Christ did not send me to baptize

[MennoSota]

You have a really big problem reading. TRY (I think you can do it), TRY reading real words that are really there. They are black and white things, formed from letters. Don't deny and ignore them and instead create invisible, fake, pretend,imaginary ghosts NOT there and based EVERYTHING on those. Try it.





EVERYONE ELSE..... read this exchange in this series of quotes. It's SO typical. More with Scripture than with people.




.

You didn't answer either question. I don't think you have a biblical answer.

 

[NewCreation435]

Agreed. This is why it is dangerous to lift up baptism to a mystical level that claims the sins of unrepentant, non-believers are forgiven by virtue of being baptized.
Paul did not place baptism in such a high position, precisely because it would become a work of salvation of which people would boast. I believe 1 Corinthians 1 connects perfectly to Ephesians 2:8-9.
So, baptism is a God ordained function in the church, but it comes after the proclamation and reception of the gospel.

It's unclear to me why a unsaved, unrepentant person would seek out being baptized? A unrepentant person wouldn't seek it out in the first place

 

[Josiah]

It's unclear to me why a unsaved, unrepentant person would seek out being baptized? A unrepentant person wouldn't seek it out in the first place

Yes, I think there are people to whom God gave spiritual life, the Holy Spirit, saving faith (Justification).... very likely through some means...... but had never been baptized. I've known a number of such cases myself. THEN, knowing the blessings and importance of Baptism, sought it out. We had the case of a Chinese grad student who came to our church a few weeks ago with just such a request. Praise God. But there is no command that baptism must be forbidden to any who have not proven they are over some mysterious, unknown age..... to any who have not proven they are among the Elect.... who have not proven they have adequately repented. I can find no such stated prohibition. Nor did any other Christian for nearly 1600 years. NO ONE is saying the saved is forbidden from seeking baptism..... it's just that only a few (and those only since the 16th Century) are dogmatically forbidding it to all others. The forbidding is all on the side of the Anabaptists...but the forbidding is only for those reasons (which the Anabaptists admitted are not prohibitions stated in the Bible.


Now, since MennoSota is determined to twist this thread ALSO into one about baptism, I can understand the position of SOME modern Calvinists and Methodist and some others who argue that Baptism is SO stressed and Commanded by Jesus.... along with teaching central to The Great Commission.... so very important in Acts and all the NT..... so very important in all Christianity for 1500+ years.... because it does nothing and isn't very important. Their "do it - but we don't know why" theology. I'd agree, the WHY isn't explicit at every point. But the Anabaptist point is different. It's that it's FORBIDDEN - dogmatically FORBIDDEN, specifically PROHIBITED and DENIED - unless 4 conditions are met (and they ADMIT none of these are taught in Scripture or for 1500 +years of Christianity): 1) must have attained some unknowable age, 2) must prove they are among the Elect (this really only for Reformed Baptists,others simply say "prove they are a Christian"), 3) have proven they have adequately repented. A fourth has to do with administration 4) Every cell of their body MUST be immersed entirely under water. BIG rules there! All because this.... well..... isn't important.....doesn't do anything.... Again, the dogmatic "FORBIDDEN!!!!" is all on the Anbaptist side. The "GOTTA DO EXACTLY THIS and GOTTA KEEP THIS BIG (and largely unattainable) RULES because this don't do anything and don't mean much!" That's the Anabaptist's thing.


I think water matters - but I'm not MANDATING a certain gallon count and FORBIDDING less. I think faith matters - but I'm not inserting a "THEN" into texts where it NEVER appears (in the Bible or for 1500 + years of Christianity), forbidding God to use a sequence they don't like. I'm certainly holding repentance is important (athough I see repentance not as a hoop that saves rather than faith in Christ but a changed heart that Christ gives) but I'm not FORBIDDING God to do this in whatever way and order He wants. I'm not FORBIDDING a saved person from seeking a blessing for themselves, I'm not just joining the Anabaptists in dogmatifally FORBIDDING parents from seeking a blessing for their children in response to God's loving call. The dogmatic FORBIDDING and all these HUGE rules and mandates are inventions of the Anabaptists - unheard of for 1500+ years and NEVER STATED IN SCRIPTURE as MennoSota has gone to such things to prove. Over and over. All because Baptism does nothing and ain't very important, THAT'S why all the new dogmatic prohibitions and mandates.


