|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order to go to heaven?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order to go to heaven?
|
| Yes |
|
| No |
|
| Maybe/Not Sure |
|
Total Votes : 144
|
(last vote on : 11/15/2009 2:43:45 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 8:52:53 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
If John's baptism was sufficient then why do we differentiate it from Christian baptism by referring to it as John's baptism?
John started baptizing before Jesus entered the scene. John was preaching the "COMING MESSIAH." The nature of the Messiah's kingdom and the church had not yet been revealed to Israel. But Israel's national covenant was on its way out and the New Covenant was on its way in. John was supposed to prepare the way for the soon-to-come Messiah. He had not yet died and risen from the dead. Therefore, John could not preach that. But he did preach about the Messiah.
quote:
And I still don't understand why you think the Ephesians disciples who knew only John's baptism had to be rebaptized if John's baptism was sufficient.
John's baptism was sufficient, if these guys had gotten it right. Paul's question uncovered the deficient nature of their so-called faith. They repented but, so far as we know, that's all. Repentance (rejecting sin) was certainly not enough. They were baptized prior to any understanding of the Messiah's mission. Back in Acts 18, Apollos was in a similar (but not identical predicament)
18:24
Now a Jew named Apollos...He was an eloquent speaker,...he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. 18:26...Priscilla and Aquila...took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately..
Here we are not told Apollos was rebaptized. He was deficient in some things, probably a lack of knowledge of the resurrection. But he did know and believe Jesus was the Messiah. But Priscilla and Aquila filled in the gaps of his knowledge. I would suggest that he was saved, howbeit with insufficient knowledge somewhere. Insufficient as his knowledge was, it only required further instruction--i.e. and update on things that had happened after he believed and accepted John's message.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 9:56:59 AM
|
|
|
apostolic862004
Posts: 32
Joined: 8/14/2007
Status: offline
|
Check this out!
Acts 18
24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
27And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
Now i have a question: why was it important to note that he ONLY knew John's baptism? Also, in Acts 19, why did Paul continue to preach to the disciples that said the had been baptized unto John's baptism? And why did they get re-baptized?
This is how I believe it: All those that were baptized unto John's baptism and died before Christ did, because they did it in faith, were saved by John's baptism. All those that were still alive when Christ was raised again, heard the gospel of Jesus preached and had a choice: get re-baptized or lose their soul. Simple as that.
What was the difference between John's baptism and baptism after Christ's resurrection? THE BLOOD! WHAT CAN WASH AWAY MY SIN? NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS! Also, they now had to be baptized in the NAME of Jesus. (Acts 4:12) That's a whole other discussion in itself!
John did not baptize in that name because he didn't even know who Jesus was. THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON HE WAS BAPTIZING PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE! HE WAS TRYING TO FIND THE MESSIAH! (John 1:31-35)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 10:16:46 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6323
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: apostolic862004
Check this out!
Acts 18
24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
27And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
Now i have a question: why was it important to note that he ONLY knew John's baptism? Also, in Acts 19, why did Paul continue to preach to the disciples that said the had been baptized unto John's baptism? And why did they get re-baptized?
This is how I believe it: All those that were baptized unto John's baptism and died before Christ did, because they did it in faith, were saved by John's baptism. All those that were still alive when Christ was raised again, heard the gospel of Jesus preached and had a choice: get re-baptized or lose their soul. Simple as that.
What was the difference between John's baptism and baptism after Christ's resurrection? THE BLOOD! WHAT CAN WASH AWAY MY SIN? NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS! Also, they now had to be baptized in the NAME of Jesus. (Acts 4:12) That's a whole other discussion in itself!
John did not baptize in that name because he didn't even know who Jesus was. THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON HE WAS BAPTIZING PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE! HE WAS TRYING TO FIND THE MESSIAH! (John 1:31-35)
The bold statement is so blatantly false it is humorous. Scripture teaches that John was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and was sent to pave the wave for Jesus. Not only was he not looking for Jesus, he knew who Jesus was and was teaching about Jesus. It does not really matter to me what people think about baptism but to make a post this false does get under my skin.
_____________________________
At one time Jesus was my co-pilot. Things are much better now that He and I have changed seats.
