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

I went along with your proposition that the Apostles/disciples didn't understand the meaning of "all nations", which alleged misunderstanding you selectively forced upon baptism, but excluded their "going", "making disciples" and "teaching them all that I commanded you.", only to show that the fallacy of your 'logic'. The fact is, the Apostles and disciples were more than aware that "all nations" meant that Gentiles were to be received into the Church.

Acts 1:8 (ASV) "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

Early on, the Council of Jerusalem recognized that Gentiles were to be equal recipients of God's grace (Acts 15). And thus Gentile believers were received into the Church and given the sign of the new covenant; baptism. For some of the Jews, e.g., the Pharisees, Gentiles were to be totally excluded. But the majority of the Jews, including some of the disciples and Peter as well, Gentiles were received into the Church but looked upon as second-class citizens. They believed that Gentiles needed to add to their faith some of the old covenant ceremonial laws, e.g., circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. This was basis for Paul's rebuke of Peter (Gal 2:11f). The Gentiles were to be received in FULL, for the "wall of the Gentiles" aka: wall of separation which was built in the Temple to restrict Gentiles from FULL access to God was now broken down (Eph 2:12-14). Those who wanted to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, showing that they were being received, had to learn that the sign of the covenant had been changed to reflect the new universality and new spirituality of the new [administration] of the covenant; baptism.

There are records of Gentiles being received into the people of God and given the sign of the covenant in the OT, e.g., Gen 17:9-14. And not only were some Gentiles received into the community of God's people, they were instrumental in bring forth the promised Messiah; Ruth.

Next, I didn't comment on your references to John MacArthur or Wayne Grudem because they too were illogical and irrelevant. Why would you use quotes from either of these two men when both, especially MacArthur as a die-hard Baptist, would totally reject your premise? They offered no "proof" for your position whatsoever. To try and extract from them justification of your view is fallacious and a classic example of casuistry.

As I mentioned before, these texts have no relevance to your proposition. In fact, some prove otherwise, e.g,. 1Pet 3:1.

1 Peter 3:20-21 (ASV) "that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: (21) which also after a true likeness doth now save you, [even] baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;"

The comparison Peter is using is crystal clear and has been for 2000 years of Church history as recorded in its confessions and catechisms. WATER is referred to in Peter's reference to Noah and compared to the WATER of baptism. This 'water' of water baptism Peter says is not to be seen/understood as some ceremonial external washing but internal. Water baptism has a spiritual significance to it, which you and Luginbill and perhaps a handful of others have totally missed.

I took some time to try and get you to at least think about the continuity of the one Covenant of Grace and its signs respective to its administration; circumcision and water baptism (cf. Col 2:11,12; cp. Rom 6:4). One purpose of baptism is to symbolize the death and burial of the old man, and that by the mighty power of God alone, whose power we lay hold on by faith, in the death and resurrection of Christ. Contrariwise, the "baptism of the Spirit" was transitory for it served a specific purpose to show the full inclusion of the Gentiles. This is NOT the same as the "giving of the Spirit" or the "indwelling of the Spirit", which is imperceivable compared to that which we read about in Acts. The "baptism of the Spirit" as first experienced and witnessed with the disciples at Pentecost verified that their message was from God. And when SOME of the Gentiles had a similar experience, it unified the new covenant Church when it was first established. Afterward the Gentiles were considered fellow heirs of the grace of Christ which was signified and sealed in their water baptism (Gal 2:26-29).

As for the rest, it is all superfluous. I don't mean to be trite, but you have missed the whole point as to why the Church for 2000+ years has continued to administer water baptism. And this brings me to my last point; a point which I have raised many times before and which you have selectively chosen to ignore. Again, how is it that all the brilliant men which God has raised up in the Church throughout history, to whom the Holy Spirit was given and by Whom the truth is known, failed to know the truth about water baptism, but you some 2000 years later have discovered it? It is the Church, which is the church of the living God, [and is] the pillar and ground of the truth, not any individual apart from the Church. This is NOT to say that the visible Church in its pronouncements is infallible (contra. Romanism, Orthodox). But it is the institution ordained by God wherein the Holy Spirit reveals truth, teaches it, preaches it, and preserves it by guarding it against heresy. You apparently have little or no appreciation for this biblical truth. For, you unabashedly stand against its teaching in regard to water baptism. Most take the exact opposite approach. Having come to a preliminary view concerning some subject, they consult the Church and its teaching on the subject and compare them. They submit to the secondary authority of the Church and recognize that its teachers have been mightily gifted of God in the Scriptures. And should their view be contrary to what the Church has held, they seriously question the verity of their conclusion and seek to understand where they went wrong. Even the Apostle Paul submitted himself to the council of the Church, after having been instructed by Christ himself. This is known as "humility".

I was taught that one should be "precise, profound and cogent" in presenting arguments. You have done none of these things but rather you have jumped all over the place, resting texts out of context, practiced eisegesis, casuistry, and refused to deal with questions asked, even the one above re: the testimony of the Church. You claim to be still studying and learning about water baptism, but from your responses here, I for one, would never come to that conclusion. You appear to be obsessed with your rejection of water baptism for some reason other than an alleged biblical proof since you have offered no valid nor conclusive proof.

You will never prove your position because it is indefensible and the Church has so said as much for 2000 years. If nothing else, you will never convince me that spirit baptism has replaced water baptism because my own studies have concluded that such a view is spurious and is not found in Scripture and therefore it is not reasonable.

Enjoy your "Varsity".