Pilgrim,
At the very least, the argument regarding the Apostles understanding of Mat 28 proves that the Apostles were steeped in an Old Testament understanding early on in Acts. Why do we not imitate their example from before Peter’s experience? Because it transitioning, and because of the Epistles. But I will not pursue this subsidiary argument further because you are missing the wood for the trees.
Providentially I heard a Baptist preacher use the word "transitionary" in a sermon I was listening to in the car today. Now, you are unreservedly accepting baptism from Acts. Which method shall we choose? Before conversion (Acts 8:12, 17)? After (Acts 10:47)? Before receival the Spirit (Acts 8:16)? After (Acts 10:47)? Twice (Acts 19:5)? Once (Acts 9:18)? Jewish proselyte baptism was an accepted Jewish ritual of that day. The disciples understanding of baptism was steeped in this tradition, as is shown by the Ethiopian Eunuch, and they naturally continued baptism because of this context. Please consider what I said about this in the document before you make a response.
Again, this all doesn’t explicitly prove that baptism is obsolete, BUT it does highlight that you can’t unreservedly imitate Acts without comparing it with the Epistles. Even if I had not said what I did above, you MUST agree with this, because otherwise, we certainly will fall into the Pentecostal trap.
1. The Epistles were written AFTER the baptisms in Acts.
2. What do they say?
Some, for example, contradict the physical (the document explains why):
1 Corinthians 1:13-17; Hebrews 6:2; 9:10, 1 Peter 3:21
Some, for example, advocate the spiritual:
Eph 4:5; Gal 3:27; 1 Cor 12:13; Mat 3:11; 1 Pet 3:21
You are not taking issue with me on this point, but MacArthur and Grudem. You have practically ignored EVERYTHING that I have quoted from these men and therefore you think that I have “definitely have not proven [my] view in the least.” I have already given a lengthy answer to your very objection on 1 Cor 1, in the document I posted. It is remarkable that you view the “GREAT COMMISSION” as a mere “ecclesiastical affair.” I was meditating on it this morning, and see the following:
Paul thanked God that he baptised few people, and indeed, he did not even know anyone “beyond the household of Stephanus” whom he baptised. He gives TWO reasons for this:
1. “SO THAT,” verse 15, “no one may say that you were baptized in my name.” This has nothing to do with Paul’s “primary responsibility” but has to do with unity. He withheld in order to prevent “division” and boasting that they were baptised in his name.
2. “FOR,” verse 16, “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel...” Paul was NOT called to baptise, BUT to preach the gospel. This is exclusive phraseology. Paul was called to something other than baptising, therefore he baptised only few. Obviously he has
transitioned (post Acts 19:21 - see "Chronology") in his thinking regarding baptism, and sees no need to baptise any more. Either then,
(i) Christ meant something other than water in Mat 28, namely, the Spirit (which I proven Scripurally, but you merely discard as illogical), or
(ii) Christ’s command can only applied for a certain transitionary time during Acts, as with the ecstatic gifts. Which of these it is, I am not certain right now.
This is sadly the last time I will reply. I can’t keep up with varsity and this... too distracting! But Jeff, thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. I hope to perhaps update you once as my thinking progresses (I am by no means settled on this issue). I don’t appreciate facetious comments, but I do confirm that we are indeed united under this great gospel truth
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Romans 5:1-2Every blessing to you in Christ,
Graham