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 10:27:28 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: apostolic862004
Now i have a question: why was it important to note that he ONLY knew John's baptism? Also, in Acts 19, why did Paul continue to preach to the disciples that said they had been baptized unto John's baptism? And why did they get re-baptized? "This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John;" Acts 18:25 (NASB) I checked two other versions, the NET Bible and the NIV. Both of the others agree that the word "Jesus" is present in verse twenty five. I checked a Greek interlinear and it affirms that Apollos knew about Jesus the Messiah.
Apollos knew about Jesus Christ. Only the KJV omits that fact. The likely explanation for the difference in the KJV is a Greek textual variant. There is no record of Apollos having to get rebaptized.
It is clear that the Ephesian disciples did not know about Jesus or had never heard of him. But John the Baptist testified of Jesus Christ the Messiah when he (John) saw Jesus. The Ephesian disciples did not know of that. It is likely that their understanding of John's message was incomplete or garbled. Paul straightened out their lack of knowledge.
quote:
This is how I believe it: All those that were baptized unto John's baptism and died before Christ did, because they did it in faith, were saved by John's baptism. All those that were still alive when Christ was raised again, heard the gospel of Jesus preached and had a choice: get re-baptized or lose their soul. Simple as that.
Don't you realize that no scripture presents the demand that John's converts get rebaptize? That is an invention of yours. Jesus' disciples (the Twelve) were never rebaptized. Who would have baptized them? Jesus didn't baptize, John's gospel tells us that (John 4:1). Did they rebaptize each other? We are never told that. It would be fantasy.
Acts 19 tells us that John preached the soon to come Messiah.
quote:
John did not baptize in that name because he didn't even know who Jesus was. THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON HE WAS BAPTIZING PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE! HE WAS TRYING TO FIND THE MESSIAH! (John 1:31-35)
That is partly true. Jesus arrived midway during John's ministry, and John's ministry later receded after Jesus' arrival.
John 1:29 (New American Standard Bible)
"The next day he [John] saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 10:34:58 AM
|
|
|
apostolic862004
Posts: 32
Joined: 8/14/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
The bold statement is so blatantly false it is humorous. Scripture teaches that John was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and was sent to pave the wave for Jesus. Not only was he not looking for Jesus, he knew who Jesus was and was teaching about Jesus. It does not really matter to me what people think about baptism but to make a post this false does get under my skin.
I think it's funny that you declare that the statement I made is false yet John is the one who said it!
John 1
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
Use whatever translation you want. I use the KJV. It doesn't matter to me how anyone else feels about.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 11:01:36 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: apostolic862004
I think it's funny that you declare that the statement I made is false yet John is the one who said it!
John 1
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
One of the meanings of the English verb "to know" means "to be acquainted with" or "to be familiar with..." (Webster's New World Dictionary). That meaning of "to know" is consistent with the NET Bible's translation of verse 31 "I did not recognize him."
Verse 31 is part of a larger narrative in which John the Baptist met and endorsed Jesus as the Messiah. To interpret verse 31 the way you do takes it out of its context and tries to make it say something it doesn't intend to say.
John was saying he did not know Jesus prior to John's meeting at the River Jordan. John had to have met Jesus before John's ministry was over. John baptized Jesus. How could John have never met Jesus if John baptized Him (Jesus)? John saw Jesus and saw the HS descending on Him. At that point, John realized that Jesus was the Messiah.
quote:
Use whatever translation you want. I use the KJV. It doesn't matter to me how anyone else feels about.
I'm only pointing out that the KJV is vague about Apollos' knowledge of Jesus. The KJV never says Apollos didn't know about Jesus. It is only vague about it. The Greek word Kurios could refer to Jesus or the Father God. It is often used to refer to Jesus in other places.
There is nothing inconsistent with interpreting Acts 18 as saying that Apollos knew about Jesus Christ, just as the other translations say explicitly.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 12/12/2008 12:17:46 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 12:29:10 PM
|
|
|
apostolic862004
Posts: 32
Joined: 8/14/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
John was saying he did not know Jesus prior to John's meeting at the River Jordan.
That is exactly what I am saying. I think Qtman may have mis-understood me. I was saying that John did not yet know Jesus in that he had not met him. He did know that Jesus was the Messiah because he was sent to prepare the way for him. But he had not seen him yet so he did not know exactly who (or which one of the men in the crowd, if you please) he was.