Look, [MENTION=59]jsimms435[/MENTION], some modern Evangelicals have embraced the Anabaptist Tradition on Baptism. I don't criticize any for embracing a Tradition (even one very late and largely rejection - one that obviously has neither Scripture or History). We ALL embrace Tradition (some better than others, lol). We ALL "wear glasses" in a sense. I embrace honesty and humility: it's good to know what Tradition is being embraced (it's history, it's apologetics) and be honest about that. And MennoSota is FAR, FAR from the only one who embraces such with no accountability, simply assuming it and then making Scripture 'fit' (even if words THERE must be ignored.... and words NOT THERE need to be inserted, if only by "implication" and "my interpretation.") Happens. Virtually always, to some degree. But I dislike the dishonesty, the pride, the radical individualism, and most of all the hypocrisy of ridiculing in others for what self is doing FAR, FAR more and more radically than they. What MennoSota is doing is not so rare.... he just does it more radically and extremely than any I've met - certainly more than any Catholic or Mormon I've discussed matters with. At his demand, I DID explain the ancient, historic, orthodox tradition on this (created a whole thread to do it; look 7 or 8 opening posts) - and I tried to keep it honest and "clean." He ignored it. Pretty much everyone did. AND THAT'S OKAY. We have TRIED to discuss his Tradition (because he inserts it everywhere!) but all he does is deny that it is Tradition (even who it comes from), will not permit any Scripture because what the words are are irrelevant to him, only what his Tradition needs to be INSERTED. He calls this his "exegesis" but it's the deletion of all words that don't "fit" his chosen Tradition and the inserting of different words that help his Tradition. That's not looking at Scripture, that's just his CHANGING the words as suits his Tradition. If we are to get anywhere, we need to be HONEST about our positions.... and discuss the Scripture that IS (real words that are THERE) rather than radically editing every relevant word by deleting what we don't like and inserting helpful words.


.

 

[MennoSota]

It's unclear to me why a unsaved, unrepentant person would seek out being baptized? A unrepentant person wouldn't seek it out in the first place

Right. I have yet to see an infant seek out baptism. Yet, folks go about baptizing them anyway with no regard to preaching the gospel.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, I think there are people to whom God gave spiritual life, the Holy Spirit, saving faith (Justification).... very likely through some means...... but had never been baptized. I've known a number of such cases myself. THEN, knowing the blessings and importance of Baptism, sought it out. We had the case of a Chinese grad student who came to our church a few weeks ago with just such a request. Praise God. But there is no command that baptism must be forbidden to any who have not proven they are over some mysterious, unknown age..... to any who have not proven they are among the Elect.... who have not proven they have adequately repented. I can find no such stated prohibition. Nor did any other Christian for nearly 1600 years. NO ONE is saying the saved is forbidden from seeking baptism..... it's just that only a few (and those only since the 16th Century) are dogmatically forbidding it to all others. The forbidding is all on the side of the Anabaptists...but the forbidding is only for those reasons (which the Anabaptists admitted are not prohibitions stated in the Bible.


Now, since MennoSota is determined to twist this thread ALSO into one about baptism, I can understand the position of SOME modern Calvinists and Methodist and some others who argue that Baptism is SO stressed and Commanded by Jesus.... along with teaching central to The Great Commission.... so very important in Acts and all the NT..... so very important in all Christianity for 1500+ years.... because it does nothing and isn't very important. Their "do it - but we don't know why" theology. I'd agree, the WHY isn't explicit at every point. But the Anabaptist point is different. It's that it's FORBIDDEN - dogmatically FORBIDDEN, specifically PROHIBITED and DENIED - unless 4 conditions are met (and they ADMIT none of these are taught in Scripture or for 1500 +years of Christianity): 1) must have attained some unknowable age, 2) must prove they are among the Elect (this really only for Reformed Baptists,others simply say "prove they are a Christian"), 3) have proven they have adequately repented. A fourth has to do with administration 4) Every cell of their body MUST be immersed entirely under water. BIG rules there! All because this.... well..... isn't important.....doesn't do anything.... Again, the dogmatic "FORBIDDEN!!!!" is all on the Anbaptist side. The "GOTTA DO EXACTLY THIS and GOTTA KEEP THIS BIG (and largely unattainable) RULES because this don't do anything and don't mean much!" That's the Anabaptist's thing.


