the entire creation. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, yet he who disbelieves shall be condemned.
(Mar 16:15-16)

How did the apostles understand this? The book of Acts (in my understanding) shows that they took this to be water immersion. Acts 8 is the clearest example of this.

I understand Peter to be drawing on that same framework, but showing that it is not the actual immersion in physical water that does anything, but what it represents. In comparing immersion to the flood, he calls it a tuwpsa (טופסא), which is a physical mold. This strongly speaks to me in the clearest of terms that this is a water immersion, not a spiritual one. In every case where this word is used, it is always a tangible, physical example:

John 13:15 - ܗܳܢܳܐ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܛܽܘܦ݂ܣܳܐ ܝܶܗܒ݁ܶܬ݂ ܠܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܕ݁ܰܐܝܟ݁ܰܢܳܐ ܕ݁ܶܐܢܳܐ ܥܶܒ݂ܕ݁ܶܬ݂ ܠܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܰܢ݈ܬ݁ܽܘܢ ܬ݁ܶܥܒ݁ܕ݂ܽܘܢ ܀

1Corinthians 10:6 - ܗܳܠܶܝܢ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܛܽܘܦ݂ܣܳܐ ܠܰܢ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܗܘܰܘ ܕ݁ܠܳܐ ܗܘܰܝܢ ܪܳܓ݁ܺܝܢ ܒ݁ܺܝܫܳܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܰܝܟ݁ܰܢܳܐ ܕ݁ܗܶܢܽܘܢ ܪܰܓ݂ܘ ܀

2Thessalonians 3:9 - ܠܳܐ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܛܽܠ ܕ݁ܠܳܐ ܫܰܠܺܝܛ ܠܰܢ ܐܶܠܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܒ݂ܢܰܦ݂ܫܰܢ ܢܶܬ݁ܶܠ ܠܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܛܽܘܦ݂ܣܳܐ ܕ݁ܒ݂ܰܢ ܬ݁ܶܬ݁ܕ݁ܰܡܽܘܢ ܀

1Peter 2:21 - ܠܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܐܶܬ݂ܩܪܺܝܬ݁ܽܘܢ ܕ݁ܳܐܦ݂ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ ܡܺܝܬ݂ ܚܠܳܦ݂ܰܝܢ ܘܰܫܒ݂ܰܩ ܠܰܢ ܗܳܢܳܐ ܛܽܘܦ݂ܣܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܐܢ݈ܬ݁ܽܘܢ ܒ݁ܥܶܩܒ݂ܳܬ݂ܶܗ ܬ݁ܗܰܠܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܀

1Peter 3:21 - ܕ݁ܳܐܦ݂ ܐܰܢ݈ܬ݁ܽܘܢ ܒ݁ܶܗ ܒ݁ܗܰܘ ܛܽܘܦ݂ܣܳܐ ܚܳܝܶܝܢ ܐܢ݈ܬ݁ܽܘܢ ܒ݁ܡܰܥܡܽܘܕ݂ܺܝܬ݂ܳܐ ܠܰܘ ܟ݁ܰܕ݂ ܦ݁ܰܓ݂ܪܳܐ ܡܫܺܝܓ݂ܺܝܢ ܐܢ݈ܬ݁ܽܘܢ ܡܶܢ ܨܳܐܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܶܠܳܐ ܟ݁ܰܕ݂ ܡܰܘܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܐܢ݈ܬ݁ܽܘܢ ܒ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܒ݁ܬ݂ܺܐܪܬ݁ܳܐ ܕ݁ܟ݂ܺܝܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܒ݂ܰܩܝܳܡܬ݁ܶܗ ܕ݁ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ

It could very well be that in Mark's version Yeshua is not referring to physical water immersion, but without being able to specifically ask him ourselves, we are left to think on and discuss our various thoughts on this. :)

Ronen

[Seth]

Shalom Seth,

Yes, it is definitely an interpretation (what I would call a Midrash), one that comes (for me) from an examination of the continuous story found in the what we find happening in the book of acts. Such was always seen as a sign of something starting fresh, a birth into a new life. It did not have its origin in Judaism, but preceeded even the creation of man.

So, a couple things to note here.

"Such was always seen as a sign..."

Yes I agree, but note that the book of Acts contains a fulfillment of that sign.

Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Now, that's in the first verses of Acts, so if I am going to consider that book, I will also be taking that into account contextually as well.

