Would I be admitted?

[MoreCoffee]

Thank-you for making my point for me...

Jesus did not NEED Baptism...

So why DID Christ insist on being Baptized?

Do you remember?

And for that matter, did John need Baptizing?

Does Scripture tell us?

Arsenios

Did you mention to MennoSota that John preached a message ....

Matthew 3:1-3 In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming, 2 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.' 3 This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, 'The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."'​

Which was like the message that Jesus preached ...

Matthew 4:12-17 Now when Jesus heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 He left Nazareth and made his home in Capernaum by the lake, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 so that what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: 15 'Land of Zebulun, land of Naphtali, on the road by the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles-- 16 the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.' 17 From that time Jesus began to proclaim, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.'​

And that after the resurrection of the Lord, Jesus Christ, saint Peter preached the Christian gospel saying ...

Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.'​

The gospel is about repenting and being baptised ... even if MennoSota objects ...

 

[Arsenios]

I asked:

So why DID Christ insist on being Baptized?

Do you remember?

You answered:

Symbolic...
So the world could see that the Spirit baptizes us into Christ.

Those are your un-Biblical words...

Christ's very words are recorded in Holy Scripture:

"That ALL Righteousness be fulfilled..."

Did you really forget the passage I am citing?

These Holy Words from our Lord directly connect Baptism to Justification/Righteousness...

Baptism results in the fulfillment of ALL Righteousness...

Without it, there would be NO such fulfillment...

eg - There would only be Old Testament human righteousness...

Baptism INTO Christ...

Done BY our Lord...
THROUGH the hands of
and by (the hands of) His Servants...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

I asked:


You answered:


Those are your un-Biblical words...

Christ's very words are recorded in Holy Scripture:

"That ALL Righteousness be fulfilled..."

Did you really forget the passage I am citing?

These Holy Words from our Lord directly connect Baptism to Justification/Righteousness...

Baptism results in the fulfillment of ALL Righteousness...

Without it, there would be NO such fulfillment...

eg - There would only be Old Testament human righteousness...

Baptism INTO Christ...

Done BY our Lord...
THROUGH the hands of
and by (the hands of) His Servants...

Arsenios

Grant Osborne summarizes the meaning of the phrase “to fulfill all righteousness” with this comment,

In short, he “fills to the full” the “right” requirement of God in “the OT pattern and prediction of the Messiah.” He does not need to repent, but by submitting to baptism Jesus begins His messianic work by identifying with the human need and providing the means by which it can be accomplished.”[1]

John’s baptism identified Christ as the coming Messiah – the Righteous One. Baptism was a symbolic preparation for the coming King and kingdom. Baptism symbolized Christ’s coming death and resurrection for our sins. His baptism instituted the symbol that His future saints would submit themselves as a sign of identification with Christ.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...at-jesus-baptism-fulfilled-all-righteousness/

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Shall we let scripture decide?
Somehow I doubt any of you folks will let scripture speak for itself. You will demand that church tradition overrule and define scripture.

Say again?

...Here's what triggered me to question the foundations on which "baptism is a symbol in which God does not act" doctrines and practices are based:

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)

"And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." (Acts 16:33 - see commentary below)


"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death..." (Romans 6:3-4a)

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:27)

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. " (Colossians 2:11-12)

"But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior..." (Titus 3:4-6, emphasis mine)

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21)

 

[MoreCoffee]

...Here's what triggered me to question the foundations on which "baptism is a symbol in which God does not act" doctrines and practices are based:

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)

"And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." (Acts 16:33 - see commentary below)

"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death..." (Romans 6:3-4a)

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:27)

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. " (Colossians 2:11-12)

"But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior..." (Titus 3:4-6, emphasis mine)

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21)

ImaginaryDay2 let holy scripture speak for itself but is anybody who advocates for credobaptism listening?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Shall we let scripture decide?
Somehow I doubt any of you folks will let scripture speak for itself. You will demand that church tradition overrule and define scripture.

