In the last post, we tentatively defined “works of the law” as “obedience to God’s laws known either through the Law of Moses or general revelation (the creation, man’s moral nature, the judgments we impose on others).”
Hmm … Are there any laws discoverable through God’s general revelation not also found in the Law of Moses? Well, where can we find a list of laws that people unfamiliar with the Law ought to be able to discern from the Creation?
(Rom 1:26-27 NET) 26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Rom 1:29-31 NET) 29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless.
The reference to “disobedient to parents” should tip us off: Paul is saying that these sins, discernible from God’s general revelation, are sins that violate the Law of Moses. He’s not suggesting that there are commands of God outside of the Law of Moses but that a portion of the Law of Moses should be obvious to anyone, even those who’ve never even heard of the Law.
And if that’s so, then “obedience to God’s laws known either through the Law of Moses or general revelation (the creation, man’s moral nature, the judgments we impose on others),” as we defined “works” or “works of the law” in the last post, simply means (are you ready?) the Law of Moses — including the sacrificial system, the laws meant to be boundary markers to separate Jews from Gentiles (such as circumcision, feast days, and food laws), and moral laws.
And this is why Paul never bothers to define “the law.” It means “the Law.” Except koine Greek was written in all capital letters so Paul didn’t have the ability to make that distinction.
The New Perspective
The New Perspective view, argued by E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright, among others, is that First Century Judaism was not legalistic but faith-based. The real fight Paul deals with is over the boundary-marker elements of the Law of Moses. Thus, they read “works of the law” to be limited to such things as circumcision, feast days, and food laws.
Way back when I wrote Do We Teach Another Gospel? I argued that the moral law is included in “works of the law.” Under the influence of the New Perspective, I later found myself arguing that the “law” includes primarily and perhaps only the boundary marker laws. After all, these are the works of the law under consideration in Galatians and perhaps Romans 14.
But I recently read an article by William D. Barrick arguing for a broader view of “works,” and it reminded me of my earlier research. And Barrick makes some points about the roots of Paul’s vocabulary that I find persuasive. For example, in the phrase “do the words of the law” appearing in such passages such as Deut 28:58; 29:29; 31:12; and 32:46, “law” means the whole law, not just the boundary marker or ceremonial portions.
He further demonstrates that the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal an attitude regarding the “works of the law” that is indeed just as legalistic as the New Perspective denies. And it’s incontrovertible that the Gospels show Jesus condemning Pharisees for legalistic attitudes.
He further shows how contemporary Jewish scholars of Judaism disagree with the New Perspective interpretation, concluding that “law” means “Law of Moses” — even though this results in a very negative view of the Judaism of apostolic times.
Now, the Judaizing teachers apparently understood that Jesus’ crucifixion ended the sacrificial system, and Christianity taught essentially the same moral laws as the Law of Moses (although not as the basis for salvation), and so it’s quite natural that the boundary markers became the focus of controversy. It’s just not obvious from the Gospels how Jesus repeals circumcision, and there’s nothing in the Gospels about rejecting the boundary markers — except for the Sabbath, which Jesus addresses several times.
Hence, it’s no surprise that the apostles and elders in Jerusalem had to decide whether the cross somehow ended the need for the Law’s boundary marker regulations. Are they like the Sabbath? or are they like the Ten Commandments other than the Sabbath?
(Act 15:7-11 NET) 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.”
Peter speaks based on God’s direct revelation at the household of Cornelius. God gave us the answer when he gave Cornelius the Spirit, which is when God cleansed their hearts “by faith” — with no mention of baptism because the Spirit was given by God before baptism in this instance, making a point that the Jerusalem Council considered the convincing argument for why we know Gentiles are saved by faith and not works of the Law.
And then he makes two critical objections to binding circumcision —
* Why bind a yoke that the Jews “have been unable to bear”? It’s just not practical — it will kill evangelism — and besides, we Jewish Christians teach grace, too! It’s not like Paul was the first Christian to discover grace.
* Implicitly, he argues that the terms on which we are initially saved define the terms on which we remain saved. The conservative Churches of Christ tend to argue, “Sure, works aren’t how we’re initially saved, but works are how we stay saved.” If Peter believed that, then his argued would have required converts to celebrate the Passover and Feast of Booths after they’re baptized to mark them as Christians. And his point is obviously exactly to the contrary.
And so, if “works of the law” is a reference to the Law of Moses (including the moral law of God), what does that tell us about baptism?
Jay, usually right, is wrong: “Peter speaks based on God’s direct revelation at the household of Cornelius. God gave us the answer when he gave Cornelius the Spirit, which is when God cleansed their hearts ‘by faith’ — with no mention of baptism because the Spirit was given by God before baptism in this instance, making a point that the Jerusalem Council considered the convincing argument for why we know Gentiles are saved by faith and not works of the Law.”
Luke makes clear that the Gentiles were NOT saved by the Spirit-sign given to persuade the Jewish Christians that Gentiles also could become Christians. God did NOT “cleanse their hearts by faith alone.” He gave a sign to convince the Jews that Gentiles could have their sins taken away by turning to Jesus and being baptized AS JESUS COMMANDS. Peter knew the purpose of baptism as commanded by Jesus for every new believer. Baptism was not then and never has been and never will be for saved people. We are baptized INTO Christ, not because we are already IN Christ.