The text does indeed say those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. The text of course goes on to say that those who do not believe will be condemned. The word 'water' is not in the text, and so we can look for other clues to see whether water was understood or not. One such clue that I look at is who is initiating the act? In Matthew's account, it is disciples who were to immerse new disciples, so this clues me in that this is a physical immersion with water (by looking at Acts).

Given your comments above, you seem to be saying that water baptism saves because of how you read context in Acts. Well, there's not only Acts 1:5 to consider about that, but ALL the rest of the New Testament books, such as in Peter when he defines "baptism doth save" as a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I don't consider physical water to be the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but I do consider "you will be baptized with the holy Spirit not many days hence" to be a saving kind of baptism by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And I am using context to come to that conclusion.

Again, as Paul said:

"You were SAVED (baptism doth save) not by your works of righteousness but by the washing and regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)

So when I see Mark 16:16. I take not just the book of Acts into consideration but ALL the other New Testament books as well.

Going, then, disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,
(Mat 28:19)

"Go into all the world; herald the evangel to the entire creation. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, yet he who disbelieves shall be condemned.
(Mar 16:15-16)

How did the apostles understand this? The book of Acts (in my understanding) shows that they took this to be water immersion.

Again, let's not just take one book of the Bible as the definining context (although Acts 5:1 does contain a powerful indication of how they might have understood Mark 16:16). Let's look at all the books of the New Testament.

[gregoryfl]

Yes, that is a great idea Seth. We can do that, but I would wish to do so both forward and backward (as you know, I believe water baptism to be a continuation physically of what took place before, although with a much deeper and significant meaning).

I do not believe baptism saves, not at all, but to try and explain why would be difficult for me to do in a way that would be easily seen. The example I gave of desiring and using utensils is probably not very clear, but I will try and think of a better, more understandable one. I believe that by comparing the two clauses in Mark 16, it can be seen that it is only (in this context) by belief that one is saved (the immersion being simply an understood tag along, so to speak...I struggle to try to put it into words, sorry brother).

I also agree that Peter clearly refers to the resurrection as the basis of that clear conscience, not physical immersion. I believe that is the reason he explained himself here, since the reader might mistakenly think that when he compared the flood to the physical model of water immersion, that he was equating the physical act itself with salvation.

[eaglesway]

Seth, I noticed that you quote the book of Acts as the fulfillment of the sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.


Yet, the apostles continued to baptize. Why?

As a matter of fact, AFTER that sign was fulfilled on Pentecost, the first address that Peter gives is "Repent, and leat everyone of you be baptized for the remission of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

All throughout the book of Acts- they continue to be baptized in water AND receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Does anybody really think they were putting the saints under law?

[Seth]

Seth, I noticed that you quote the book of Acts as the fulfillment of the sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Yet, the apostles continued to baptize. Why?

I explained earlier my view on that. I see water baptism like how Paul wanted marriages to reflect the relationship between Christ and his church, because we can't see Christ as he is invisible so the visible things can reflect the invisible things. I see it the same way in how Christ broke bread and wine and said do this in remembrance of me. So, I do see water baptism being passed down as a tradition, and that is why I have been telling you in our conversations that I am not against water baptism or people shouldn't do it, or that it has no value.

Does anybody really think they were putting the saints under law?

Certainly not. Although, where WhiteWings is concerned and his misattribution of water baptism to James 2, yes I do believe that approaches Judaizing. He stops short of saying that those who fail to practice water baptism have dead faith because works are lacking, but the logic necessarily follows from his statements, and that is where I have a strong disagreement considering the kind of works that James was talking about.

[gregoryfl]

Shalom Seth,

Yes, it is definitely an interpretation (what I would call a Midrash), one that comes (for me) from an examination of the continuous story found in the what we find happening in the book of acts. Such was always seen as a sign of something starting fresh, a birth into a new life. It did not have its origin in Judaism, but preceeded even the creation of man.

So, a couple things to note here.

"Such was always seen as a sign..."

Yes I agree, but note that the book of Acts contains a fulfillment of that sign.

Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Now, that's in the first verses of Acts, so if I am going to consider that book, I will also be taking that into account contextually as well.

I agree. Contextually, this is clearly, to me, a spiritual immersion in the set apart Spirit, and is not referring to a physical immersion in water. I see the fulfillment of this in Acts 2:

suddenly there was a sound from heaven, as of a violent wind; and the whole house where they were sitting was filled with it.
(Act 2:2)

They were immersed into the wind that filled the house where they were, and were filled with the Spirit.