That being said, the only reason that John was baptizing was to find the Messiah! It was not until the NEXT DAY, which was AFTER John had baptized Jesus and saw the spirit descend like a dove, that John could declare, Behold the Lamb of God.
John 1
32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
35Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
We don't read about John baptizing anymore after that. His purpose was served.
So my point was that John's baptism did count until a more perfect way was made which was the shedding of the blood of Christ. Now Apollos ONLY knew of John's baptism and that is what he preached. But Acts 18 and verse 26 state that Aquila and Priscila expounded the way of God MORE PEFECTLY to him.
Now if he was already preaching the Gospel of Christ, what could have been done more perfectly? Well, the preceding passage is what gives the indicator. It was the doctrine of John's baptism. After Christ died, John's baptism was no longer effective. Why? Because there is only one baptism and that is in Jesus name. (Matt 28:19)
This is confirmed in Acts 19 when the disciples that had already been baptized unto John's baptism, were re-baptized.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 3:27:25 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: apostolic862004
Now Apollos ONLY knew of John's baptism and that is what he preached. But Acts 18 and verse 26 state that Aquila and Priscila expounded the way of God MORE PEFECTLY to him.
Now if he was already preaching the Gospel of Christ, what could have been done more perfectly? Well, the preceding passage is what gives the indicator. It was the doctrine of John's baptism.
There are a couple of possibilities about Apollos' knowledge that is still consistent with the text.
1) There is the possibility that Apollos did not know of Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection.
2) There is the possibility that Apollos knew of the above but nothing concerning the Day of Pentecost.
I would accept either of the above or both.
quote:
After Christ died, John's baptism was no longer effective. Why? Because there is only one baptism and that is in Jesus name. (Matt 28:19)
Do we really need to get into your hobby horse about Jesus' name? I must protest that we stick with the subject. You're the only one who wants to debate that.
Scripture no where says that baptizing in Jesus' name or in the name of the Father, Son or Holy Spirit are inconsistent with one another.
With regard to the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19, I would suggest that their knowledge was more deficient than that of Apollos. The English KJV translation makes it sound like that they never heard of the existance of the HS. If they had John's baptism, they would certainly have known about the HS's coming. John preached about the HS. But some Greek scholars indicate that it is an idiom saying that the men didn't know that the HS had come to the People of God.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 5:27:15 PM
|
|
|
apostolic862004
Posts: 32
Joined: 8/14/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are a couple of possibilities about Apollos' knowledge that is still consistent with the text.
1) There is the possibility that Apollos did not know of Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection.
2) There is the possibility that Apollos knew of the above but nothing concerning the Day of Pentecost.
I would accept either of the above or both.
But you will not accept that it had anything to do with baptism?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 5:36:39 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: apostolic862004
quote:
There are a couple of possibilities about Apollos' knowledge that is still consistent with the text.
1) There is the possibility that Apollos did not know of Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection.
2) There is the possibility that Apollos knew of the above but nothing concerning the Day of Pentecost.
I would accept either of the above or both.
But you will not accept that it had anything to do with baptism?
It seems unlikely. Note that the shortest distance between two points is a line. Likewise the most likely explanations are the ones present in the scriptures where we are having the dilemma. 2nd choice would be those in the same book.
As I was thinking about this discussion over the course of the day, it occurs to me that there is no dilemma here that demands I resort to the explanation you have offered.
Certainly people may believe it if they want (and you may if you want), but I try to look for explanations that resolve difficulties I find. Your explanation rather looks like an attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole. You have a doctrine looking for a place to use it.
As I look at the explanations that you and greatdivide offer, I would have to accept things scripture is completely and utterly silent about by way of teaching or they must outright contradict some very firm and solid teachings.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 12/12/2008 5:49:06 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/12/2008 9:20:06 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Gee. And if everyone else thinks it too, you are the one who is attempting to deny common theological terms.
No one else has ever accused me of believing in baptismal regeneration.