Jesus didn’t make an exception and save these Gentiles without their being baptized. He merely convinced by an unmistakable sign that the Gentiles COULD BE BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST. Baptism into Christ is not a “work of the Law.” It’s a command from Jesus for everyone who seeks to be saved by JESUS. Peter spoke for Jesus to demand that believers MUST both REPENT and BE BAPTIZED in order to have sin remitted and in order to receive the “gift of the Holy Spirit.” This gift is not seen. The SIGN given to convince Peter to baptize the Gentiles WAS seen. Cornelius was saved at baptism just as every believer always has been and always will be. I see no excuse for falsely teaching that the exceptional experience of the first Gentiles is somehow negating the great commission and all the examples of conversion in Acts.
Ray I’m not sure I follow you on this…a believer is not a Christian? A commandment is not a work of the Law? It doesn’t make sense to me. Jesus forgave sins before he died on the cross. Therefore the exceptions of law are just as equally important as the rule of law. Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Jesus did this many times even while dying on the cross. I also question your view of the gift of the Holy Spirit which you say is unseen. Uh that kind of gift at baptism is kind of cruel.
Ray, it would do your reputation a world of good if you just added one thing to your comments… “in my opinion” How on earth one might try to define away the indwelling Spirit of Cornelius and all of his household that was visibly confirmed to Peter and his associates is beyond difficult…. There is no text which gives an account of the Apostles being baptized post resurrection and it’s obvious from the text that Cornelius received the HS prior to his water immersion…Peter says 3 times that they received the Spirit as they had in the beginning.. Pretty odd that the inaugural new covenant event with both Jews and Gentiles was without water immersion, huh…
Jay, was the moral “law” in place before the Law of Moses ? I wonder what teachings Job was familiar with.. I wonder when/how sacrifices came to be offered by Job, Abel, Noah… Seems to me, and perhaps you indicated this and I missed it, that God’s character and His ideas on how one should live existed prior to any giving of the Law to Moses…It seems that some instructions were given much earlier.. And, wasn’t there a difference between the Law and the writings of the Prophets? Seems like Jesus summed up the TWO as if they were two separate things. Even instruments were added to worship outside of the Law. Were Jesus’ upgrade of the Law considered Law or New Covenant ?
One last thing.. The Jerusalem council did impose some dietary restrictions on the Gentiles in an apparent compromise to the Jews for the sake of unity.. (Excellent teaching on why we shouldn’t bash each other)… Paul removed the man sleeping with his step mother based on moral laws found only in the Law.. Could it not be argued that God’s idea of ideal living hasn’t changed in some respects ?
Price,
“Jay, was the moral “law” in place before the Law of Moses ?”
I know that I am not Jay, but I would like to comment on your question.
IF the Code of Hammurabi is older than Moses receiving the ten on Mt. Sinai, then yes. These contain many of the same laws. If the answer is yes, then in my opinion, God released the moral law into the minds of ALL societies.
Which is why we should not be surprised (contra Calvin) when we come to Romans 2:14 “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.” Pay attention any CALVINISTS “BY NATURE DO” (Calvinist believe we can not do anything contrary to Origin Sin Nature.
Where did this Nature come from in order to Do what the law requires? God.
Price,
I believe that you or no one else can prove that the Apostles had not been baptized. There is only one instance of individuals being baptized again who had been baptized by John. There was never a directive after the Day of Pentecost for the Apostles or disciples to search out those who had been baptized by John and re-baptize them, in fact to do so would indicate that John’s Baptism was really of no value. Yet, John’s baptism was from heaven and expressed the value of forgiveness or remission of sins.
(Mark 1:4 KJV) John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
(Luke 3:3 KJV) And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
We can never forecast what we may come to grips with while searching scriptures. Notice the events at Jesus’s baptism. I have never encountered a description of the event that follows the account in scriptures. First. Jesus is always portrayed as being the only individual being baptized in the setting. Scriptures state, that Jesus was baptized following others (there is an identification that this was not a isolated event) his baptism was last of a group of baptisms. Then the greatest of misconceptions, as he arose out of the water the Spirit descended upon him, most illustrations show him still in the water standing beside John. But, never displayed that he was praying while standing in the water beside John. Reading the text leads me to believe that he and John were probably out of the water while praying when the Spirit descended.
(Luke 3:21 KJV) Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
(Luke 3:21 NIV) When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Back to The Apostles. After Jesus baptism he selected his Apostles, then we notice what they were doing.
(John 3:22 KJV) After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
(John 3:22 NIV) After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.
(John 4:1 KJV) When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
(John 4:1 NIV) The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.
The scriptures plainly state that the Apostles were baptizing people prior to Jesus death on the cross. These men in the presence of Jesus were participating in the practice of baptizing others with the authority of Jesus, and the visibility of the people stated a greater volume of baptisms than John, and men today state that there is no text stating that they were baptized themselves?
Disciples in the presence of Christ teaching others to do what they had not done? Sounds to me like do as I say not as I do. Would Jesus condone that action?
Now, for some real serious talk about this baptism. Notice how powerful John’s baptism was.
