The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is water baptism to be practiced today? [New]

Peytonator,

Seriously, there is far too much "verbiage" in your responses and article for me to spend the necessary time on. It is fraught with hermeneutical errors and erroneous presuppositions. I really don't mean to 'slam' you on this, but books have been written on the subject of water and Spirit baptism which soundly refute your position.

This is a good example of erroneous presuppositions. WHERE, pray tell, is it written that the disciples (250+) 'failed to grasp' the significance of "all nations"? Peter had to be shown that Gentiles were to be fully received into the Church (Acts 10:9ff; 11:4ff), but what has that to do with the meaning of Christ's commandment to make disciples of all nations and BAPTIZE them in the name of the Triune God? There simply is no relationship between the two which would change the clear meaning making of disciples, baptizing them with water, and teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded them. That they did exactly this is indisputable.

IF, as I understand your interpretation of Matt 28:19, you are positing that "baptize them..." is to be understood as "Spirit baptism" or some kind of "spiritual baptism", correct? IF <-- this is what you are espousing, it is totally illogical and not substantiated anywhere in Scripture. The disciples of Christ, which were in the 1000s, did not have any power to baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit. Secondly, grammatically it makes no sense whatsoever.... baptizing them [in/with/by] the Spirit into the name of the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Spirit??

Lastly, one of the major presuppositional flaws is that you are CONTRASTING water baptism and [S]spirit baptism, which Scripture nowhere encourages. To the contrary, they are two different things, both of which exist. The former is to be administered by man and the latter is given by God. It is not "either/or" but rather "both/and".

I shall say no more other than to once again impress upon you severity of your view. Am I, or anyone else for that matter, to seriously believe that the Church has been totally ignorant on this matter of baptism and has taught millions false doctrine... UNTIL you and a perhaps a few others came along with the truth? Do you seriously believe that Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Tertullian, Owen, Edwards, Nettleton, Swinnock, Goodwin, Brown, McCheyne, Ursinus, Hodge, Warfield, Shedd, Kersten, Bavinck, Strong, Gill, Fuller, Hoeksema, Berkhof, Lenski, Hendriksen and countless others, all theological giants representing their respective and varied denominations totally failed to grasp the significance and perpetuity of water baptism? How could this be? And, of a much lesser significance is my own study on the subject in English and the original languages of Scripture and of Church history. But nonetheless, what I came to understand is in full accord with 2000 years of scholarship.

Would you at least think of what you are more than implying by taking this novel view of water baptism? Perhaps you might be motivated to do some deep soul searching on this matter by reading the following article by Keith Mathison: A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura