Hi and you said WASHED !!
It is in Heb 9:10 , WASHING / BAPTISMOS and Mark 7:4 !!
Then Acts 2:38 !!
Then John 20:23 the apostles could REMIT SINS !!
Do you know how ??
You know , yes you do !!
dan p
ECT Why Was Paul Baptized With Water?
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Hi and you said WASHED !!
It is in Heb 9:10 , WASHING / BAPTISMOS and Mark 7:4 !!
Then Acts 2:38 !!
Then John 20:23 the apostles could REMIT SINS !!
Do you know how ??
You know , yes you do !!
dan p
Water does not wash away sins any more than the blood of bulls atoned for them.
The rituals, while symbolic, were required, however, and if one refused to obey the Mosaic Law (including the laws concerning baptisms) then they'd not be saved. Of course, it was not possible to follow the law perfectly and so even during the dispensation of law, there was an under-girding of grace or else none could be saved during that period.
turbosixx
New member
Good answer and I agree with your second paragraph but that raises another question for me. Saul's/Paul's baptism, was it from the Mosaic Law? If so, could you please point out the passage because I'm not aware of it.
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
????
I don't understand the question.
There wasn't a New Testament nor even a gospel written, so where else would it have come from?
What are you suggesting, that God told them to do some new ritual that they'd never practiced before or that they just did it spontaneously off the top of their heads?
I'm not making fun, I seriously don't understand the question. The Old Testament scriptures are full of all sorts of baptisms, not the least of which was full immersion water baptism, similar, if not identical to that which John the Baptist performed and to which Jesus Himself, as well as all of His followers, submitted to. Jews baptized everything all over the place. They looked for excuses to baptize things, it seems. Like I said, if Paul hadn't been baptized, it would have felt really weird both to him and to everyone around him.
As for scripture references to the post resurrection practice of water baptism among those under the Dispensation of Law see Acts 1:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47 and Acts 11:16.
Clete
Last edited:
For those of you denying the efficacy and requirement of baptism I'd like to point out a couple of things.
Jesus had already be filled/baptized with the Spirit as shown in His life and His ability to outthink the Jewish leaders by the age of 12. Yet Jesus told John the Baptist, when John said he needed to be baptized by Jesus rather than the other way around, to suffer it to be so because it was needed to fulfill all things. As Jesus is our example in all things, and He needed to be baptized with water to fulfill His mission, then that is a powerful argument in favor of baptism. That tells me that water baptism is a symbolic act designated by God for specific purposes. I may not know all of God's reasoning for this, but it does not stop me from accepting this by faith for without faith it is impossible to please God.
And just to forestall the arguments that faith lessens our obligation to obey God, active faith in God always produces obedience to Him. And a claim of faith without works is a false claim.
There are more examples but these are sufficient to show that faith and works have a direct tie that is unbreakable.
Jesus had already be filled/baptized with the Spirit as shown in His life and His ability to outthink the Jewish leaders by the age of 12. Yet Jesus told John the Baptist, when John said he needed to be baptized by Jesus rather than the other way around, to suffer it to be so because it was needed to fulfill all things. As Jesus is our example in all things, and He needed to be baptized with water to fulfill His mission, then that is a powerful argument in favor of baptism. That tells me that water baptism is a symbolic act designated by God for specific purposes. I may not know all of God's reasoning for this, but it does not stop me from accepting this by faith for without faith it is impossible to please God.
And just to forestall the arguments that faith lessens our obligation to obey God, active faith in God always produces obedience to Him. And a claim of faith without works is a false claim.
There are more examples but these are sufficient to show that faith and works have a direct tie that is unbreakable.
Every argument you make in favor of the "efficacy and requirement of baptism" would apply to the rest of the Mosaic Law, which Jesus obeyed, practiced and taught others to do the same.
Circumcise on the eigth day much?
Observe the Passover (as well as every other Jewish feast day) do you?
Observe Saturday as the weekly sabbath much?
Avoid pork do you?
But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
That's in the bible. Let's see if you can find it.
Got some good gotchas, do you?
The Mosaic law is different than the 10 commandments. And that was demonstrated by Moses and the Israelites themselves. When Moses gave the laws in Deuteronomy those laws were not stored under the mercy seat like the 10 commandments were.
The 10 commandments were stored inside the ark under the mercy seat. See the difference in the symbolism there?
The Passover was replaced by Jesus Himself with the symbolism which pointed back towards his sacrifice rather than back to the Isrealites deliverance from Egypt and and forward to His first coming. Why should I celebrate something which points forward to that which has already happened? Why would God even require such a thing? Your question concerning the Passover is moot.
