THE CHURCH DID NOT START AT PENTECOST

[MennoSota]

So, let me see if I understand you...

You claim to agree with the Bible that there is ONE baptism - but you speak of water baptism and spirit baptism and insist they are two different, separate things...

You claim that baptism MEANS and MANDATES the full and complete submersion of every cell under water, but that baptism has nothing to do with water at all (being submersed in it or not).

Hum....



No, the Bible does NOT say that the Thief on the Cross was baptized - by every cell of his body being immersed under water or otherwise.

Yes, it is the Holy Spirit who baptizes.... sure, some human's hands are used by the Spirit but it's the Spirit who does the baptizing. Just as some bloat may read the Bible to some unbeliever, but it is the Holy Spirit that uses those words for His purposes - it's the Spirit doing the proclaiming. I realize you want to severely limit God and stress what God cannot do if people have not yet attained the magical age of X or if people have not yet accomplished proving they already have faith, but the Bible does not so limit God's power or soverignty; the Holy Spirit moves as He wills, not as the radically synergistic Anabaptists restrict Him.

There is one baptism that is effectual. That is the Holy Spirit's immersion of believers into Christ. This happens upon the moment God graciously saves us by faith.
Water baptism is not needed for salvation, but it is commanded as a visual depiction of what the Holy Spirit has done.
The thief on the cross was never baptized with water. None of the saints before the cross were baptized with water, yet they all were immersed (baptized) into the Promised One (Christ Jesus) by the Holy Spirit.
Josiah, would you be justified by grace, through faith, if you had never had water applied to you in your infant state? Would God have denied you and withdrawn his election of you without water?
Secondly, I don't care about immersion verses sprinkling or pouring. Use a vat of grape juice if that's the only means to symbolize the work that the Holy Spirit has done. I'm not tied to a method of water baptism. I am merely stating that water baptism is symbolic and has no magic powers applied to it.

 

[Josiah]

The thief on the cross was never baptized with water

The Bible never states he was baptized AT ALL. And NOTHING about very cell of his body being fully immersed in water.... NOTHING about him performing the good work of publicly proving he had freely chosen Jesus as his personal Savior... NOTHING about him having first accomplished the celebration of his Xth birthday... NOTHING about baptism AT ALL. You claim that he had been "BAPTIZED" is without any biblical substantiation.

IMO, the Bible is correct that there is ONE baptism. That makes you wrong when you claim there are at least two.

Josiah, would you be justified by grace, through faith, if you had never had water applied to you in your infant state? Would God have denied you and withdrawn his election of you without water?

Of course not (it's you that dogmatically limit what God can do - and how He can do it). But just because God IS ABLE to work otherwise does not mean ergo He CANNOT work via baptism (your "logic" needs some work). CAN God save without the Gospel being proclaimed? Yes, John the Baptist believed before he was even born, but I would NEVER join you in telling God "YOU cannot....."

 

[MennoSota]

The Bible never states he was baptized AT ALL. And NOTHING about very cell of his body being fully immersed in water.... NOTHING about him performing the good work of publicly proving he had freely chosen Jesus as his personal Savior... NOTHING about him having first accomplished the celebration of his Xth birthday... NOTHING about baptism AT ALL. You claim that he had been "BAPTIZED" is without any biblical substantiation.

IMO, the Bible is correct that there is ONE baptism. That makes you wrong when you claim there are at least two.






Of course not (it's you that dogmatically limit what God can do - and how He can do it). But just because God IS ABLE to work otherwise does not mean ergo He CANNOT work via baptism (your "logic" needs some work). CAN God save without the Gospel being proclaimed? Yes, John the Baptist believed before he was even born, but I would NEVER join you in telling God "YOU cannot....."

There is one baptism. No water required.
There are many immersions in various substances. I believe the first use outside if scripture has to do with baptizing pickles in vinegar. The word "baptism" is a generic term. 1 Corinthians 12 lets us know that the Spirit baptizes us into Christ. This is the one baptism that counts. All other baptisms are for show.

 

[Josiah]

There is one baptism. No water required.

Then your denomination is wrong to baptize with water..... and the Baptist Dogma of "Immersion Only Baptism" is heresy. Any church with a baptism tank is heretical.

 

[Albion]

Then your denomination is wrong to baptize with water..... and the Baptist Dogma of "Immersion Only Baptism" is heresy. Any church with a baptism tank is heretical.

I love it! (Maybe because I have often pondered it myself.) I am referring to the Anabaptist insistence that (their) baptism has no power, is not a sacrament, is not unique, and all of that...at the same time as they lead all branches of Christianity in imposing legalisms and requirements upon this empty gesture!

 

[Arsenios]

Yep,
"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:13

Notice, it does not say "By water we are baptized into one body."
It says "By one Spirit we are baptized into one body."