Grant Osborne summarizes the meaning of the phrase “to fulfill all righteousness” with this comment,

In short, he “fills to the full” the “right” requirement of God in “the OT pattern and prediction of the Messiah.” He does not need to repent, but by submitting to baptism Jesus begins His messianic work by identifying with the human need and providing the means by which it can be accomplished.”[1]

John’s baptism identified Christ as the coming Messiah – the Righteous One. Baptism was a symbolic preparation for the coming King and kingdom. Baptism symbolized Christ’s coming death and resurrection for our sins. His baptism instituted the symbol that His future saints would submit themselves as a sign of identification with Christ.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...at-jesus-baptism-fulfilled-all-righteousness/

Very much not in keeping with certain church teachings and tradi...... oh, wait

 

[MoreCoffee]

Very much not in keeping with certain church teachings and tradi...... oh, wait

:smirk:

How naughty of you to notice

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

And I'm accused of jumping through hoops (not by Menno, but still...)

 

[Arsenios]

Grant Osborne summarizes the meaning of the phrase “to fulfill all righteousness” with this comment,

In short, he “fills to the full” the “right” requirement of God in “the OT pattern and prediction of the Messiah.” He does not need to repent, but by submitting to baptism Jesus begins His messianic work by identifying with the human need and providing the means by which it can be accomplished.”[1]

John’s baptism identified Christ as the coming Messiah – the Righteous One. Baptism was a symbolic preparation for the coming King and kingdom. Baptism symbolized Christ’s coming death and resurrection for our sins. His baptism instituted the symbol that His future saints would submit themselves as a sign of identification with Christ.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...at-jesus-baptism-fulfilled-all-righteousness/

I thought we were arguing from God's Word, and not from mere opinions of fallen men...

Scripture tells us, and then shows us, why Christ commanded John to Baptize Him...

Mat 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
but He that cometh after me is mightier than I,
Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:
He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire:

Here john confesses his preparatory baptism unto repentance, naming Christ as the One Who is coming after Him, Who will Baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with Fire...

It is Christ Who Baptizes AFTER John

Mat 3:12
Whose fan is in His hand,
and He will throughly purge His floor,
and gather His wheat into the garner;
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Here John tells us HOW the Baptism of Christ Baptizes with Fire...
Purging the chaff from the wheat with unquenchable fire...
Do you not understand this fire as the temptations?

Mat 3:13
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John,
to be baptized of him.

The question is why?
The answer is above...
To establish the Baptism of Christ...

Mat 3:14
But John forbad him, saying,
"I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest Thou to me?"

And John, the greatest of all the Prophets, rebukes Christ...
Because he sees his own need for Christ's Baptism...
Yet Christ denies him, and NEVER Baptizes him...

Mat 3:15
And Jesus answering said unto him,
"Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness."
Then he suffered Him (to be baptized).

ουτως γαρ πρεπον εστιν ημιν πληρωσαι πασαν δικαιοσυνην
For in this manner it is fit by/to us to fulfill all Righteousness.

Two things here:
1) It is fit to US... WE... Plural...
This "by us" or "to us" conjoins God to man in Baptism unto ALL Righteousness...
And we know that it is God alone Who makes man Righteous eg Who Justifies...
So what does Christ mean when He says "by us"??
And we can say "He means John and Jesus", and He does...
But why the two of them baptizing God in the flesh in water??
And we find the answer when we see that we are to FOLLOW Christ...
And then comes what comes in Baptism:

Mat 3:16

And Jesus, when He was baptized,
went up straightway out of the water:
and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him,
and He saw the Spirit of God
descending like a dove,
and lighting upon him:

Hence we see the baptism of John unto repentance transformed into the Baptism of Christ by the human hands of Christ's appointed Servants wherein the heavens open to us and the Spirit of God descends upon us and abides...

The WE, you see, is Christ in His Servants Baptizing us into Christ through the Waters of Regeneration...

Arsenios
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

There is so much that begs comment. The "Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" will have to wait for a moment or two. (Refer to Post #103.)

==============================================================================================

Much has been written about the significance of baptism, both as related to faith, and as a stand-alone religious ritual (conducted by someone “qualified” in the general case).

For example (for example only, and not picking on any individual):
Post #122: "That ALL Righteousness be fulfilled..."
Post #129: "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness."

The latter is correct. “...it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.”

Jesus’ baptism was a unique transaction, between two individuals of predetermined significance, undertaken at a particular place, at a particular point in human history, for a particular and wonderful purpose.

==============================================================================================

The Jews were familiar with the process through which a despised gentile had to pass to be grafted into the Spiritual House of Israel. That process included baptism by immersion.

John’s call to repentance and baptism was therefore recognisably a call for individual Jews to acknowledge that their faith toward God had been no better than that of the gentiles they reviled, and that they needed to publicly proclaim that acknowledgement by being baptised like one of them.