By the example of the disciples and apostles who taught that the rite of baptism, after the death of Jesus, we know baptism was still required. What did Peter do after his meeting with Cornelius, the gentile? He "commanded" Cornelius to be baptized. And Jesus taught them at his ascencion to go and teach all nations and baptize them. So, the orginal gospel commission included baptism. And what did Paul and Silas do for the keeper of the prison at Phillipi? That's right. They baptized him at his conversion. And Phillip baptized the Ethiopian at the Ethiopians request. There are numerous example of Gentiles being baptized in the NT after the 3 1/2 years of the gospel going strictly to the Jews after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Your argument is moot.
Yes, the seventh day of the week is my Sabbath. Sabbath was given to mankind at creation long before there was a Hebrew, Jew, or Gentile. So it predates Sinai by thousands of years. Your argument is moot.
Do I eat pork products? Nope. God gave that law for health reasons, and those reasons have not gone away. I worked as a commercial refrigeration tech for 20 years and one of my customers was a meat packing plant that processed nothing but pigs. Those guys had very strict rules about how they processed and stored their pork. They were required to keep their pork products at a minus 30 degrees for a minimum of a month to help inhibit disease and parasite growth in the meat. If their big drive-in freezer, approximately 100'x200', started to warm up and got to minus 20 for even 1/2 hour they were required to toss everthing in that huge freezer. Needless to say I was out working on their refrigeration systems at 2 or 3 in the morning a bunch of times. Even if God had not made the laws concerning clean and unclean foods I would never eat pork after seeing just how diseased pork is. The rules concerning it are much more striict than those concerning beef or chicken. And that is for a reason. Pork is a very diseased meat that is riddled with parasites. God knew exactly what he was doing when he prohibited the eating of pork.
Let's see if you can find the scriptures saying faith without works is dead, and that I can show you my faith by my works. Hebrews 11 gives example after example of obedience to God's commands that came about by faith. By faith, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc... did. Their works, obedience, came about by and through their faith. Faith always implies action. It is never passive belief or mental assent.
I obey God because He loves me and wants what is best for me, not to try to earn salvation. I trust Him so I obey Him. I take Him at His word for He is so much wiser, intelligent and has such a vast store of knowledge that I would be a completely arrogant moron not to listen to, and obey, Him. I'm the proverbial ant beside the elephant, God, intellectually speaking, even though that hardly begins to show the difference between my finite, and His infinite, mind. I bow to Him in everything.
If you don't want to, and don't think it necessary to, take that attitude towards God, that's your business and not mine. I will do what I consider wise and right before God. He is more than my Saviour. He is also my King, Lord, and Master.
turbosixx
New member
I can see from your comments why the question didn't make sense. Let me try and clarify.
Thanks
That is what I'm suggesting. The old law had many functions but one of them was to help us understand the things of Christ. John was a prophet and he introduced a new baptism. A new baptism preparing the way for Christ.
There were washings in the Law but it's my understanding that they were for specific reasons, people and situations. I'm not aware of any of them being for the forgiveness of sins nor like John's baptism. If what John the Baptist was doing was from the Law of Moses or what the Jews had been practicing for 1,500 years, all I'm asking is for someone to give me a passage where I can find it.
Thanks
For some reason I failed to answer this question. Here's my answer.
Actually, I have been circumcised by the circumcision done without hands. The circumcision of which was pointed towards by the OT rite of circumcision.
This is the fulfillment of God's instructions to the Israelites to circumcise their hearts and His promise to do that for them.'
Circumcision of the penis was always symbolic of the circumcision of the heart which is known to us as the new birth. And circumcision of the heart was required for the people of that time for eternal life, just like with us. Without the new birth and our changed attitude towards God we will never enter heaven either.
Abraham's righteousness, that he recieved by faith when he offered up Isaac as a sacrifice, was symbolized by the rite of circumcision given to Him by God. It was representative if the state of Abraham's heart of faith and trust in and before God, and is an example to us of what our hearts must be towards God.
They did "getcha" but they weren't "gatchas" in the sense they had no substance.
No it isn't.
That's ridiculous. The Ten commandments are simply a condensed version and the introduction to of the law. God gave the Ten Commandments to the same guy at pretty much the same time for the same reason.
James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
Every argument you make against the Passover would apply equally well to baptism. (Luke 3:16)
They also avoided unclean foods and worshiped in the temple on Saturday and did pretty much what they had always done aside from the giving of blood sacrifices which had been fulfilled in Christ.
You don't understand what the word "moot" means.