I think water matters - but I'm not MANDATING a certain gallon count and FORBIDDING less. I think faith matters - but I'm not inserting a "THEN" into texts where it NEVER appears (in the Bible or for 1500 + years of Christianity), forbidding God to use a sequence they don't like. I'm certainly holding repentance is important (athough I see repentance not as a hoop that saves rather than faith in Christ but a changed heart that Christ gives) but I'm not FORBIDDING God to do this in whatever way and order He wants. I'm not FORBIDDING a saved person from seeking a blessing for themselves, I'm not just joining the Anabaptists in dogmatifally FORBIDDING parents from seeking a blessing for their children in response to God's loving call. The dogmatic FORBIDDING and all these HUGE rules and mandates are inventions of the Anabaptists - unheard of for 1500+ years and NEVER STATED IN SCRIPTURE as MennoSota has gone to such things to prove. Over and over. All because Baptism does nothing and ain't very important, THATS why all the new dogmatic prohibitions and mandates.




.

Baptism is in the title, Josiah. No twisting necessary.
Paul preached the gospel. He placed baptism at a lower priority. First tell them the gospel. Let those chosen by God respond. Then baptize them. Paul expresses this, but you can't accept it because....your tradition holds greater power than scripture.

 

[Arsenios]

You do seem to have an enormous problem reading.....
You seem to be blind to the words that are actually there,
and yet see invisible words obviously not there.
It's quite stunning.
You do that with people,
you do it most of all with Scripture.

Sho' 'Nuff!

A.

 

[Josiah]

Paul preached the gospel. He placed baptism at a lower priority

IF you actually read the Scripture, you'd note what everyone who can read does: What you dogmatically state is ENTIRELY MISSING from the text. You just made it up. And perhaps thinking yourself smart, perhaps appoint yourself to insert it into the text via invisble words only you an "see."

First tell them the gospel. Let those chosen by God respond. Then baptize them. Paul expresses this

Either you are just wholly dishonest or have a problem reading. I suspect the latter.


Sure, there are examples of the sequence you suggest....but your mandates, your prohibitions, your denials - they are all totally ABSENT in Scripture. You are just blindly parroting the Anabaptists who just made them up (they didn't even claim it's stated in Scripture).


Your blind, unaccountable embrace of these Anabaptist Traditions keeps you from being able to actually READ because....your tradition holds greater power than scripture. Thus words THERE are ignored or deleted, invisible stuff NOT THERE becomes your dogma.

 

[MennoSota]

IF you actually read the Scripture, you'd note what everyone who can read does: What you dogmatically state is ENTIRELY MISSING from the text. You just made it up. And perhaps thinking yourself smart, perhaps appoint yourself to insert it into the text via invisble words only you an "see."






Either you are just wholly dishonest or have a problem reading. I suspect the latter.


Sure, there are examples of the sequence you suggest....but your mandates, your prohibitions, your denials - they are all totally ABSENT in Scripture. You are just blindly parroting the Anabaptists who just made them up (they didn't even claim it's stated in Scripture).


Your blind, unaccountable embrace of these Anabaptist Traditions keeps you from being able to actually READ because....your tradition holds greater power than scripture. Thus words THERE are ignored or deleted, invisible stuff NOT THERE becomes your dogma.

I read the scriptures. I see exactly what the Apostles did. I do what they did. When tradition contradicts what the Apostles did, I let go of tradition and do what the Apostles did.
Do you think the Apostles acted wrongly, Josiah?

 

[Arsenios]

It's unclear to me why a unsaved, unrepentant person would seek out being baptized?
A unrepentant person wouldn't seek it out in the first place

Exactly so...

Why would one even want Baptism into Christ?

Repentance first,
then Baptism,
then enhanced repentance...