As I said, I do not now, nor have I ever believed in baptismal regeneration. All those folks you quoted at length are obviously arguing against baptismal regeneration a view with which I do not agree, either. I would agree with those folks you quoted regarding what they wrote concerning baptismal regeneration.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/13/2008 7:38:44 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Here we are not told Apollos was rebaptized. He was deficient in some things, probably a lack of knowledge of the resurrection. But he did know and believe Jesus was the Messiah. But Priscilla and Aquila filled in the gaps of his knowledge. I would suggest that he was saved, howbeit with insufficient knowledge somewhere. Insufficient as his knowledge was, it only required further instruction--i.e. and update on things that had happened after he believed and accepted John's message.
I agree with you here. But in order to maintain consistency with the rest of the New Testament, I would say that the further instruction that Apollos received included instruction concerning the role and purpose of baptism in the Christian life after the day of Pentecost.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/13/2008 7:44:13 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
The bold statement is so blatantly false it is humorous. Scripture teaches that John was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and was sent to pave the wave for Jesus. Not only was he not looking for Jesus, he knew who Jesus was and was teaching about Jesus. It does not really matter to me what people think about baptism but to make a post this false does get under my skin.
Are you saying that John knew that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah prior to Jesus' showing up to be baptized by him?
Something else that came to my mind -- Baptism in Jesus' name wasn't instituted until Peter said so on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. At least I can't remember baptism in Jesus' name being mentioned prior to that.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/13/2008 8:18:20 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
As I look at the explanations that you and greatdivide offer, I would have to accept things scripture is completely and utterly silent about by way of teaching or they must outright contradict some very firm and solid teachings.
I'm chagrined that you feel this way about my explanations. But it seems to me that the conclusions that I draw are based on Scripture. Otherwise I would not offer them.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/13/2008 11:51:59 AM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 6366
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Truth Project
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
quote:
ORIGINAL: apostolic862004
Check this out!
Acts 18
24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
27And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
Now i have a question: why was it important to note that he ONLY knew John's baptism? Also, in Acts 19, why did Paul continue to preach to the disciples that said the had been baptized unto John's baptism? And why did they get re-baptized?
This is how I believe it: All those that were baptized unto John's baptism and died before Christ did, because they did it in faith, were saved by John's baptism. All those that were still alive when Christ was raised again, heard the gospel of Jesus preached and had a choice: get re-baptized or lose their soul. Simple as that.
What was the difference between John's baptism and baptism after Christ's resurrection? THE BLOOD! WHAT CAN WASH AWAY MY SIN? NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS! Also, they now had to be baptized in the NAME of Jesus. (Acts 4:12) That's a whole other discussion in itself!
John did not baptize in that name because he didn't even know who Jesus was. THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON HE WAS BAPTIZING PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE! HE WAS TRYING TO FIND THE MESSIAH! (John 1:31-35)
The bold statement is so blatantly false it is humorous. Scripture teaches that John was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and was sent to pave the wave for Jesus. Not only was he not looking for Jesus, he knew who Jesus was and was teaching about Jesus. It does not really matter to me what people think about baptism but to make a post this false does get under my skin.
The first chapter of John makes it's clear that John the Baptist knew of Jesus, but it also makes clear that until that moment Jesus approached John he didn't know who Jesus was. John says so in verse 30, 31 and verse 32 tells us that John was shown who Jesus was(not what Jesus is...) by the Spirit... It's clearly shown that who Jesus is was revealed to John at the moment...
John 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
_____________________________
John
Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/13/2008 7:19:03 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
No one else has ever accused me of believing in baptismal regeneration.
As I said, I do not now, nor have I ever believed in baptismal regeneration. All those folks you quoted at length are obviously arguing against baptismal regeneration a view with which I do not agree, either. I would agree with those folks you quoted regarding what they wrote concerning baptismal regeneration.
Are you saying that you don't believe a person has to be baptized in order to be saved? Essentially, the view that one has to be baptized in order to be saved is called baptismal regeneration.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/13/2008 7:30:54 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
From post #62.
quote:
I agree with you here. But in order to maintain consistency with the rest of the New Testament, I would say that the further instruction that Apollos received included instruction concerning the role and purpose of baptism in the Christian life after the day of Pentecost.
Nothing changed regardint the role and baptism between the resurrection and Pentecost. Obviously, Jesus command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was new as of Matt. 28, i.e. the Great Commission.
quote:
If Apollos "spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus," then where was he deficient? Apparently not in his knowledge of the way of the Lord. But there must have been something he said or didn't say that alerted Aquila and Priscilla that he didn't know something. Perhaps he failed to mention baptism, I don't know. Just a thought, because he already knew accurately the things concerning Jesus.