So far, what I see here is that when the text speaks of baptism in the Spirit, it is referring to a spiritual baptism done by Yeshua himself, as Yochanan said:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that comes after me is more powerful than I; whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
(Mat 3:11)

We can check all of the instances of this to see if this holds true.

Ronen

[gregoryfl]

If I say, 'He who desires a juicy steak and picks up his fork and knife will be satisfied, but he who does not desire a juicy steak will starve', the picking up of a fork and knife is simply understood to be part of what naturally would follow someone's desire for a steak. It would not be seen as something separate that is disconnected from the desire for the steak, because one would not pick up a fork and knife if they did not have that desire.

I checked with some people to make sure this example made sense, and was told I should provide a bit more explanation, which follows:

Desire = Believe
Pick up fork and knife = Baptism

Starting with the example...

Picking up a fork and knife does not equate to being satisfied. I can hold a fork and knife in my hand all day long, but if I have no desire for that steak, I will not be satisfied.
Including the phrase 'picks up his fork and knife' is an implied statement, because when someone eats a steak they use a fork and knife to do so.
It is only the desire that ends up bringing satisfaction, not the picking up of the utensils.

Likewise...

Baptism does not equate with being saved. I can be baptized all day long, but if I do not believe, I will not be saved. I know people who erroneously think that because they are baptized into the church they will end up 'in heaven', even though they do not believe. They think of baptism as a separate thing from belief that saves.
Including the phrase 'and is baptized' is an implied statement, because when someone back then went from unbelief to believing, they got baptized in water.
It is only belief that ends up bringing salvation, not baptism.

Ronen

[Seth]

Baptism does not equate with being saved. I can be baptized all day long, but if I do not believe, I will not be saved. I know people who erroneously think that because they are baptized into the church they will end up 'in heaven', even though they do not believe.

It sounds like you are talking about infant baptism. I agree with you on that. Just because they got sprinkled with water doesn't mean they were saved. The baby still has a carnal mind that only the Spirit can save him from.

Protestants, however, I believe are also wrong in attributing water baptism with salvation, because they think that a single physical act of dunking themselves in water is what saves them from a future of hell torment, which always seemed pretty arbitrary to me. Now, I understand that the true enemy is in the flesh - the carnal mind. And I think if the church as a whole had a paradigm shift about salvation and the place that occurs (within them) they might have a different understanding about how baptism saves, and what kind of baptism that is.

[Tom]

"We rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers." (1 Timothy 4:10)

"He chooses us in Him before the disruption of the world, we to be holy and flawless in His sight." (Ephesians 1:4)

"For in grace, through faith, are you saved, and this is not out of you; it is God's approach present, not of works, lest anyone should be boasting." (Ephesians 2:8,9)

[eaglesway]

We can analyse reasons why or why not, but for me it just boils down to the examples of our Lord and the apostles. I dont think I have said at any point baptim "saves" beyond the benefit it renders to the believer- which I hav maintained is more than ritual. I havent fouund any scripture that says "be baptized if u want to"...., so i practice what the apistles practised and belive baptism is beneficial. All the hyperbole about works based salvation or batismal regeneration is inconsewuential to me. I just reccomend obebience to the word, delivered by the same men who wrote all the verses peopl are quoting, iddly enough, to refute what the writers themselves practiced and proclaimed. :)

[joeteekay]

We can analyse reasons why or why not, but for me it just boils down to the examples of our Lord and the apostles. I dont think I have said at any point baptim "saves" beyond the benefit it renders to the believer- which I hav maintained is more than ritual. I havent fouund any scripture that says "be baptized if u want to"...., so i practice what the apistles practised and belive baptism is beneficial. All the hyperbole about works based salvation or batismal regeneration is inconsewuential to me. I just reccomend obebience to the word, delivered by the same men who wrote all the verses peopl are quoting, iddly enough, to refute what the writers themselves practiced and proclaimed. :)

I agree with EW and what he has posted earlier on this topic.

Baptism by water immersion is just too pervasive in the book of acts to dismiss it as just a ritual, some physical ordinance like foot washing or taking bread and wine.. 

To equate water baptism as a ritual such as foot washing and partaking of bread and wine  is incorrect IMO.

In Hebrews 5 and 6 the milk doctrines include the teaching of baptisms (PLURAL).

  None of these basic fundamental doctrines are to be considered irrelevant, so why should baptisms?

(CLV) Heb 5:12 For when also, because of the time, you ought to be teachers, you have need again of one to teach you what are the rudimentary elements of the oracles of God, and you have come to have need of milk, and not of solid nourishment.
13 For everyone who is partaking of milk is untried in the word of righteousness, for he is a minor.
14 Now solid nourishment is for the mature, who, because of habit, have faculties exercised for discriminating between the ideal and the evil.

