Originally Posted by Peytonator
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?
No, you definitely have not proven your view in the least. I find the proof for the perpetuity and necessity of water baptism as presented by 100s over the span of 2000 years far more convincing. The CHURCH has deemed it so and continues to do so. You stand in opposition to ALL of that testimony. But you haven't addressed that major and impassable hurdle yet. Would you kindly try and do so? I've brought this up more than twice now. grin

Again, let me state my objection one last time. The lack of understanding of the universality of God's saving grace in Christ, i.e., Jews AND Gentiles, on the part of some of the disciples does not in any way equate with nor demand that their understanding of the other aspects of Christ's command to them in Matt 19:18-20 was flawed. And even more so, their not having come to initially comprehend the universality of preaching the Gospel to Gentiles as well as Jews, i.e., "all nations" has no logical bearing whatsoever on the meaning nor perpetuity of administering water baptism.

The fact that Acts records that water baptism was practiced by all and administered to 'all nations', i.e., to Jews as well as Gentiles is certainly proof enough. The inclusiveness of salvation was learned early on by the disciples, not at the end of their earthly lives. It was because they learned that the Church was to be comprised of both Jews and Gentiles that they baptized both.

1 Corinthians 1:17 (ASV) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

This text has absolutely no relevancy to your argument. Paul is simply stated that his primary responsibility was to preach and teach and not be involved in ecclesiastical affairs. Converts were received into membership and baptized by those elders who were appointed for that purpose. The CONTEXT, vv. 11-16 should be enough to reveal the true meaning of v. 17. In fact, we read that Paul did, in fact, administer water baptism (cf. v.14,16; Acts 16:14,15). Thus Paul is not saying baptism was unimportant and certainly not abrogated.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
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.”
Sorry, but your 'logic' even here is woefully flawed and at best irrelevant to what I wrote, i.e., your positing that "baptize them into the name of..." means that the disciples were to administer/perform "spirit baptism" upon those who became disciples is illogical and thus gave various reasons why it is illogical. The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is beyond man's ability to grasp in its fullness has nothing to do with what you are claiming for Matt 28:19. scratch1 We can indeed comprehend the Trinity to a certain degree else there would be no doctrine of the Trinity whatsoever. The Church has comprehended the truth of the triunity of God as it is revealed in the Scriptures. The result of the Church's comprehension of the Trinity was then officially stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. And throughout the history of the Church the respective confessions of the various denominations affirmed this truth. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity is hardly 'illogical'. But your wanting to make "baptize them into the name of..." to mean 'spirit baptism' is illogical. Can you please provide even one reference where anyone performed 'spirit baptism' on someone else, baptizing them 'in[to] the name of the Father, and in[to] the Son, and in[to] the Holy Spirit"? 1Cor 1:10-13 alone is sufficient to silence any such suggestion.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
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?
Yes, some of those texts are making contrasts but NONE are contrasting water baptism AGAINST the baptism or coming of the Holy Spirit. I am baffled how you can think they do?? shrug As stated in the quote above, BOTH water baptism and [S]spirit baptism are biblical truths. This is yet another example of how you are forcing a preconceived idea upon Scripture in order to justify your view. Must I ask but another time... How is it that no one in 2000 years has embraced what you and a handful of others are espousing? Has the entirety of Christendom been in the dark and taught error because they lacked your insight into interpreting Scripture? Aside from all the brilliant and godly men which God Himself raised up in the Church during those 2000 years, I can think of one of my former profs who had memorized the entire NT in Greek and could recite many parts of in reverse if asked. He was more than acquainted with its contents and the doctrines therein. It is inconceivable to me that he somehow totally missed the truth about water baptism which you and Luginbill seem to have miraculously discovered.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
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
This grieves me, but I hear you. confused 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.
Well, we can certainly agree on that one thing... you are without question:

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]