That is a false translation - The Greek term is not BY one Spirit, but IN one Spirit...

A common problem with sola folks who cannot read the Greek text...

It is this specific fact that meant the thief on the cross was baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit and Jesus could say "Today you will be with me in paradise."

A lot of martyrs were not Baptized in water...

They were baptized in their own blood...

In the Holy Spirit...

In the Love of God...


Arsenios

 

[Webster]

Came across an interesting thread that asks the question posited in the OP back on Page 1 of this thread....and it asks the basic question: Did the Church begin at Pentecost?

From a scriptural (and historical) standpoint, the Church's beginnings were on the Day of Pentecost but the underpinnings of the early Christian Church began while Jesus lived on this earth; there's one verse in particular that's always struck me as interesting - Matthew 16:18, when Jesus says to the Apostle Peter, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Now, I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the theological toolshed but I can't help but see those five words in the middle of v.18, "I will build my church" and think "how could the Church exist if Jesus himself has said in that verse upon Peter I will build my church?"

So, if you go from there through to the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-31 in particular) how can one say the Church existed prior to the events of Pentecost? After all, for the things described to happen, one must assume that the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus has happened; otherwise, there are some very serious theological problems here. No, the Church began at Pentecost; yes, the framings, the foundations of the Church were already there prior to Pentecost but the Church didn't 'exist' until the Day of Pentecost.

 

[Albion]

I appreciate that post, but the issue still seems--to me and I think to the teachers, pastors, etc. who say that Pentecost is the Birthday of the Church--not to be a technical one, a legal one, or a matter of dictionary definitions. It is simply a saying, and as such is quite reasonable. Pentecost was the day on which the church really got going, however anyone wants to word that.

 

[Webster]

I appreciate that post, but the issue still seems--to me and I think to the teachers, pastors, etc. who say that Pentecost is the Birthday of the Church--not to be a technical one, a legal one, or a matter of dictionary definitions. It is simply a saying, and as such is quite reasonable. Pentecost was the day on which the church really got going, however anyone wants to word that.

That's a good point there, Albion; I think what I was trying to say, from a lay person's perspective, is that while the Church began at Pentecost, the underpinnings, the foundations for it had already been laid down prior to the Day of Pentecost so that when Pentecost arrives, that's when, as you put it there, the Church really took off - never mind the evangelistic work that the Apostle Paul does later on, years later.

*reads last bit once more* Now that I think of it, Albion, that would be a heck of a theological question for down the road: who had the greater effect and influence on the early Christian Church, Paul or Peter?

 

[Albion]

That's a good point there, Albion; I think what I was trying to say, from a lay person's perspective, is that while the Church began at Pentecost, the underpinnings, the foundations for it had already been laid down prior to the Day of Pentecost so that when Pentecost arrives, that's when, as you put it there, the Church really took off - never mind the evangelistic work that the Apostle Paul does later on, years later.

*reads last bit once more* Now that I think of it, Albion, that would be a heck of a theological question for down the road: who had the greater effect and influence on the early Christian Church, Paul or Peter?

We are in agreement, but if there is one comment on your post that I would add it would be that none of us who are comfortable with the standard reference to Pentecost as the 'Birthday of the Church' thinks for a minute that Jesus' teachings, the few followers he had prior to that time, the various commissions he had given to his Apostles, and such events count for nothing. No! These all matter but, again, it is a saying, a slogan, and one that is sensible. There is no reason for people to find fault with it.

 

[MennoSota]

That is a false translation - The Greek term is not BY one Spirit, but IN one Spirit...

A common problem with sola folks who cannot read the Greek text...



A lot of martyrs were not Baptized in water...

They were baptized in their own blood...

In the Holy Spirit...

In the Love of God...


Arsenios

Not a false translation. You have a false translation. I trust a peer reviewed process by many scholars over the Arsenios says version from you.

 

[MennoSota]

That is a false translation - The Greek term is not BY one Spirit, but IN one Spirit...

A common problem with sola folks who cannot read the Greek text...



A lot of martyrs were not Baptized in water...

They were baptized in their own blood...

In the Holy Spirit...

In the Love of God...


Arsenios

So you acknowledge that there is more than one form of baptism?

 

[Arsenios]

Came across an interesting thread that asks the question posited in the OP back on Page 1 of this thread....and it asks the basic question: Did the Church begin at Pentecost?

From a scriptural (and historical) standpoint, the Church's beginnings were on the Day of Pentecost but the underpinnings of the early Christian Church began while Jesus lived on this earth; there's one verse in particular that's always struck me as interesting - Matthew 16:18, when Jesus says to the Apostle Peter, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Now, I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the theological toolshed but I can't help but see those five words in the middle of v.18, "I will build my church" and think "how could the Church exist if Jesus himself has said in that verse upon Peter I will build my church?"