Baptism was indeed practiced during the first century and was even required during the previous dispensation but the idea that baptism is part of the gospel of grace is directly contradicted by Paul.
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
You really need to look up what the word "moot" means.
Again, Paul contradicts your doctrine...
Colossians 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
You'd make a great Jew.
Is it usually your practice to ignore passages of Scripture if you can find one that contradicts the one you don't like?
James was written by a Jew to Jewish believers who where saved under the dispensation of law. Of course, works were required of them. The whole point of the law is about works of the flesh. It was all about salvation through faith plus works, which is the entire theme of the book of James, most especially chapter 2.
Oh nice! So because I disagree with your doctrine, I disrespect God. You're an arrogant fool!
I never questioned your devotion to God nor your faith. What I question is your doctrine and the consistency with which you apply your own premises. If you want to debate it then this is the place to do it but settle it down with the condescension or I'll simply put you on ignore and debate someone who already agrees with you.
Clete
There is zero biblical support for such an idea.
Paul specifically states that Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel. If baptizm is part of the new gospel then Paul's a little cooky, wouldn't you say?
I don't know of a specific passage but John the Baptist was a Jew and didn't want to baptize Jesus because Jesus didn't need it and then Jesus said, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
What other passage of scripture would you need?
I'll look and see if I can figure out something from the Old Testament but I'm short on time for now.
Clete
turbosixx
New member
If you're confident John's baptism is in the Law of Moses or it had been practiced somewhere in the time from Abraham to John, then it should be simple to provide a book, chapter and verse. I don't know of it and I believe the bible provides evidence to prove it was new.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Even if it was new, that does not prove that it belongs in the doctrines for the body of Christ as documented in scripture by the apostle Paul.
I continue to be amazed that so many people that call themselves Christians today cannot rightly divide. Trying to follow the 12 apostles (John the B belongs with them) is pure folly today.
Paul declares unambiguously that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ and it does NOT include water.
Clete,
I never said anything about you. I said, I would have to be an arrogant fool not to obey God. Why? A story from the life of Jesus illustrates why. At the feast at Simon's house on Jesus' last journey to Jerusalem Mary of Magdala broke the alabaster box of ointment and anointed Jesus' feet. Simon was disgusted by Jesus' acceptance of this worship because he knew just how sinful Mary's life had been. So Jesus tells him a powerful truth of human nature: those who are forgiven much love much in return. Like Mary, I have been forgiven much. I was deep into sin and self-destruction when I met Jesus. He had to forgive a great deal. And on top of that His healing power restored much that I had purposely destroyed. Like David I can say that He lifted me out of a horrible pit, took me out of the miry clay, set me upon a rock, and established my goings. I can never repay that debt of gratitude that I owe him. All I can do is treat Him with the respect He deserves and has earned many times over.
If you don't feel that way it's your business. It has nothing to do with me. It's between you and God. All I can do is tell you my viewpoint that has come about from my relationship with God and my prayerful Bible study over the last 4 decades. If your belief and experience is different, so what? Who cares? I don't. We are all accountable to God as individuals. i'm not accountable for you, nor you for me. And that's the way it should be.
From my study of the Bible I percieve that you have to read your beliefs into the Bible as the Bible doesn't teach what you believe. As I'm tired of the snark which started from your first post to me on this thread this conversation is over.
Repeating your position does nothing to refute the fact that Jesus Himself submited Himself to the ritual to "fullfill all righteousness".
As for Old Testament referrences to baptism, Noah is an anti-type of baptism. I Peter 3:20-21
And Israel's passage through the Red Sea has long been understood as a type of water baptism. In fact, Ezekiel 16:9 is likely making reference to that event.
And the main body of passages dealing with ritual cleansing with water is found in Leviticus chapters 13 - 16.
Then, of course, the Jews expanded on these things and had all kinds of different baptizms for seemingly everything under the Sun. They had rules for what body of water is better for baptisms than others (they liked running water best) and there were sprinklings of all sorts (e.g. Numbers 19:17-22) and on and on it goes.
As I said, there is simply no evidence that water baptism was a new thing. In fact, it flatly was not.
Clete
Liar!
The whole thread is still right here for us all to read!!!
Why wouldn't I feel that way?
What would ever make you think I didn't feel that way?
I'll tell you why! It's because I don't agree with your irrational and cherry picked doctrine, that's why!
The one who insinuates that I disrespect God and pretends Romans 4 doesn't exist is talking to me about snark and reading my doctrine into the bible!
HYPOCRITE!!!
I'm a sick to death of the thin skinned, cry babies that seem to have invaded every corner of theology online! There was no snark! I simply made a point and did it with a touch of humorous sarcasm!