You are Called by God to Repentance...
Then you begin repenting of sin and turning to God...
Then, having established repentance as your way of Godly life...
You are Baptized into Christ...
And you run the race set before you...
And those overcoming demonic principalities...
Are Glorified by God...

Straightforward in a simplified kind of way...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Paul preached the gospel.
He placed baptism at a lower priority.

Actually, hearing the Gospel is but preparation for Baptism into Christ...

To HEAR is to OBEY the Gospel of Repentance...

The first step is God's CALL to repentance...

To prepare in your soul the Way of the Lord...

To make straight the Road, a straight Pathway for our God!

THEN one is actually Baptized INTO Christ our God...

Even into His Death on the Cross...

At this point we TAKE UP our own cross...

And we FOLLOW Christ...

Simple to say, great effort to do...

The cost of discipleship is your life...

The reward is Christ's Life...


Arsenios

 

[NewCreation435]

Yes, I think there are people to whom God gave spiritual life, the Holy Spirit, saving faith (Justification).... very likely through some means...... but had never been baptized. I've known a number of such cases myself. THEN, knowing the blessings and importance of Baptism, sought it out. We had the case of a Chinese grad student who came to our church a few weeks ago with just such a request. Praise God. But there is no command that baptism must be forbidden to any who have not proven they are over some mysterious, unknown age..... to any who have not proven they are among the Elect.... who have not proven they have adequately repented. I can find no such stated prohibition. Nor did any other Christian for nearly 1600 years. NO ONE is saying the saved is forbidden from seeking baptism..... it's just that only a few (and those only since the 16th Century) are dogmatically forbidding it to all others. The forbidding is all on the side of the Anabaptists...but the forbidding is only for those reasons (which the Anabaptists admitted are not prohibitions stated in the Bible.


Now, since MennoSota is determined to twist this thread ALSO into one about baptism, I can understand the position of SOME modern Calvinists and Methodist and some others who argue that Baptism is SO stressed and Commanded by Jesus.... along with teaching central to The Great Commission.... so very important in Acts and all the NT..... so very important in all Christianity for 1500+ years.... because it does nothing and isn't very important. Their "do it - but we don't know why" theology. I'd agree, the WHY isn't explicit at every point. But the Anabaptist point is different. It's that it's FORBIDDEN - dogmatically FORBIDDEN, specifically PROHIBITED and DENIED - unless 4 conditions are met (and they ADMIT none of these are taught in Scripture or for 1500 +years of Christianity): 1) must have attained some unknowable age, 2) must prove they are among the Elect (this really only for Reformed Baptists,others simply say "prove they are a Christian"), 3) have proven they have adequately repented. A fourth has to do with administration 4) Every cell of their body MUST be immersed entirely under water. BIG rules there! All because this.... well..... isn't important.....doesn't do anything.... Again, the dogmatic "FORBIDDEN!!!!" is all on the Anbaptist side. The "GOTTA DO EXACTLY THIS and GOTTA KEEP THIS BIG (and largely unattainable) RULES because this don't do anything and don't mean much!" That's the Anabaptist's thing.


I think water matters - but I'm not MANDATING a certain gallon count and FORBIDDING less. I think faith matters - but I'm not inserting a "THEN" into texts where it NEVER appears (in the Bible or for 1500 + years of Christianity), forbidding God to use a sequence they don't like. I'm certainly holding repentance is important (athough I see repentance not as a hoop that saves rather than faith in Christ but a changed heart that Christ gives) but I'm not FORBIDDING God to do this in whatever way and order He wants. I'm not FORBIDDING a saved person from seeking a blessing for themselves, I'm not just joining the Anabaptists in dogmatifally FORBIDDING parents from seeking a blessing for their children in response to God's loving call. The dogmatic FORBIDDING and all these HUGE rules and mandates are inventions of the Anabaptists - unheard of for 1500+ years and NEVER STATED IN SCRIPTURE as MennoSota has gone to such things to prove. Over and over. All because Baptism does nothing and ain't very important, THAT'S why all the new dogmatic prohibitions and mandates.


