Pilgrim,
The disciples were “speaking the word to no one except Jews.” (Acts 11:19), which was blatant disobedience of Mat 28:19a. Certainly their EARLY faulty view of the salvation of “all nations,” including Gentiles, did not “change the clear meaning” of Christ. But the
- Old Testament entrenched understanding of the disciples indicated by their faulty view of the most fundamental tenant of the great commission,
- their 'slowness of heart to believe,"
- their inconsistent practicing of baptism in Acts,
- the Old Testament context of water baptism for Gentile Proselytes, and
- the EPISTLES,
are certainly a “sure indicator that water baptism [from Acts] cannot be unreservedly imitated ...” i.e., it throws a serious question as to whether what they did was right. As you will agree, Acts must first be compared with the rest of Scripture. Everything post Acts is spiritual (aside from the few cases I mentioned, which argue against water). Have I not proven this? Can you prove that Mat 28 is referring to water, in the light of 1 Cor 1:17?
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??
Is the trinity logical? God’s omnipresence? God’s sovereignty and human responsibility? In section 5, I explicitly asked and answered the question, “how can such a command be given to his disciples, who had no power to save?” “To preach the gospel is not to baptise, but is the means by which Christ does. For we are “born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable,
through the living and abiding word of God.“ Just as we don’t “save others by snatching them out of the fire” (Jude 1:23) (Christ does!), but preach the Word as the means of thereof, so we “teach the nations” the living and abiding Word of God as the means of Christ baptising -
that is, simply as the means of their receiving the Spirit. In fact, in some sense, the apostles actually DID baptise people with the Holy Spirit when they placed their hands on them (Acts 8:17). In that case, perhaps this command is actually only for the early disciples, as the end of Mark’s version of the great commission is: “...And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons... etc.”
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".
Are Matt 3:11, 1 Corinthians 1:17, Heb 6:1-2, 9:10, 1 Peter 3:21 not making a serious contrast?
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 ScripturaThis grieves me, but I hear you.
I have repeatedly admitted my concern about church history, but have sought to substantiate my view with multitudes of Scriptures. It would be helpful to the discussion if it were soaked in more Scripture.