(Luke 7:28 KJV) For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. 29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
(Luke 7:28 NIV) I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” 29 (All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. 30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)
John’s baptism was powerfully described in Luke 7:30 that it identified that the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves. Please, explain their salvation without it. If a rejection of John’s baptism, a forerunner of Christ’s baptism which began while he was still alive being administered by his Apostles, is described as rejecting God’s purpose, how much less would would be said about refusing the baptism of Christ’s Apostles?
Wow, the Day of Pentecost was not the first baptisms done by the Apostles!
Larry, I don’t have to prove that they weren’t baptized.. In order for one to claim baptism is salvific, one would think there would be clear and unambiguous language in the text that said the Apostles were immersed post resurrection.. How can one be baptized into the death burial and resurrection of Jesus before He died and rose ? And, John’s baptism and that of Jesus’ disciples who were also baptizing, wasn’t in contradiction or opposition to the Law that was in full effect during Jesus day and to which he referred many times. The outrage of the Pharisees over Jesus’ claim to be able to forgive sins seems odd when they did approach John to be baptized but he turned them away.. John’s baptism, according to Paul, was insufficient for the Ephesian brethren… How many examples do you need ? Peter says that Cornelius received the HS (which Paul refers to as the seal of our salvation) just as they had (the Apostles and perhaps others)… which was according to the text describing the Cornelius conversion…without water.. So, if Peter is speaking the truth, then the Apostles received the seal of their salvation and the only determining factor listed as to whether one belongs to Christ via a direct involvement of the HS and without the benefit of water.. Which Christ foretold in ACTS 1:5. So, the text strongly suggests that water immersion for both the Apostles and the Cornelius household, the first Jewish and Gentile entries into the new covenant were without water.. At least that what the text says… Perhaps it is up to someone else to prove what the text does NOT say. ??
Price said, ” John’s baptism, according to Paul, was insufficient for the Ephesian brethren…”
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
I ask Price , insufficient for what ? I certainly hope it was not insufficient to save, or to forgive sins.
What Paul is claiming here is a whole different thing, what is claimed about others who received the HG.
Price asked,
Paul addresses the question very cursorily, I imagine, because he was dealing with the issue of the Law of Moses, not law in the abstract. Here is what he says —
(Rom 5:12-14 ESV) 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned– 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
V. 13 deals with sin before “the law” was given — meaning the Law of Moses. One theme that winds through Romans is that “sin is not counted where there is no law.” We are only accountable for the law we know. (PS – Since “law” means the Law of Moses, this does not mean we aren’t accountable for lack faith until the gospel is preached to us. He’s saying we’re accountable for doing what we know is wrong. The gospel is not law by any stretch at all. Ironically, the “available light” position is legalistic in this sense, treating the “good news” as a law to be obeyed, which is very 20th Century CoC but very far from Romans.)
V. 14 deals with “those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam.” Adam violated a special revelation: God’s explicit command, and so he fell from grace (innocence, to be more exact). Those who sinned thereafter largely did so in violation of God’s general revelation (as Paul lays out in chapters 1 and 2 — which are very much in mind here).
As you point out, some portion of the pre-Moses ancients were blessed with God’s special revelation. Caan and Abel learned about sacrifice from God somehow. God made a covenant with Noah. God gave commands to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
There was a community that worshiped and sacrificed to YHWH in Abraham’s home country and at Salem (Jerusalem). Perhaps other places. But the majority of the world quickly forgot God’s commands, worshiped idols, and became sinners with no hope of the afterlife as they violated God’s general revelation.
Anyway, that’s my reading. I don’t see original sin in this passage, in the Calvinist sense. I do see an innate inability to obey even what little of God’s law we can discern all on our own — which is ample to cost us an eternity with God.
Price asked,
Yes. Jesus and Paul both take pains to explain it to us. The Sermon on the Mount and the Kingdom parables, as well as the Sabbath day healing encounters, give us Jesus’ point of view. Paul lays it out simply in Rom 13 and Gal 5 (among other places).
(Gal 5:14 ESV) 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
But we have to read this in light of Jesus’ and Paul’s own interpretations. They obviously know what they meant better than we do. And so when Paul condemns prostitution in 1Cor 6, he doesn’t waste time on “But I was just loving my neighbor!” He explains how the gospel drives his conclusion. And we’ll get to this in the 1 Cor series that will shortly continue.
Hence, “Love your neighbor” has to be filtered through the gospel, but neither can we leave behind Gen 1 – 2 or the teachings of Jesus. Some nuance is required, but we have plenty of examples to help us along the way.
Price,
“How can one be baptized into the death burial and resurrection of Jesus before He died and rose ?”
The disciples ate the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him BEFORE He died. I would see no problem with the disciples being baptized “into his death, burial & resurrection” prior to the actual event, just like the Lord’s Supper.
Laymond, if it was sufficient, why did Paul have them rebaptized ? [Act 19:4 ESV] And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
[Act 19:5 ESV] On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Not sure how anyone could read this and assume that John’s baptism was anything BUT insufficient… but I guess opinions vary.