We are not told specifically. John the Baptist didn't teach about the death and resurrection of Christ because John was already dead by the time that happened. The death and resurrection of Christ would involve further revelation not fully appreciated until after Christ's resurrection. If Apollos had left Palestine during the mid-point of Jesus' ministry, Apollos could not preach that. After the resurrection and Pentecost, that became an integral part of the Gospel message.
quote:
And while there is no record of Apollos having to get rebaptized that doesn't mean it didn't. To use that as a point seems to me to be arguing from silence.
There is more than just a matter of an argument of silence on my part here. NO ONE was instructed to get rebaptized afterward. If it were necessary, it would be leaving out an important ingredient of obeying God. To omit it entirely would wrong, wrong, wrong.
quote:
I'm chagrined that you feel this way about my explanations. But it seems to me that the conclusions that I draw are based on Scripture. Otherwise I would not offer them.
Of course, you feel somewhat the same about me don't you? We both cannot be right at the same time. While you are basing them on scripture, you are basing them on erroneous interpretations.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 5:47:50 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AbbyGrace
I have read through this thread, and find some post to be a bit disturbing, especially those claiming that if you arent baptized, you wont make it into Heaven.
So what happens, when someone gets saved and "the very next day," gets into their car and ends up in a tragic accident, and dies? Are people here saying, "that this person goes to hell because they werent baptized?"
Many including those here would probably say that a person who trusts Christ without the subsequent opportunity to be baptized would go to heaven. There are others, not represented here, who would probably say he would not go to heaven.
But, maybe I misunderstand them.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 7:21:03 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Are you saying that you don't believe a person has to be baptized in order to be saved? Essentially, the view that one has to be baptized in order to be saved is called baptismal regeneration.
If this wording helps you to understand that when I say I don't believe in baptismal regeneration I mean I don't believe in baptismal regeneration, then yes, that's what I'm saying.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 7:32:06 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AbbyGrace
I have read through this thread, and find some post to be a bit disturbing, especially those claiming that if you arent baptized, you wont make it into Heaven.
So what happens, when someone gets saved and "the very next day," gets into their car and ends up in a tragic accident, and dies? Are people here saying, "that this person goes to hell because they werent baptized?"
Of course if they had been saved in New Testament times they would have been baptized immediately (e.g. the Philippian jailer and the Ethiopian eunuch). In those days baptism was so intertwined with salvation that it was virtually the same event and occurred at the same time. Therefore, your hypothetical person would not have to ask the question because they would have been baptized by the time of the "tragic accident." In reality, though, I've seen more Christians live to be baptized than I've seen die before they could be baptized.
Besides, wouldn't we rather base our understanding of Scripture on what scripture says and not upon possible, hypothetical situations that tend to support what we think should happen rather than what Scripture actually says?
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 7:45:01 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Nothing changed regardint the role and baptism between the resurrection and Pentecost. Obviously, Jesus command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was new as of Matt. 28, i.e. the Great Commission.
So something did change regarding the role and purpose of baptism between the resurrection and Pentecost?
quote:
We are not told specifically. John the Baptist didn't teach about the death and resurrection of Christ because John was already dead by the time that happened. The death and resurrection of Christ would involve further revelation not fully appreciated until after Christ's resurrection. If Apollos had left Palestine during the mid-point of Jesus' ministry, Apollos could not preach that. After the resurrection and Pentecost, that became an integral part of the Gospel message.
It seems unlikely to me that if Apollos taught accurately the things concerning Jesus that he didn't know about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Of course, I suppose that's just as much a possibility as my point that he didn't know about baptism. Both would be an argument from silence.
quote:
There is more than just a matter of an argument of silence on my part here. NO ONE was instructed to get rebaptized afterward. If it were necessary, it would be leaving out an important ingredient of obeying God. To omit it entirely would wrong, wrong, wrong.
NO ONE??? I thought the Ephesian disciples got rebaptized after further instruction regarding baptism. And if the Ephesian disciples were instructed to get rebaptized afterward, I wonder if there might be others that we're not told about. But I guess that would be an argument from silence, too. 
quote:
Of course, you feel somewhat the same about me don't you? We both cannot be right at the same time. While you are basing them on scripture, you are basing them on erroneous interpretations.
Erroneous or not, they seem to me to be more consistent with the rest of scripture than those who say we are saved by faith alone or that we are saved by walking an aisle and saying a sinners prayer, which don't even appear in scripture much less are erroneous interpretations.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 5:26:56 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
So something did change regarding the role and purpose of baptism between the resurrection and Pentecost?
Something did. Early in John's ministry, John preached about a "not-as-of-yet-identified" Messiah. Later, after John's death, once Jesus died and rose from the dead, it (baptism) reflected a picture of the resurrection. John could not baptized "eis/unto" Jesus the Messiah because he was not identified and certainly not resurrected. But the change represented further revelation, not a change of status.
quote:
It seems unlikely to me that if Apollos taught accurately the things concerning Jesus that he didn't know about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Of course, I suppose that's just as much a possibility as my point that he didn't know about baptism. Both would be an argument from silence.
Apollos' teaching would be accurate but not complete. Once he was filled in on the lastest happenings, he could go forth and preach without having any such rebaptism himself. My view reflects what facts are presented in chapter 18. Your view reflects absolutely nothing like that.
quote:
NO ONE??? I thought the Ephesian disciples got rebaptized after further instruction regarding baptism.
Uh, no. They got rebaptized after instruction about the Messiah. It was really not about the baptism so much as it was about their faith in the Messiah.
Look at 19:4-5
"Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Most likely they missed the part about their repentance as preparation for the Messiah. They were baptized "unto John's baptism." Paul explains that John predicted the Messiah (i.e. Jesus, see verse 4). Apparently, those men didn't believe upon any Messiah, Jesus or anyone else. So, their baptism didn't count. What cued Paul into that fact is that they had not had the HS come upon them. They didn't know the HS had already come. If they had, it would be because they already knew about Jesus and resurrection-- since the HS came to glorify a resurrected Christ.
quote:
And if the Ephesian disciples were instructed to get rebaptized afterward, I wonder if there might be others that we're not told about. But I guess that would be an argument from silence, too.
Quite likely. But it is true that we are not told. In any case, if they didn't know about Jesus the Messiah or about His resurrection, then they essentially did not receive the complete gospel. My guess is that anyone who understood the Messiah was coming and repented in preparation for it, would not need rebaptism.
If their baptism was just to be baptized, they would be like a person today who "believed in Jesus" (that is to say, a false Jesus like that of the JW's or Mormons). In such a case, I would expect any of those people to be rebaptized even today.
It is not that a person is baptized but rather what they believe when they are baptized. If they aren't clear on certain points, the baptism is just getting wet.
quote:
Erroneous or not, they seem to me to be more consistent with the rest of scripture than those who say we are saved by faith alone or that we are saved by walking an aisle and saying a sinners prayer, which don't even appear in scripture much less are erroneous interpretations.
No one believes the prayer or walking the aisle has any value. You are making it sound like we believe that. Sorry, I while I was in churches where those were practiced, it was said over and over that those things have no value in and of themselves. It matters not whether a person does them so long as they believe. It is the faith in Christ that counts.
While no scripture says we cannot be saved without baptism, many say we cannot be saved without faith in Christ.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 12/14/2008 7:02:56 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 7:12:04 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
GD,
What I am trying to say is that the only reason for a person to get rebaptized is if they did not believe the Gospel before their baptism. There is enough information to suggest that was the case with the Ephesian disciples.
Correct information, so long as it involved God's revelation up to that point would not require rebaptism. Inaccurate information or inaccurate understanding of it would be. Apollos apparently did not receive inaccurate information nor did he misunderstand it--the situation with the Ephesian disciples, however, was different. Baptism eis/unto John's baptism is not the same thing as a baptism eis/unto repentance, if I am reading the narrative properly.
We are not told precisely what they thought a baptism eis/unto John's baptism was. But Paul apparently regarded as not only deficient but incorrect. It would not reflect an inaccuracy of John's message. Paul told them what John's message was in verse 4.
Therefore, his correction and or further instruction involved the truth of Jesus Christ the Messiah.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