Look, [MENTION=59]jsimms435[/MENTION], some modern Evangelicals have embraced the Anabaptist Tradition on Baptism. I don't criticize any for embracing a Tradition (even one very late and largely rejection - one that obviously has neither Scripture or History). We ALL embrace Tradition (some better than others, lol). We ALL "wear glasses" in a sense. I embrace honesty and humility: it's good to know what Tradition is being embraced (it's history, it's apologetics) and be honest about that. And MennoSota is FAR, FAR from the only one who embraces such with no accountability, simply assuming it and then making Scripture 'fit' (even if words THERE must be ignored.... and words NOT THERE need to be inserted, if only by "implication" and "my interpretation.") Happens. Virtually always, to some degree. But I dislike the dishonesty, the pride, the radical individualism, and most of all the hypocrisy of ridiculing in others for what self is doing FAR, FAR more and more radically than they. What MennoSota is doing is not so rare.... he just does it more radically and extremely than any I've met - certainly more than any Catholic or Mormon I've discussed matters with. At his demand, I DID explain the ancient, historic, orthodox tradition on this (created a whole thread to do it; look 7 or 8 opening posts) - and I tried to keep it honest and "clean." He ignored it. Pretty much everyone did. AND THAT'S OKAY. We have TRIED to discuss his Tradition (because he inserts it everywhere!) but all he does is deny that it is Tradition (even who it comes from), will not permit any Scripture because what the words are are irrelevant to him, only what his Tradition needs to be INSERTED. He calls this his "exegesis" but it's the deletion of all words that don't "fit" his chosen Tradition and the inserting of different words that help his Tradition. That's not looking at Scripture, that's just his CHANGING the words as suits his Tradition. If we are to get anywhere, we need to be HONEST about our positions.... and discuss the Scripture that IS (real words that are THERE) rather than radically editing every relevant word by deleting what we don't like and inserting helpful words.


.

I'm unsure why you feel the necessity to mention my name in your post. If you read the original post in this thread that I wrote you will see that I said that the original scripture that was quoted did not prove anything on the value of baptism. That wasn't Paul's point at all in the passage. Paul was saying that he was primarily called to preach and not to baptize. This is in the context of 1 Corinthians 1 which talks about divisions. Ironically, the issue of baptism has caused a lot of divisions within the church.
If we are going to stick to the context of the original passage of this thread, Which I would prefer to do and if another passage about baptism is something to be discussed then another thread can be started. I'm just goofy enough to think that context matters

 

[Bluezone777]

It's unclear to me why a unsaved, unrepentant person would seek out being baptized? A unrepentant person wouldn't seek it out in the first place

You'd be surprised. Being unsaved and unrepentant doesn't mean you can't be religious as the pharisees were the best at demonstrating you can have all the religion you can ask for and still be hell bound. There will be many in any age that think they are godly who will hear the words I never knew you from Jesus on that final day of judgment. They will point to all their works and say didn't we do this or that in your name? It will count for nothing because without repentance, there is no relationship with Jesus and without a relationship with Jesus nothing you do or say will matter until you repent which is the beginning of your walk with Jesus that transforms you into himself over time. He is after all the corner stone of which everything else's place is determined by. If you start with anything else, you will not know how it properly fits and will make a mess of things.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, hearing the Gospel is but preparation for Baptism into Christ...

To HEAR is to OBEY the Gospel of Repentance...

The first step is God's CALL to repentance...

To prepare in your soul the Way of the Lord...

To make straight the Road, a straight Pathway for our God!

THEN one is actually Baptized INTO Christ our God...

Even into His Death on the Cross...

At this point we TAKE UP our own cross...

And we FOLLOW Christ...

Simple to say, great effort to do...

The cost of discipleship is your life...

The reward is Christ's Life...


Arsenios

Right.
The elect hear the gospel and respond in faith. The Spirit of God then immerses (baptizes) them into Christ.

Romans 10:8-10 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Funny...no mention of the need for water baptism to forgive sins or be given faith.

 

[NewCreation435]

Right. I have yet to see an infant seek out baptism. Yet, folks go about baptizing them anyway with no regard to preaching the gospel.