So, if you go from there through to the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-31 in particular) how can one say the Church existed prior to the events of Pentecost? After all, for the things described to happen, one must assume that the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus has happened; otherwise, there are some very serious theological problems here. No, the Church began at Pentecost; yes, the framings, the foundations of the Church were already there prior to Pentecost but the Church didn't 'exist' until the Day of Pentecost.

The future tense of: "I shall be building (up) My Ekklesia..." can easily be understood in the sense of "increasing", rather than entering into "new construction of something not yet existent..." And indeed, it is the confession of Simon bar Jonah - eg that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, revealed to him by Christ's Father in Heaven - that is basis of entry into the Ekklesia at Baptism... eg IF you are not confessing Jesus Christ as the Son of God, you cannot and will not be Baptized BY the Body of Christ INTO Christ...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

So you acknowledge that there is more than one form of baptism?

Ekonomia is the key -

Remember the story of the kid who baptized his dying of thirst friend in the desert with sand when they were all about to die?

When there cannot be a normal Baptism, one Baptizes as best as one is capable of Baptizing...

There is a lot of water in one's own blood...

Nary a drop in the hot sand...

Yet that Baptism saved all their lives...

And the Bishop completed what had been started...

When Cornelius had the descent of the Holy Spirit upon himself and his party, he STILL needed Baptism, and Peter's words were: "How can we forbid the Water?" iow The filling with the Holy Spirit QUALIFIED Cornelius and his party for Baptism... You think he was Baptized twice, once by the Holy Spirit and once by Peter... I think he was baptized ONCE by Christ through the hands of Peter IN the Holy Spirit...

Remember when Christ was Baptized by John in order to fulfill ALL righteousness?
The Holy Spirit did not descend and abide on Him...
Until AFTER He arose from the Waters of Jordan...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Ekonomia is the key -

Remember the story of the kid who baptized his dying of thirst friend in the desert with sand when they were all about to die?

When there cannot be a normal Baptism, one Baptizes as best as one is capable of Baptizing...

There is a lot of water in one's own blood...

Nary a drop in the hot sand...

Yet that Baptism saved all their lives...

And the Bishop completed what had been started...

When Cornelius had the descent of the Holy Spirit upon himself and his party, he STILL needed Baptism, and Peter's words were: "How can we forbid the Water?" iow The filling with the Holy Spirit QUALIFIED Cornelius and his party for Baptism... You think he was Baptized twice, once by the Holy Spirit and once by Peter... I think he was baptized ONCE by Christ through the hands of Peter IN the Holy Spirit...

Remember when Christ was Baptized by John in order to fulfill ALL righteousness?
The Holy Spirit did not descend and abide on Him...
Until AFTER He arose from the Waters of Jordan...


Arsenios

Normal baptism is done by the Holy Spirit as we are immersed into Christ Jesus. All other forms are human methods that vary.

 

[Arsenios]

Normal baptism is done by the Holy Spirit as we are immersed into Christ Jesus. All other forms are human methods that vary.

Christ established the Norm when He had John Baptize Him in the Jordan...

And it was John who prophesied that Christ will Baptize IN the Holy Spirit...

Never that the Holy Spirit Baptizes...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Christ established the Norm when He had John Baptize Him in the Jordan...

And it was John who prophesied that Christ will Baptize IN the Holy Spirit...

Never that the Holy Spirit Baptizes...


Arsenios

Yep, that baptism did nothing for salvation and simply revealed that Jesus, himself, was above all others as he had no need for repentance. John's baptism is nothing that Christians are even concerned with. It was for the nation of Israel.
What a great symbolism though. It is a norm for showing the symbolic function of the Holy Spirit's work in purifying.

 

[Arsenios]

Yep, that baptism did nothing for salvation and simply revealed that Jesus, himself, was above all others as he had no need for repentance. John's baptism is nothing that Christians are even concerned with. It was for the nation of Israel.
What a great symbolism though. It is a norm for showing the symbolic function of the Holy Spirit's work in purifying.

Christ said His Baptism by John the Baptist was for the sake that ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS BE FULFILLED...

Remember?


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Christ said His Baptism by John the Baptist was for the sake that ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS BE FULFILLED...

Remember?


Arsenios

Do you not believe in God's covenant promise to Abraham?
Jesus was fulfilling the covenant. After all, it was God who made the covenant by walking between the two halves of the cut up animals.
Notice God's response when His Son had kept the covenant.

Matthew 3:15-17 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Arsenios, for one who seems educated, you surprise me by your lack of understanding surrounding God's covenants.

 

[Arsenios]

Jesus was fulfilling the covenant.

Jesus said they were fulfilling ALL Righteousness...

Matthew 3:15-17
But Jesus answered him,
“Let it be so now,
for thus it is fitting for us
to fulfill all righteousness.”

Did I miss His mention of fulfilling the OT Covenant?

Arsenios