Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
Matthew 28 (KJV):
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
"Baptism" has always meant a dunking in water. That, under the New Covenant, it become efficacious for remission for sin is a bonus. That's why it's a gift and it's why it is given freely to infants.
That the early Church understood this to mean what it means, and not what later folks would interpret it to mean shows this point.
SD
Mack, do you agree with Dave?
Are you in Toledo again? ;o)
Hi Mack.
Is anger a sin?
J
No.
BigMack
I'm with you so far...
the baptism Christ is telling of in that passage is water baptism for an outward showing of our faith, its an ordnance like the last supper commandment.
But you lose me here. How do you know that Jesus is referring to water baptism there, since he doesn't say "water baptism"? Why would John the Baptist say that Jesus would offer baptism of the Holy Spirit, and then Jesus tells his apostles to return to water baptism?
FYI, I'm not saying that water baptism is wrong or shouldn't be done, I just don't see that it is, by that passage, made an ordinance.
I'll agree that water baptism was the custom from the earliest days of the church (as illustrated in Acts).
I was looking at that passage from Matthew, and noticed something I'd never seen before.
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Matthew 28:16-17)
Huh? Who are the "some"? And if they saw him, how could they still have doubted?
lol :)
That isn't what happened with Cornelius.
The interesting point here, is that in Acts 2:38, it is implied that one receives the gift of the Holy Ghost after baptism.
However, in Acts 10 the Holy Ghost fell upon the Gentiles prior to any baptism.
Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Obviously, baptism isn't required to receive the Holy Ghost. It was Cornelius' righteousness that made him acceptable to YHWH, as pointed out in verse 35.
tell you about the dream later.
But you lose me here. How do you know that Jesus is referring to water baptism there, since he doesn't say "water baptism"? Why would John the Baptist say that Jesus would offer baptism of the Holy Spirit, and then Jesus tells his apostles to return to water baptism?
FYI, I'm not saying that water baptism is wrong or shouldn't be done, I just don't see that it is, by that passage, made an ordinance.
The giving (baptism) of the Holy Spirit in the NT is similar to examples of its being given to individuals in the OT (Samson, Saul, David, etc.). It is God-given and happens on his schedule (if you will) and in the way in which He chooses.
Therefore, we see it occurring at different points in the process of one's reconciliation to God ... sometimes at the point of belief, sometimes after water baptism, sometimes through the laying on of hands.
Sometimes there is a visible manifestation, sometimes not. But God has promised to gift the believer with the Holy Spirit, and we trust that He shall do as He has promised, whether we can identify a specific point of the giving or not.
I would, therefore, suggest that the baptism that Jesus commanded his followers to give was water baptism. This is the baptism that we (followers of Jesus) can give.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit is given, strictly (so it seems), by God.
I got that you are upset ~ enjoy your misery!
I will not share it with you!
I didn't cause it and I can't cure it!
Do you have any insight into my #1,169?
I was looking at that passage from Matthew, and noticed something I'd never seen before.Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Matthew 28:16-17)Huh? Who are the "some"? And if they saw him, how could they still have doubted?
The "some" would be some of the disciples, I would imagine (in keeping with the text).
Their doubt centered upon His 'really' being back from the dead.
Luke records that, intially, the disciples thought that the risen Jesus was a 'spirit'.
Recall that Thomas 'doubted' until he had touched Jesus' wounds for himself.
It took a while for Jesus to convince (all of) them that he really was back ...Luke 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
RE: "The "spirit of antichrist" is equated to a "spirit of error". CLEARLY, antichrist represents an error - false teaching - that was (and IS) being spread.
Antichrist = erroneous doctrine. Antichrist primarily represents a set of false teachings, not simply some future possible world religious/political figure, or something inserted under the skin. Those accepting the error promoted by the "spirit of error" or "spirit of antichrist" are unintentional victims of the spirit of antichrist.
So, the "antichrist" was (and is) a doctrine or set of doctrines that oppose the truth concerning The Messiah. This set of doctrines was already being spread in the latter part of the first century as false teachers betrayed the truth and went out promoting teachings that were (and are) in opposition to the TRUE Messiah.
2 John 1
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (100% fully human, flesh and blood). This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
John warns us to beware of those that do not acknowledge that Yehoshua (Jesus christ) is 100 percent, human flesh and blood."
* * * * * * * * * * *
I read it like you do. And history clearly shows us that those who adhered to Jesus' faith (Judaism) have suffered horrific tribulation.
Going out of town for a while...and might not have much computer access for the next week. Catch you later.
So, the "antichrist" was (and is) a doctrine or set of doctrines that oppose the truth concerning The Messiah. This set of doctrines was already being spread in the latter part of the first century as false teachers betrayed the truth and went out promoting teachings that were (and are) in opposition to the TRUE Messiah.2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (100% fully human, flesh and blood). This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
John warns us to beware of those that do not acknowledge that Yehoshua (Jesus christ) is 100 percent, human flesh and blood."
So ... you accept John's testimony here ?
Do you accept all of John's testimony (i.e. his gospel, all of his 3 letters, ... and the Revelation) ?
Now getting it on Tuesday is differet. Gotta admire the spunk, though.
I live out in the boonies so there is no such thing as calling and getting a replacement for a missed delivery. Rather, your subscription account is credited.
I believe the delivery person is a (semi) independent contractor and he/she loses money for any paper they can't deliver.
With my paper was a note explaining that my street was closed when he was delivering (I have no idea what time that was because I have never been up at delivery time), his car broke down, etc. etc. He (I assume "he" because the signature is "Gilligan") asked me "please" to call the Globe and let them know I finally got the paper. He also assured me the paper would always be delivered even if it took him a day or two to do so).
He signed off with "God Bless You".
Of course I called the Globe and got them to correct the charge. I also told them what a fine person they had out here.
Actually, I am very impressed with this person - whoever he is.
It has been snowing for several hours and the forecast is for 4" to 6" or maybe 8". Enough already!
I'm not upset, I'm having fun! *smile*
Aren't you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.