So the reality is that you wish to talk about infant baptism. I'm puzzled then why you picked the original passage of scripture that you did? From what I know about you you value the scriptures and know that this verses you quoted really didn't focus on infant baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

So the reality is that you wish to talk about infant baptism. I'm puzzled then why you picked the original passage of scripture that you did? From what I know about you you value the scriptures and know that this verses you quoted really didn't focus on infant baptism.

Baptism is baptism no matter the age.

 

[NewCreation435]

You'd be surprised. Being unsaved and unrepentant doesn't mean you can't be religious as the pharisees were the best at demonstrating you can have all the religion you can ask for and still be hell bound. There will be many in any age that think they are godly who will hear the words I never knew you from Jesus on that final day of judgment. They will point to all their works and say didn't we do this or that in your name? It will count for nothing because without repentance, there is no relationship with Jesus and without a relationship with Jesus nothing you do or say will matter until you repent which is the beginning of your walk with Jesus that transforms you into himself over time. He is after all the corner stone of which everything else's place is determined by. If you start with anything else, you will not know how it properly fits and will make a mess of things.

Yes, I would. Because most lost people that I know don't give a thought about God.

 

[Andrew]

We need to focus on Paul's teaching era and his dealings with them (babes in Christ) so we don't buy into current bias or even post Pentecost bias.
Let's remember that we have been technically in the end times since the acts of the Apostles.
Imagine then, you don't have a bible and are having a tough time breaking from pagan idolatry and vain philosophy, yet you consider yourself a babe (new convert/believer) in Christ.
How does Paul's teachings impact you?
It's clear, he is preaching that you teach and make it known to your family and to others the importance of WHY Christ died on the cross and WHY it matters!
Say you have a newborn, what should you do? You should raise them as you are now being raised in God given wisdom through His gospel! In your walk you shall learn them how to walk, and I'm sure they had no argument nor debate that these young ones be baptized and also ministered over!
Nothing wrong with infant baptism as long as they grow in the faith IMO.
Baptism alone? Nope. When they grow up and acknowledge not and walk in adverse from God then they had no baptism even though they were touched with water. In that case the Pope could bless every flood or rainfall in the Holy Name but no man has that amount of power. It all comes down to the preaching of the Gospel.

 

[MennoSota]

We need to focus on Paul's teaching era and his dealings with them (babes in Christ) so we don't buy into current bias or even post Pentecost bias.
Let's remember that we have been technically in the end times since the acts of the Apostles.
Imagine then, you don't have a bible and are having a tough time breaking from pagan idolatry and vain philosophy, yet you consider yourself a babe (new convert/believer) in Christ.
How does Paul's teachings impact you?
It's clear, he is preaching that you teach and make it known to your family and to others the importance of WHY Christ died on the cross and WHY it matters!
Say you have a newborn, what should you do? You should raise them as you are now being raised in God given wisdom through His gospel! In your walk you shall learn them how to walk, and I'm sure they had no argument nor debate that these young ones be baptized and also ministered over!
Nothing wrong with infant baptism as long as they grow in the faith IMO.
Baptism alone? Nope. When they grow up and acknowledge not and walk in adverse from God then they had no baptism even though they were touched with water. In that case the Pope could bless every flood or rainfall in the Holy Name but no man has that amount of power. It all comes down to the preaching of the Gospel.

Dunking a kid in water isn't be in debate. Teaching that the dunking forgave the kids sins and saved the kid is what is at issue.
Nothin wrong with a bath.

 

[Andrew]

Dunking a kid in water isn't be in debate. Teaching that the dunking forgave the kids sins and saved the kid is what is at issue.
Nothin wrong with a bath.

Agreed, a "dunking booth" approach to salvation makes the preaching of the cross of no effect! Just as Paul made perfectly clear in 1rst Corinthians

 

[Arsenios]

Dunking a kid in water isn't be in debate.
Teaching that the dunking forgave the kids sins and saved the kid is what is at issue.
Nothin wrong with a bath.

Having a fantasy that you have been baptized privately BY the Holy Spirit isn't in debate...
Teaching that private spiritual fantasies forgive your sins and save you is what is at issue...
Nothin wrong with some spiritual desires...

Or...

Back at ya!

Arsenios