The effecting of the transaction between John and Jesus, allowed Jesus to be identified with the sinners whom He had come to save, and was an important step in the God-ordained process of establishing the righteousness of God (all righteousness) with respect to God’s dealing with Mankind and Satan. (If people are unaware of relevant Scripture, I can supply some.)

==============================================================================================

And while the baptism of Jesus and “general Christian baptism” are related, I would suggest that that relationship is vastly different from the justifying of ritualistic forms of baptism found in Christendom today.

==============================================================================================

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel​

In Post #103 ImaginaryDay2 said:

At this point I would challenge Pedrito to give us a succinct explanation of the "Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" so revealed to him

==============================================================================================

Preface 1

Readers will note that I have never expressed the thought of special personal revelation. I have simply pointed people to the Holy Word of God, and sometimes laid before others what it demonstrably does say, and what it demonstrably doesn’t.

So perhaps we should keep in the back of our minds the question: just how serious was ImaginaryDay2 in making his request? Does his choice of words betray a hint of pugilism, rather than a true openness to what unadulterated Holy Scripture might reveal? (Could ImaginaryDay2’s adherence to a form of Lutheranism, be based on something God revealed to him?)

And should we maybe ask Arsenios to provide his less-than-10-second appraisal of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel (see Post #105)? And inform us regarding the importance or otherwise of which foot he was standing on at the time. Perhaps he could apprise us regarding how that simple less-than-10-second gospel was transformed into the much more complex, current, Greek Orthodox religion.

==============================================================================================

Preface 2

It is human nature to reject out of hand, things that differ from what we want to believe. Especially if cherished personal beliefs are challenged seriously – i.e. if people end up feeling discomforted.

That rejection is especially easy when the information is presented by someone else. But if people discover something for themselves, there is greater chance of them taking notice of it.

That is why I have encouraged people to take the time to read the Holy Bible as it was actually written. But most people won’t make the effort to do that, for various reasons.

In fact, when cherished beliefs are being challenged, loyalties come under question, and that is heavy stuff, psychologically speaking.

==============================================================================================

“Fortunately”, there is another approach. It takes less effort, and is somewhat slower overall. But it is nonetheless thorough. We simply look at individual beliefs and practices of Christendom as they surface in CH, and confirm the Scriptural evidence on which it is claimed they are based, or discover the lack of it.

That will allow us to progressively identify with certainty, beliefs and practices that were definitely part of the Original Apostolic Gospel, and those that were not.

We’ll start in the next Post. (Diversionary third party Posts in the interim, permitting.)

==============================================================================================

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Thank you for the preface and I assure you I asked the question in all seriousness. As opposed to responding, I will simply be reading as you lay things out, lest I be accused of engaging in a jousting match of sorts

 

[MoreCoffee]

A true scenario:
My parents had me baptised as an infant in the Presbyterian church (PCUSA), obviously without my "consent". This was "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". I was not submerged in a pool, but rather sprinkled or some such method. I was (at some point) "confirmed" and made a member, albeit a pretty poor one.

Years later, I was baptised again, as I became convinced by some rather zealous Pentecostals that the first one didn't count. I was fully immersed, however this was done "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins", rather than a Trinitarian formula, as these good folks denied Trinitarian doctrine.

Question - given these facts, would I be welcome into membership and be able to commune with churches that are part of most mainline Baptist conventions (e.g. SBC)?

Somehow the original post's topic is ... not exactly what is under discussion any more.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

A quick aside.

1. I thank ImaginaryDay2 for his clarification in Post #132, and assure him that his future contributions will be welcome, especially in helping provide information that may be requested (both generally and of specific others) as we progress.

2. MoreCoffee’s observation that the thread is diverging from the original topic (Post #133) is correct. However, I am simply responding to a serious and important request made within this thread. I also mentioned in Post #9 of the ‘Can Silence Be Golden’ thread of the ‘Senior Members Lounge’ that my intention was to respond in the thread where the request was made, in case that approach were deemed inappropriate. No inappropriateness was highlighted.

Now back to the main thrust.

==============================================================================================

 

[Pedrito]

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel​

==============================================================================================

We are embarking on the review of individual doctrines of Chtistendom, and seeing if they are really based on God’s Holy Revelation to us, the Bible.