@ George. Perhaps.. It would help if there was any text whatsoever to that affect. It seems to me, and perhaps to me only, that those that clamor for some eternal redemptive value of water immersion by John, during the Old Covenant, is grasping at water straws.. The baptism of John MAY have provided for some temporary forgiveness of sin but unless it was a special covenant issued by God through John to only those Jews who were able by location to hear him, then the Old Covenant was still in effect for not only John’s disciples, those he baptized but also for John.. Jesus seemed to regard the Law with great care during his time before the cross…I just don’t see any special “in-between” covenant in existence.
Price,
I personally believe, though scripture does not state specifically, that the disciples were re-immersed after John’s baptism.
I look at John 3:30 – 4:2 where the disciples were baptizing. In my opinion… it does not seen to me to much of a stretch of the imagination, to see Jesus before this point (John 4:1&2) having them (the disciples) re-submit to baptism. Why was Jesus having his disciples before His Death, Burial, & Resurrection baptizing people? This baptism would have been in expectation (like the Lord’s Supper) of fulfillment.
By the way, in my opinion… this could be where the repentant thief on the cross could have been baptized. There is NO record that says he was, but there is also NO record that says he WASN’T. Either way Jesus still has the power to save the repentant thief on the cross. as the King of kings and Lord of lords.
I see no reason to strain to put something into the text that doesn’t exist or to make the clearly symbolic and insufficient immersion of John into more than the text reveals. I think acts 1:5 is informative in that Jesus, post resurrection speaks to a baptism they would receive that he specifically contrasted with water. But who am I to be dogmatic about it.
Price, I don’t see anywhere, where it was said that John the Baptist baptized with the spirit, and that was the very question Paul asked of the twelve.
Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Price,
In the following statement, you testify that the Apostles were not baptized.
“Peter says that Cornelius received the HS (which Paul refers to as the seal of our salvation) just as they had (the Apostles and perhaps others)… which was according to the text describing the Cornelius conversion…without water.. So, if Peter is speaking the truth, then the Apostles received the seal of their salvation and the only determining factor listed as to whether one belongs to Christ via a direct involvement of the HS and without the benefit of water.. Which Christ foretold in ACTS 1:5. So, the text strongly suggests that water immersion for both the Apostles and the Cornelius household, the first Jewish and Gentile entries into the new covenant were without water.”
The message that I attempted to show you was that it is probably impossible that you could prove that the Apostles were not baptized before they were baptizing others. Would you really believe that Jesus would allow them to teach and practice baptizing others without being baptized themselves? Now, of course you claim that the baptisms prior to Christ’s death were not effective, but I must ask you about the handling of Apollos. ((Acts 18:25 KJV) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.)? Why was he not baptized again? Because he had received the Spirit. Would you also testify that the Apostles were not saved prior to their receiving the HS? I believe that they the Apostles and all of those who were baptized by John were effectively saved after their baptism. I will use the same terminology as many have used to express to oppose the teaching that an individual is not saved until baptism. What if some one dies on the way to be baptized? Are they lost? Do you suppose that any of the individuals whom John baptized died during the three or so years between their baptism and the Day of Pentecost, were they lost? They had faith and they had obeyed what they were told to do, no they were not lost they entered the Kingdom just as those after Pentecost, in fact I believe that the scriptures indicate that they entered the Kingdom before Pentecost. Remember, Jesus even stated that the Kingdom started with John’s preaching, on the Day of Pentecost it was displayed with power.
So why is all this communication important. You have attempted to place the Apostles into a position of being saved or placed into the Kingdom by the visible receiving of the Holy Spirit, outside of instructions in the scriptures, the scriptures never explained that the world was to identify one who was saved by the test of the Holy Spirit being given or even visible. They will know we are Christians by our ability to love each other and outsiders (worldly individuals). There is absolutely no connecting the Apostles salvation to the picture of Cornelius’s conversion.
Larry, I can’t answer for God but here is what the scripture does say about the indwelling presence of the HS..
[Rom 8:9 ESV] You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” (Note that it does not say you do not belong to Christ if you have not been water immersed)
[Eph 1:13 ESV] In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,” (Note that it is the HS, not some act of obedience by which we are sealed)
It appears to me, and I apologize in advance if I am mistaken, that you are attempting to use a symbolic act in use by the Jews under the first covenant to satisfy your belief in water immersion as a sacrament in the present covenant. That would seem strange since the requirements to enter into the present covenant were not yet implemented (death, burial and resurrection of Jesus) and there was no permanent indwelling HS promised at that time, under that covenant. The Acts 1:5 passage once again comes into view in my opinion.
[Act 1:5 ESV] for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Why would Jesus feel the need to RE-baptize the Apostles with the Spirit if the first baptism was sufficient ? Well, one might say that they had already been under the water once so all that needed to be added was the indwelling Spirit.. Yet, Peter, on THREE occasions, says that Cornelius and his entire household received the seal of salvation and the only indication scripture uses to proclaim that one belongs to Christ, BEFORE water was ever introduced.
I was introduced to this idea that somehow that the baptism of JTB or even that of Jesus’ disciples (not Jesus Himself which is odd except that you read [Jhn 1:33 ESV] I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ Jesus wasn’t one to use water… odd if it and it alone is sacramental don’t you think? He saw the indwelling HS as being the key element, God in us and not just Emmanuel, which Paul later speaks to in Rom and Eph. Outside an apparent minority within the CoC, I’ve never heard anyone attempt to use the water immersion of John or the disciples of Jesus to save under the new covenant prior to the cancellation of the debt of sin at the cross.
Price,
Could you explain what purpose you see in the scriptures for the event of baptizing in the time period prior to Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Did it really only make people temporally wet? No, as I explained before, the scriptures proclaim that obedience to baptism, (Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.), and the refusal to submit to John’s baptism created the following judgement, (Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
Notice, that this definition was given in the time frame after the DBR. If the obedience to this act of baptism had this much power over mankind during John’s teachings, How would the act diminish in its application today? Would you or any one else feel comfortable in your standing with the Lord if verse 30 was applied to your life in this covenant? Remember, the definition was explained by a writer within this covenant. Did he explain further that baptism in this covenant was not that powerful?
I have seen many writers in this era attempt to place the act of baptism into a position that renders it as an option, according to the knowledge of the individual who comes to a belief or has faith in God or Christ.
But, as we take a careful look at Paul’s encounter of the 12 men in Ephesus, it should be noted that verse 1 states that they were disciples, verse 2 states that they were believers, verse 3 states that they had been baptized ( and notice this was not the question, the question was, “Unto what then were ye baptized?”) baptism was assumed by Paul as a requirement of their position. Today we have men teaching that having faith and believing will save without baptism. Paul, here testifies that these 12 men had those qualities and even views them as disciples, yet never applies those qualities as sufficient. If we applied Paul’s terminology, someone who was baptized without knowledge of a Holy Ghost would need to be baptized again. Notice also, the receiving of the Holy Ghost was not even given in the second baptism. How does that fit with your, “(which Paul refers to as the seal of our salvation)”? Actually, the text does not render the same understanding as you attribute to it.
(Eph 1:13 KJV) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(Eph 1:13 NIV) And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
(Eph 1:13 NRSV) In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit;
This HS was not something to be viewed by others, Paul testifies to that fact when he had to ask the 12 men he described as disciples in Ephesus. Noticing also the verses following Eph 1:13 no outward visibility is described.
(Eph 1:14 KJV) Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
(Eph 1:14 NIV) who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory.
(Eph 1:14 NRSV) this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory.
(Acts 19:1 KJV) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
(Acts 19:2 KJV) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
(Acts 19:3 KJV) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
(Acts 19:4 KJV) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
(Acts 19:5 KJV) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(Acts 19:6 KJV) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
(Acts 19:7 KJV) And all the men were about twelve
Larry, let me respond first by saying that I am not suggesting in any way that water immersion is “optional” as you suggested that some say. I see it being commanded by Jesus and it would be an indication, to me at least, that a person’s declared faith was less than sincere if they refused to obey a command, if they understood it to be a command. There is some responsibility for the “making of a disciple” and not just dunking them in water so I give some leeway for a person to understand and be properly taught about water immersion…
But, regarding John’s baptism…. Matt 3:11 has John saying this about himself and his purpose for baptism… [Mat 3:11 ESV] “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”.. Note that John himself says that the purpose of his baptism is for repentance…
Paul, being informed and inspired by the HS says this about John’s baptism in [Act 19:4 ESV] And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” Once again, the purpose of John’s baptism is declared as being repentance…
Then we come to Luke… ole Luke has a unique way of saying the same thing… I mean Luke can’t be the only odd man out on what the purpose of John’s baptism is could he ? [Luk 3:3 ESV] And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” Here we have Luke saying something that he also says in Acts 2:38 which we now have additional context to determine what is being said actually. Luke also clearly says that John’s baptism was of repentance EIS the forgiveness of sin… Verse 4 of Luke 3 says this… [Luk 3:4 ESV] As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” It’s obvious that John is preparing the way for Jesus… not trying to take the place of Jesus… John doesn’t offer a blood sacrifice that Hebrews says is required for the forgiveness of sin…John was calling people to repentance…looking forward to or because of the forgiveness of sin that was to come through the Messiah.. Helps us understand Acts 2:38 in my opinion.
Luke uses EIS here to say that John’s baptism wasof repentance TOWARD or IN EXPECTATION or even BECAUSE of the forgiveness of sin that was to come later through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus…
In my humble opinion, in order for the scriptures to be consistent, John’s baptism DID NOT provide for forgiveness of sin. It was a purification exercise of repentance anticipating the coming of the Messiah.. This passage seems to confirm that purification was the understanding of those being informed at the time.. [Jhn 3:25 ESV] Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew over purification.” I believe that Jesus’ disciples were also under the same understanding in their water immersion…
I think it’s clear from the Gospel accounts and even by Paul’s remarks that John’s baptism didn’t codicil the OT to provide some other form of forgiveness.. Jesus alone could do that. The Pharisees and some others rejected Jesus as the Son of God so naturally they were reluctant to be baptized by John looking forward to the forgiveness of sin provided by the man Jesus whom John says is the Messiah whom they are in the process of rejecting… at least the majority of them..
Sorry to be so long in responding.
Price,
I wasn’t trying to place the power to save or to forgive sins into John’s baptism. The point to which I was trying to display was that their rejection of submitting to the baptism of John had not allowed them to receive the benefits of Christ’s DBR. Had they been faithful in submitting to John’s baptism, they would have connected with DBR just as all faithful mankind back to Adam. It is very easy to understand how those who were from creation faithful and had died could not be present to participate in the teachings of John and even Jesus, therefore when Christ died the power of his sacrificing his blood cleansed the sins of all of those dead and those living who were faithful. Thus those who had been baptized by John and by the Apostles ( as I referred to in the earlier post) were just as much saved by Jesus as anyone who submits to Jesus since his death.