(CLV)  Heb 6:1 1 Wherefore, leaving the word dealing with the rudiments of Christ, we should be brought on to maturity, (not again disrupting the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith on God,
2 of the teaching of baptizings, besides the imposition of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and of judgment eonian).
3 And this will we be doing, that is, if God may be permitting.

Act_22:16  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

I suppose this is a matter that will continue to be debated, and will not be fully agreed upon by all of us.

I like what Roesred posted earlier:

from rosered post 36 is so true : I do not see any divisions  , just layers of  TRUTH       in everyone discussing    the subject  of baptism   and its  meaning to them personally 

[Seth]

I agree that the doctrine of baptism is a milk teaching. I just disagree that it MUST be referring to water. I believe there are legitimate reasons to disagree with that.

For example:

Act_22:16 
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Now, you may believe that physical water washes away your sins, but I don't. Paul didn't teach that our sins are actually washed away by water, but he said that we are saved and washed clean by the Holy Spirit ("He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit"). I do see that water baptism is a tradition they took part in, but that doesn't mean I believe that all cases of the word "baptism" are automatically referring to water.

[Tom]

"Now in those days, coming along is John the baptist, heralding in the wilderness of Judea, saying: 'Repent! for near is the kingdom of the heavens!'" (Matthew 3:1,2)

"For I, indeed, am baptizing you in water for repentance, yet He Who is coming after me is stronger than I, Whose sandals I am not competent to bear. He will be baptizing you in holy spirit and fire." (Matthew 3:11)

"Thenceforth begins Jesus to be heralding and saying, 'Repent! for near is the kingdom of the heavens!'" (Matthew 4:17)

"You should not infer that I came to demolish the law or the prophets. I came not to demolish, but to fulfill. For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring. Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens." (Matthew 5:17-19)

It seems evident from those verses that water baptism for repentance and the law are associated with the kingdom of the heavens, which I believe is the earthly kingdom in Israel promised to the Jews that will happen in the coming eon when Christ returns and rules it.

I don't plan on being there much, if we in the body of Christ visit it at all, because I think we'll be ministering in the celestial realm during eonian life, and we've been baptized in holy spirit by Christ himself even if we haven't been baptized in water at some point in our life when were following church doctrine.

"And lo! one coming to Him said, "Teacher, what good shall I be doing that I should be having life eonian?" Yet He said to him, "Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts." He is saying to Him, "Which?" Now Jesus said, "These: 'You shall not be murdering.' 'You shall not be committing adultery.' 'You shall not be stealing.' 'You shall not be testifying falsely.' 'Be honoring father and mother,' and 'You shall be loving your associate as yourself.'" The youth is saying to Him, "These all I maintain. In what am I still deficient?" Jesus averred to him, "If you are wanting to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and be giving to the poor, and you will be having treasure in the heavens. And hither! Follow Me."" (Matthew 19:16-21)

I wonder how many of you here have actually tried that. Jesus said we should do it. So why haven't we all done that? Years ago I actually did give away all my possessions to the poor, but it's a hard way to live. Now I just try to only own what is necessary to have a more comfortable life. And I don't necessarily think what Jesus said in those verses or everything Jesus and the twelve apostles said applies to me anyway. I think there's a reason Jesus told the twelve to not even go on a road of the nations but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and he said he was only commissioned to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5,6; 15:24) I think Jesus was preaching to his people, the Jews, before he was crucified, and I think there's a reason he didn't want to bless the nations until after he was risen. Then the Jews didn't want to accept that when the first sign of it came to be with Peter and Cornelius, and they tried to kill Paul for it later because he was teaching that the chosen of the nations are saved in grace through faith apart from law.

"Endeavor to present yourself to God qualified, an unashamed worker, correctly cutting the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

The information on this webpage is opposed on the forum, but I'm providing the link because it's where the following quote is. http://concordant.org/expohtml/CorrectPartitioning/CorrectlyCutting.html

"There is a good rule to follow for finding out what a text or a section or a chapter or a book means. It is attributed to both Miles Coverdale and John Wycliffe. It is worth knowing and should be copied into one's copy of the Bible for constant reference and for constant application to all studies made of the Sacred Scriptures. Here it is:"

"THE GOLDEN RULE OF SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION"

"It shall greatly helpe ye to understand Scripture,
if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten,
but of whom, and to whom, with what words,
at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before and what followeth after."