Those that are, we can be sure were component teachings of the Original Apostolic Gospel, and will help define it. Those that are not, we can be sure were later additions, superimposed on that Original Apostolic Gospel, and foreign to it. (They will also help define the Original Apostolic Gospel, by omission.)

I would suggest that if any unscriptural doctrines are uncovered, the origin of each such doctrine will need to be considered with great care. If a teaching/belief was not known to the Apostles, and was not known to Jesus (who is said to be both fully God and fully Man when He walked the Earth), then we must question if it is truly from God. Especially if it conflicts with what Jesus and the Inspired Apostles actually taught. The God-origin of all such beliefs must be questioned, whether or not they have been embraced by Christendom for long enough to appear fundamental.

(Naturally, that will be necessary only if one or two unscriptural beliefs are actually found. It is a person’s pre-willingness to accept and support disturbing new truth, that is being focussed on for personal assessment, here.)

==============================================================================================

The first doctrine we will consider is one for which a number of claims have been made in CH, and thus given prominence. We will simply investigate those claims, and permit those who made them, to substantiate them.

Let’s get to it.


(As it turned out, this Post would have been much too long had I presented the detail here. So the detail will be in the next Post.)

==============================================================================================

 

[Pedrito]

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel​

==============================================================================================

Doctrine 1 – There is a Conscious “Soul” That Survives Human Death​

An abundance of Scripture has been claimed to exist in support of that now-foundational doctrine of Christendom. In the interest of the “Sola Scriptura” proclamation (whether formally or informally expressed), those Scriptures which have been claimed to exist, must be tabled. Here and now. (No more deliberately ignoring requests for their tabling; if the verses referred to cannot be tabled, they simply do not exist – and if the verses do not exist, the doctrine in question did not exist in Apostolic times – that belief was clearly not part of the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 1:3) NIV.)

==============================================================================================

Here are the particular claims in question. [Emphasis added to focus attention.]

Mennesota in Post #2 in Annihilationism 01-17-2018: Annihilationism is best known in Jehovah's Witness and Mormon beliefs. Like free-will, it is developed by misapplying a couple verses while ignoring the forest of verses that make it untenable.

Albion in Post #19 in Annihilationism 01-18-2018: Were you to quote or paraphrase every NT verse that teaches the life of the soul after physical death [[implying significant multiplicity (Pedrito insertion for clarity)]] the conclusion would be quite different. And unavoidable.

Mennosota Post #31 in Thoughts on the Annihilationism Thread 03-02-2018: Ezekiel shares a number of verses where the dead Kings of earlier Kingdoms wonder when Babylon, Tyre and Egypt will be punished. These souls are in the "pit" and very much conscious.

Atpollard Post #45 in Thoughts on the Annihilationism Thread 03-30-2018: Actually, references to the afterlife are found throughout Job and seldom tied to the word 'sheol' [which does mean 'grave' rather than 'Hell' in Job.]
[[Pedrito clarification: Job has 43 chapters. “Throughout Job” could reasonably be expected to mean an average of one verse per chapter. But being conservative, let’s say around one verse per two chapters. We end up in the vicinity of to two dozen again. Let’s aim for that number of verses (or even just one dozen) as a reasonable request for verifying the “throughout Job” claim.]]

==============================================================================================

There are only two honest options available (considering the consistent refusal to list the verses in the past – does anyone really want me to show where?):
1. The claimants must table the verses they have alleged to exist; OR
2. The claimants must admit dishonesty in support of a doctrine that is in fact unscriptural;
--- (It is too late for those who made the assertions, to now claim innocent overstatement for effect;
--- They had opportunities to do that in the past, but each time they chose to stand their ground instead;
--- In the light of that, could continued silence be seen as anything other than a covert admission of guilt?
--- Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.)

Once that matter is settled (one way or the other) we can focus attention on a different belief that has been presented in CH.


I’ll bet a lot of people didn’t realise how simple it would be to identify the Original Apostolic Gospel, bit by bit.


(And let it be clearly understood that calling people out with respect to the potential gross misrepresentation of God's Holy Word, is neither discourteous nor an act of flaming.)

==============================================================================================

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

A reminder to [MENTION=142]Pedrito[/MENTION] of what the question was.

At this point I would challenge Pedrito to give us a succinct explanation of the "Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" so revealed (or not so revealed) to him

Parentheses added by me. Let's start there as opposed to asking for "proof texts" from others who have made their views clear.