I do not believe that these men were in the process of looking forward for forgiveness of sins by a savior, they had the misconception that the Messiah would become their king in a physical kingdom, like their kings of the past. They considered themselves as faithful and true to god through their obedience of the Law. The Law had provisions to roll their sins if they would accept that they were guilty of any, in their minds they were sinless. Another, reason that they did not need to accept John’s baptism (he connected it to remission of sins).
Larry, please forgive me if I misundstand you.. I do that often according to my wife… But, John never connected his immersion to forgivness of sin.. it was about repentance…Paul confirmed. Luke and Luke only adds forgiveness of sin but I think the context of his writings clearly point to the forgiveness of sin that was made available at the cross… In chapter 3 he is looking forward.. in acts 2 he is looking back.. But Luke was convinced that the forgiveness of sins was at the cross.. not at the water.
Price said, ” But, John never connected his immersion to forgiveness of sin.. it was about repentance”
Price who am I supposed to believe you or Mark .?
Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
@ Laymond.. I missed that verse.. Thanks for sharing. However, once again we come up to the definition of EIS that is translated “for”….
In order for their to be an actual forgiveness of sin, one must be God, who can do as He wishes or their must be, according to Hebrews 9, a blood sacrifice. It is doubtful that any of John’s disciples ever offered themselves as a sacrifice for sin. It is also doubtful that given Jesus’ comments about the Law not being done away with until all was made complete that He would have sanctioned an act that would have trumped the Law’s requirements for just a few people who were fortunate enough to actually hear John speak.. That just doesn’t ring true.
Given that John TB spoke clearly about what HE thought his immersion was about and also confirmed by Paul, it’s clear that when Mark and Luke use EIS in regard to forgiveness of sin, they are looking FORWARD to the remission and forgiveness of sin that would be later when Jesus made the blood sacrifice at the cross.. We have to remember that these books were written “after the facts” of the events themselves.. It is highly doubtful that either Mark or Luke thought that water immersion by John’s disciples actually violated the conditions of the forgiveness of sin established by the Law itself…
You’ll also note what I wrote about their being a dispute that arose over “purification.” That’s how the Jews themselves saw the immersion.. Consistent with the Law’s use of immersion for purification..
At least that’s the only way I can see that Mark and Luke agree with John TB and Paul… otherwise you’re left trying to figure out who was mislead.. John/Paul or Mark/Luke..
At least that’s how I see it. but, who am I to suggest one must agree with me.
@ Laymond.. one more thing.. Mark is recording the history of the event himself.. He did not quote John TB.. So, my statement that JTB never connected his immersion to forgiveness of sin is still accurate.
Price, you are pretty good at giving an opinion of scripture to fit your arguments, but either Mark, or you are wrong. Mark said JTB did preach his baptism was for forgiveness of sins. I don’t know how either of you came to your conclusion, but Mark’s is the one in the bible so I will go with it.
NIV
And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
ESV
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
NASB
John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Price and Laymond,
Luke 3:3 also says that John’s baptism was for forgiveness. In the Greek, the language of Luke 3:3 and Mark 1:4 is very similar to Acts 2:38, the difference being the name of Jesus and receipt of the Spirit.
JTB was offering forgiveness apart from the Temple. As NT Wright says it, it’s like me setting up an office to provide driver’s licenses apart from the DMV! It was unthinkable and portended God’s judgment against the Temple authorities and Jesus becoming the true temple in place of the physical Temple.
This gives new meaning to “worship in Spirit and in truth” — given that the truth is about Jesus. Temple worship was passing away by God’s own hand, with Temple worship to be replaced by worship in Jesus by the power of the Spirit.
John says his immersion was for repentance Jay… Mark and Luke writing years after the actual event recall that it was of repentance looking forward to the forgiveness provided by the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross… One can hardly defend a In-between covenant that somehow altered the Law by John’s disciples when Jesus was adamant about the Law not being altered one little bit… no jot or title as I recall.. I’d rethink that one… It’s far more likely that the language used by Mark and Luke was in effect looking forward to the sacrifice that was to come… In Acts 2 it was looking back at the sacrifice that was…
Laymond, I apologize for not being able to make this clear to you.. What I said was that John the Baptist… Himself….the person John the Baptist, son of Elizabeth…never PERSONALLY attributed his water immersion to forgiveness of sin.. I thought I had conveyed that but you keep quoting Mark… Mark is NOT QUOTING JTB… He is writing based on his knowledge of the situation.. And, I think I articulated the reason I believe that Mark and Luke are looking ahead to the forgiveness of sin that the writer of Hebrews says must be accompanied by blood shed.. As far as I know, neither John’s disciples or Jesus’ ever died to make men free of sin.