The point is, as I've said before, I don't believe everything in scripture applies to everybody. I think all scripture is inspired and for us, but not all is about us. That's why I don't think water baptism is a necessary ritual for believers today. I think it will be practiced again in the coming eon in the kingdom of the heavens in Israel though, which is for the Jewish people.

What exactly did Jesus mean when he said in the scripture quoted above? "Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring." Some may think that means the law has been fulfilled in his death and resurrection, and some may think the law is still in effect for the Jewish people and will be in the coming eon in the kingdom of the heavens in Israel. Some think the church has replaced Israel, and only church doctrine is to be followed now, which has cherry picked a few of the 613 commandments of the law. I personally agree with Paul when he said:

"For the entire law is fulfilled in one word, in this: 'You shall love your associate as yourself.'" (Galatians 5:14)

And when he said:

"In Whom you also--on hearing the word of truth, the evangel of your salvation--in Whom on believing also, you are sealed with the holy spirit of promise." (Ephesians 1:13)

I see that the PDF files I posted earlier in the thread pertaining to water baptism aren't being downloaded. So here's one of the articles copied and pasted for those who can't access PDF files. A link to the URsearch program and some newer issues of the magazine in PDF files can be found here. http://concordant.org/ur/index.html

V11P2

p197ONE BAPTISM

PERFECTION

WHO shall describe the glories of the Ephesian letter? We are taken back before the entrance of evil and behold ourselves in His purposes in Christ. We are taken and seated in the very heavens in Christ. But, though the earth is taken from beneath our feet in this twofold sense, yet in Him we find a firmer footing than ever this earth can give.

     But such abundant grace cannot be contained in Israel's narrow pale. They were nigh by virtue of the covenant blood. Such nearness was but distance compared with the nearness now secured by the blood of Christ. The means by which they drew near—the court, the altar, the laver, the holy place, the vail—all these are now seen to be but barriers to their free approach.

     Now these are all removed. The defilement of the flesh might keep even an Israelite outside the camp in the days of old; but now the blood of Christ yields to no fleshly disability, and avails for all—for those afar off as well as those that were nigh. The nations have an equal share with Israel in this stupendous blessing.

     The blood of Christ alone, unaided, without escort or association, without accessory or adjunct of any kind, brushing aside the embarrassment and blockade of fleshly rites, in the fresh and unsupported vigor and power of its solitary majesty—the blood of Christ alone is the champion of the sinner; that, single-handed, clears a passage to the very throne of God.

p198
One Baptism in Spirit, Now

     But is baptism brushed aside? Is it included in the abolished rites?

     Among the unities of the fourth chapter are: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph.4:5).

     Though there be lords many, for us there is but one Lord.

     In previous dispensations, as well as in a future day, varieties of faith obtain. Favor is shown to various classes according to their relationship to Israel. In the Pentecostal era the faith for Israel was far more glorious than that for the Samaritans, while the nations were but guests at Israel's board. Now they are no longer guests and sojourners, but fellow citizens of the saints, and members of God's family. Now there is one faith for all; not Israel first, not the nations first; but all are received on equal gracious terms.

     As there is but one faith now, so also there is but one baptism.

     We have seen how the ministry of our Lord, and, that of John were characterized by one baptism—that in water. John had borne record concerning the Master: "I, indeed, am baptizing you in water for repentance: yet He who is coming after me is stronger than I, Whose sandals I am not competent to bear. He it is Who will be baptizing you in holy spirit and fire" (Matt.3:11). So the Master, upon His ascension, bears witness to John: "John indeed baptizes in water, yet you shall be baptized in holy spirit not many days hence."

     So that from Pentecost onward two baptisms obtained. Water baptism was accompanied by spirit baptism.

     In the administration of the evangel of God among the nations by Paul these two continued, but water baptism takes a secondary place, while the baptism of the spirit is the portion of all.

     Now that there is a return to one baptism the question remains: "Is it water, or, Is it spirit?"

     The epistle itself gives answer: "when believing, also,

p199
One Baptism in Spirit, Now

you were sealed with the holy spirit of promise" (Eph.1:13). This alone entitled them to the spiritual blessings which they had in the heavenly regions.

     By one spirit they were all baptized into one body. Without that baptism there could never be the one body. If the one body does not exist, there is no body of Christ, no ecclesia, and our highest blessings as His members are annulled.

     It is by this spirit that we all have access into God's presence, and are united one to another. This unity of the spirit is one of the characteristic truths of this secret economy. It is vital.