Every person I engage with ends up on my ignore list! What in the world am I even doing here?! This site has become the biggest waste of time I can imagine!
Go believe whatever the heck you want. You're clearly not here to debate anything. If you think you're going to teach anyone something, I can tell you that you're wasting your time. No one around here, including you, gives two shakes of a rat's tail about anything anyone believes unless they already agree with it. And don't dare say anything that might possibly be construed as sarcastic or you run the risk of being banned. I'll be very much surprised if I don't get reported for this post.
If I do, don't bother banning me. I'm done. I'm finished. It's over. TOL has been dead for year now anyway.
So long!
:Clete:
turbosixx
New member
Don't let freeloader get to you. It got to me and I took a break for a while but this time I told myself I would do my best to not let anyone drag me down.
Some of us are here to challenge ours and others understanding of truth. We just have to be honest with ourselves.
None in the OT were for the reason John was baptizing.
I will provide a few things that point to it being something new. First, it was not in the OT, if it is then please point to a book, chapter and verse. Second, the bible tells us that the gospel of Christ began with baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sins, Mk. 1:1-4. Third, when Jesus’ authority is challenged, Matt. 21:23-27, He asks the chief priest and elders a question. Was the baptism of John from heaven or man? If it had been from the Law, then they could have easily replied heaven because Moses was a prophet. If it were from man, Jesus wouldn't have asked them the question.
Some of us are here to challenge ours and others understanding of truth. We just have to be honest with ourselves.
I’m not refuting that fact, I agree with it.
I totally agree, there were washings/baptisms in the OT. Washings/baptisms might be performed the same way but they are not all the same. Washings are done for specific reasons for specific people at the proper time.
None in the OT were for the reason John was baptizing.
I hope this isn't what you've been making an effort to prove to me. If so, I apologize for not being more specific. I never said water baptism was a new thing, to clarify, what I said was John’s baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins was new.
I will provide a few things that point to it being something new. First, it was not in the OT, if it is then please point to a book, chapter and verse. Second, the bible tells us that the gospel of Christ began with baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sins, Mk. 1:1-4. Third, when Jesus’ authority is challenged, Matt. 21:23-27, He asks the chief priest and elders a question. Was the baptism of John from heaven or man? If it had been from the Law, then they could have easily replied heaven because Moses was a prophet. If it were from man, Jesus wouldn't have asked them the question.
Last edited:
It isn't just him. This entire website has been come one huge thin skinned cry-baby club, from the moderators on down. I can see the writing on the wall. Those of us exceptions to the "be nice to everyone whether they've done/said something stupid or not" crowd, are dinosaurs being methodically pushed out. No more pushing required for me.
Since our discussion is the last one I've engaged where the major participants haven't either been banned or permanently removed from TOL, I'll stick with it until its resolution or until I get banned (for any reason whatsover) and then I'm out of here. Life is too short to waste time worried about which fool you're going to offend next.
It isn't the fact that you need to refute its what it does to your position that you need to refute.
This is what you keep claiming but God the Son seems to disagree with you to the point that John was the one He chose to have baptize Him.
It wasn't new! There were ritual cleansings all over the place!
Look, I get that God was aware of the existence of germs and where disease comes from and that a avoiding germs was a benefit of these ritual washings but that isn't at all what the 'baptisms' in the Mosaic Law were about. When you were considered unclean, while there was a physical aspect to it (i.e. germs etc) the point wasn't physical but spiritual. Your physical dirtiness represented your spiritual condition and the baptism was a physical cleansing that was symbolic of the spiritual cleansing. The removal of physical filth was a picture of the removal of sin. It has always been about the forgiveness of sin. Everything the Jews did was all about the forgiveness of their sins.
Did that already.
Yes, Jesus' ministry began when He chose John the Baptist to perform a common, well establish and well understood cleansing ritual that Jesus did not need but performed to "fulfill all righteousness".
Further, John the Baptist was likely an Essene or a member of a group similar to it. The extra-biblical history that has been found in places like Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, tell us that John's baptism for the remission of sin was very common practice during that time (i.e. it wasn't new).
That's not exactly what I would call a firmly established biblical position. In fact, that seems more like a preconceived doctrine in search of biblical support.
turbosixx
New member
I've been wanting to ask you about this but didn't want to bog down the discussion. Since the other point is at a stale mate, I'm curious what is your understanding about this.
When do you believe Paul got the details about the doctrine of grace especially concerning baptism?
When do you believe Paul got the details about the doctrine of grace especially concerning baptism?