I believe the Luke 3 passage more accurately says that it was “of repentance for (eis) the forgiveness of sin… Huge difference !! The proper understanding of that phrase is most likely that he was baptizing those who were confessing their sins looking forward to being forgiven by the Messiah that was to come. Both Mark and Luke were writing with the advantage of looking back at an event that had happened in the past… Everybody knew who made forgiveness of sin available and it wasn’t JTB…
Price,
(Luk 3:3 ESV) 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
“For the forgiveness of sins” is letter-for-letter the same as the same phrase in Acts 2:38. Hard to imagine Luke meaning two very different things by them in his two books in such similar contexts.
In my view, this was a one-time forgiveness, parallel to the forgiveness available at the Temple, unlike the once-for-all forgiveness found in Jesus by virtue of the receipt of the Spirit (Heb 8 – 10). The point isn’t that John did what Jesus could do, but that he did what the Temple could do, except better — anticipating the FAR better forgiveness through Jesus, who would replace the Temple forgiveness system altogether.
Price,
And John did not alter the Law — because the Temple system was still in effect and worked. He was preparing the way for the Lord, so that forgiveness outside the Temple would be more easily accepted by Jews.
And his baptism was just as effective as the many times Jesus said he forgave sins without baptism or sacrifice. God can forgive whenever he pleases, even when the covenant terms of forgiveness have not been met.
But, of course, all these forgivenesses were effective because of the cross — which reached back in time to empower forgiveness.
Price said, “Laymond, I apologize for not being able to make this clear to you.. What I said was that John the Baptist… Himself….the person John the Baptist, son of Elizabeth…never PERSONALLY attributed his water immersion to forgiveness of sin..”
Price , you could not have made it clearer. You made it clear to me that you disagree with what both Mark, and Luke said. My question to you is how do you know they were wrong? How do you know that JTB “never PERSONALLY attributed his water immersion to forgiveness of sin..”
I understand that both Mark, and Luke said he did, now I am waiting for you to tell me how you know he never did.
Price and Laymond,
I see both of you desiring to locate an exact statement as to whether John’s baptism was for forgiveness. I don’t believe that you will be able to locate a direct statement, but the scriptures convey what you desire to know.
John spoke of Isaiah the prophet testifying of what he was doing.
(Luke 3:4 NIV) As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: “A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. 5 Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. 6 And all mankind will see God’s salvation.'” 7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Notice, that John testified that those coming to receive baptism from him were, fleeing from the coming wrath.
If a man was able to avoid the coming wrath by submitting to John’s baptism, would we understand that they were being changed from what God would not accept to being acceptable to God?
(John 1:29 NIV) The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
John identifies who and what will take away the sins of the World, he does not claim that obedience to his baptism will do that.
I believe that the communication between Jesus and the Pharisees about John’s baptism in the following verses set the guidelines for understanding the purpose of John’s baptism.
(Mat 21:24 NIV) Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John’s baptism–where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men’–we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.
This conversation was recorded again by Mark in (Mark 11:29 NIV) and (Luke 20:3 NIV)
This conversation establishes the fact that the baptism which John was performing was from heaven, by Jesus and all of those Pharisees.
(Luke 3:3 NIV) He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
John already testified that Jesus would take away the sins of the World.
(Luke 7:29 NIV) (All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. 30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)
But, notice that in this text, the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John. Not being baptized by John placed these men in a rejection of God’s purpose for themselves. Today we would accept that men who reject Christ’s teaching and directions as being lost (not saved). Would you disagree and believe that they are saved?
In the next scriptures we find the Apostles baptizing.
(John 3:22 NIV) After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.
(John 4:1 NIV) The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.
(Acts 13:23 NIV) “From this man’s descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised. 24 Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel. 25 As John was completing his work, he said: ‘Who do you think I am? I am not that one. No, but he is coming after me, whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.’ 26 “Brothers, children of Abraham, and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent.
(Acts 19:1 NIV) While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
(Eph 4:4 NIV) There is one body and one Spirit– just as you were called to one hope when you were called– 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.
Do we really have two baptisms one of John and one of Jesus? Or was there one baptism administered through John in the beginning, the Apostles joining with the same baptism with Jesus present, then the continuing baptism into the New Covenant, with the understanding that God and Jesus authorized and conducted the complete course? Should we really attempt to limit any portion of the act to a lesser value than described to it in the scriptures?
If Acts 19 was attempting to identify that all who were baptized by John needed to be re-baptized, it seem to me that the message could have been conveyed in a way no one could misunderstand. If that was true then there would have been no value to the baptisms prior to Christ’s DBR. How would John have displayed that there was an effect of the wrath not being applied to those who he baptized?
Laymond, I disagree with your understanding of what Luke and Mark said.. I don’t disagree with Mark and Luke… I told you that I believe that their use of EIS means they were looking forward to the forgiveness of sin.. I’ve done all I can to present what I think. If you don’t understand what I’m saying then well just have to leave it at t hat.
Jay, Yes, I agree that Luke’s use of EIS is the same as in 2:38.. I think it confirms that in both instances that he did NOT intend to suggest that water immersion actually forgave sins. He had the advantage of writing after the fact of the events themselves so he was able to look Forward to the Cross in Luke 3 and to look Backward at the Cross in 2:38..