     So then, the baptism of spirit remains.

     As there is but one baptism, that in water disappears. If we take Ephesians as the text book, then Philippians furnishes us with examples, and Colossians with review.

     In Philippians, we see the apostle's own course in the things of flesh. Precious as they once appeared, he now counts them but fit for curs. As he sees those who call themselves the "Circumcision," staking all upon a mere mutilation of their flesh, he sounds the alarm: "Beware of the maimcision, for we are the circumcision who are offering divine service to God in spirit, and are glorying in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in flesh" (Phil.3:2,3). He weeps as he warns them once more of the enemies of the cross of Christ "who are disposed to the things of earth" (Phil.3:18,19). It is hard to exclude baptism in water from these "earthly things." Once, like circumcision, it was necessary for Divine blessing, but now both have been fulfilled in His cross.

     In Colossians, baptism itself is taken up in conjunction with circumcision.

     In the days when Jehovah taught His people how to draw nigh to Him, what was the requisite for approach? The uncircumcised could not draw nigh at all. Circumcision was the prime factor in seeking His presence and blessing.

p200
The Two Essentials: Circumcision and Baptism

     But a nearer approach required still more. The circumcised Israelite could not even reach the laver. A circumcised priest could not go beyond the laver without being first baptized in its water.

     Circumcision and baptism, then, constituted the Israelite's fitness to approach a veiled God.

     And they are still necessary. They are essential. No one is properly furnished for His presence and blessing unless first he is circumcised and baptized.

     In this light we read that we "are complete in Him...in Whom we were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands in the stripping off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ" (Col.2:10).

     Here is circumcision indeed; though "made without hands" though accomplished on the cross apart from us altogether, it is the only real, the only true circumcision. The sons of Jacob were not circumcised. We are. They only shadowed it. We have the substance.

     Let no one say that circumcision is obsolete. It is a present, practical, powerful truth. It is, however, but part of the truth. It leaves Christ on the cross, lifeless.

     So the apostle goes on to say: "Being buried together with Him in baptism, in Whom you were roused together, also, through faith in the operation of God, Who rouses Him from among the dead" (Col.2:12).

     Christ is risen! And we are risen in Him! Here is cleansing! Here is baptism!

     By the power of His spirit we enter into the blessed potent truth that we have already been baptized. And such a baptism as the sons of Israel never knew. By Him we have not only died, but have also been buried and raised from the grave—in Him. Not from "a watery grave by the strong arm of the baptizer" but by an Almighty arm, "through faith in the operation of God, circumcision, rouses Him from among the dead."

     Just as we are not circumcised in flesh, but in spirit, so

p201
The Two Essentials: Circumcision and Baptism

also with baptism. His baptism, just as His circumcision, we reckon as our own. He was buried; so were we. He arose; we too are risen.

     As we think of this solemn glorious truth the warning still rings in our ears: "BEWARE! THAT NO ONE SHALL BE DESPOILING YOU...IN ACCORD WITH THE ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD (the elementary religious observances) AND NOT IN ACCORD WITH CHRIST!"

     O, beloved, has our God set this danger signal here for naught? How many, many, of His precious ones have passed it by unheeded! How sad to be in the toils of men when God has made us free and complete in Him!

     There is danger! God has not warned us against that which has no existence, for multitudes of God's saints have gone blindly into this snare in spite of God's warning. He has delivered the writer of these pages: He alone can deliver those who bear His Divine and solemn appeal.

     The exquisite joy and delicious satisfaction which is found by those who know themselves complete in Christ can only be found by heeding this Divine "BEWARE!"

     By the very nature of things, circumcision, while speaking of the stripping off of flesh, gave the flesh a standing it was never entitled to. Spiritual circumcision alone really fulfills its import.

     Baptism was likewise embarrassed. While it spoke of spirit and gave the flesh no place, yet, being an ordinance on the flesh, it seemed to give the flesh acceptance in His sight.

     But our baptism gives flesh no place. Our cleansing is by spirit and finds a real and genuine acceptance by our God.

     If I am complete in Him no fleshly rite can add to my completeness. If I do add it, then I deny that His work has fully met God's claims. I dishonor that work by subtracting from its potency; and spoil it by adding something of my own dead, putrefying flesh.

p202
Perfection in Christ

     If I receive the wondrous truth then I am constrained to refuse these ordinances upon the flesh, both circumcision and baptism. I rest alone in Him in Whom I have no lack.


          Complete in Christ my Saviour,
            My heart is satisfied;
          For He is all-sufficient,
            What need for aught beside?