To forgive sin outside of blood sacrifice would have been an addition to the Law. There is no provision for actual sin forgiveness by being dunked in water in any of the Law that I see.. If John and Jesus didn’t change the Law or alter it in any way then forgiveness of sin by a means not mentioned in the Law if quite suspect… And only for a few who were fortunate enough to hear John ? John himself said his activity was for repentance.. Paul confirmed that.. Once again, in order to make John, Paul and Ringo…er, I mean Luke be consistent is that John message was to repent for the Messiah is coming with forgiveness of sin…
@ Larry. I think you are focused on water… when they asked where did his baptism come from they are asking on what authority did his call for repentance originate… Jesus was the only one capable of forgiving sin.. To suggest that somehow John and his disciples could forgive sin in water before Jesus even made the sacrifice is just a stab in the dark imo… And one continues to ignore that Paul had the Ephesian brethren REBAPTIZED due to John’s baptism being insufficient… Can’t imagine that God would have implemented an in-between covenant that was insufficient beyond a few months of its enactment. But, then who am I to decide..
Price,
You need to read the text again they did not ask where John’s baptism came from, (Matt 21:24) Jesus asked them the question. In the context of this communication, did Jesus expect obedience to John’s teachings?
Are you promoting that all who were baptized by John and the Apostles were in need of being baptized again after Pentecost for their baptism to be sufficient?
The major point of my discussion was to show that what is commonly called John’s baptism was not his at all, John was the living body used to bring it into the preparation for Jesus’s arrival, it was from Heaven (Jesus’s point) either answer that the Pharisees would have stated confirmed Heaven. but they offered a lie to cover their rejection of obeying.
To redirect your concept of being focused on water, I will draw your attention to, since baptism was from Heaven, the abode of God and Jesus, who had sent John to baptize, the baptism that John and the Apostles administered was authorized and created by God, therefore had the same power before Christ’s death as it did after. You have coined the statement, “To suggest that somehow John and his disciples could forgive sin in water before Jesus even made the sacrifice is just a stab in the dark imo”. To that I will testify that John and the Apostles never had power to forgive sins. To say that they did would suggest that anyone today who baptized an individual contained the power to forgive sin. Totally erroneous.
If this concept of baptism is not true then, those who John spoke to about warning them to flee the wrath to come, was erroneous. John’s baptism did have the power to do exactly as explained in (Luke 7:29-30) it was able to justify those who obeyed and leave those who did not submit in the same condemnation they were already in.
Larry, do we know of anyone who was baptized by John that received the Holy Spirit ? If not, then according to Paul, it was insufficient. I think some of you are water logged on water immersion… There was at the time of John, no promise of an indwelling HS and that was the a big deal in the new covenant… Read Jay’s articles previous.. I will place in your a new heart.. I will put my law on your heart… Nope, the immersion of John was clearly just a symbolic act reflective of one’s repentance looking forward to the Messiah…
Price,
i guess I did understand you correctly. You really do believe that all who were baptized by John and the Apostles prior to Christ’s death, were not really changed in any way, because the baptism was insufficient. Being insufficient, anyone who was baptized from the beginning of John’s baptizing who died prior to Christ’s DBR were just as much condemned as they were before being baptized. Baptism was useless.
You have stated, “the immersion of John was clearly just a symbolic act reflective of one’s repentance looking forward to the Messiah” If this act of baptism was only symbolic, then it must have reflected a change within the individual that was sufficient. A symbolic act of nothing is still nothing. But, what you express as a symbolic act was explained as being capable to do as explained in (Luke 7:29-30) it was able to justify those who obeyed and leave those who did not submit in the same condemnation they were already in.
Where do we locate any scriptures which speak of baptism as a symbolic act?
I don’t know Larry about not changing a person in ANY way… Seems to me that sincere repentance does change a person… but, no I don’t see any salvific nature to John’s disciples or Jesus’ disciples immersing people under the old covenant… They certainly did not receive the indwelling HS which is the only “seal of our salvation” and indication that we “belong to Christ.” As far as symbolism… I think Rom 6 is quite symbolic…unless one believes that a person who is immersed literally travels back in time to the cross and is killed, buried, stuck in the cave for 3 days and rises with Jesus… Seems more like a Catholic view of the communion bread and wine. Seems to me that it is obviously symboilc and written to address his own questions or the repeat of someone else’s question in verse 1 of that chapter… But, if you have to have the exact word instead of the principle, I’m not sure it exists.
The baptism of John was not the same as the baptism of Jesus and we know this because Apollos was re-baptized from John’s baptism into Jesus. There are no accounts of the people recieving the indwelling of the HS after baptism, in the sense of anything showy. The baptism appears to be the covenant agreement with God through Christ as we are buried with Him and raised with Him.
What is missing is any scripture saying that baptism is symbolic as opposed to what it says in James “not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God”. And this was after it was correlated with Noah and his family alspo being saved through water. Noah’s act wasn’t symbollic, but active and real.
Price,
Jay’s post recently, disagrees with your definition of the (“seal”) of our salvation.
He gets in wrong once in a while but I still admire and respect him… 🙂
Steve, I believe this is right on. People argue about the forgiveness of Christ versus baptism, but in the abscence of Jesus is the absence of His personal forgiveness and thus we are left with what Jesus told the Apostles before he left. And they followed His words as noted in Acts 2. If baptism is just a ritual, then Jesus was just a fleshly man. We know both aren’t true.
For those us who are not in the know…what is EIS?