Did the apostles teach baptism?
- Thread starter Marksixteensixteen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Another one? It isn't an Ad hom to confront false teachers bearing false scripture. And it certainly isn't vanity to stand with the scriptures as pertains to the importance of Baptism.
What I've noticed is that there is maybe a handful of people who prefer to push the doctrine of easy believerism. There are those who say there is no such term and of course they're wrong by the evidence. Easy believerism that I've witnessed occur among those who insist our good deeds mean nothing as Christians. Good deeds in fact are irrelevant and immaterial to the Christian. Years long that absurd debate has flowed.
Then there are those who think Baptism is unnecessary. Some are silly enough to think Baptism qualifies as working to stay saved.
Rather than entertain that ring of, I'll just believe in Jesus and that's all there is to it, crowd, I figure those dedicated to Apologetics, Soteriology, and the other studies within our faith will find one another and discuss accordingly.
While those who simply believe and do nothing for the kingdom should live as they see fit. Come the judgment we'll all find out whose right.
1 Corinthians 1 Divisions in the Church
10 I urge you, brothers and sisters,[i] by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together,[j] to end your divisions,[k] and to be united by the same mind and purpose.[l] 11 For members of Chloe’s household have made it clear to me, my brothers and sisters,[m] that there are quarrels[n] among you. 12 Now I mean this, that[o] each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,”[p] or “I am with Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he?[q] Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul?[r] 14 I thank God[s] that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name! 16 (I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless.[t]
The Message of the Cross
18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.”[u] 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law?[v] Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. 22 For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, 23 but we preach about a crucified Christ,[w] a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. 24 But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom,[x] and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.[y]
26 Think about the circumstances of your call,[z] brothers and sisters.[aa] Not many were wise by human standards,[ab] not many were powerful, not many were born to a privileged position.[ac] 27 But God chose what the world thinks foolish to shame the wise, and God chose what the world thinks weak to shame the strong. 28 God chose[ad] what is low and despised in the world, what is regarded as nothing, to set aside what is regarded as something, 29 so that no one can boast in his presence. 30 He is the reason you have a relationship with Christ Jesus,[ae] who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”[af]
What I've noticed is that there is maybe a handful of people who prefer to push the doctrine of easy believerism. There are those who say there is no such term and of course they're wrong by the evidence. Easy believerism that I've witnessed occur among those who insist our good deeds mean nothing as Christians. Good deeds in fact are irrelevant and immaterial to the Christian. Years long that absurd debate has flowed.
Then there are those who think Baptism is unnecessary. Some are silly enough to think Baptism qualifies as working to stay saved.
Rather than entertain that ring of, I'll just believe in Jesus and that's all there is to it, crowd, I figure those dedicated to Apologetics, Soteriology, and the other studies within our faith will find one another and discuss accordingly.
While those who simply believe and do nothing for the kingdom should live as they see fit. Come the judgment we'll all find out whose right.
1 Corinthians 1 Divisions in the Church
10 I urge you, brothers and sisters,[i] by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together,[j] to end your divisions,[k] and to be united by the same mind and purpose.[l] 11 For members of Chloe’s household have made it clear to me, my brothers and sisters,[m] that there are quarrels[n] among you. 12 Now I mean this, that[o] each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,”[p] or “I am with Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he?[q] Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul?[r] 14 I thank God[s] that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name! 16 (I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless.[t]
The Message of the Cross
18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.”[u] 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law?[v] Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. 22 For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, 23 but we preach about a crucified Christ,[w] a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. 24 But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom,[x] and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.[y]
26 Think about the circumstances of your call,[z] brothers and sisters.[aa] Not many were wise by human standards,[ab] not many were powerful, not many were born to a privileged position.[ac] 27 But God chose what the world thinks foolish to shame the wise, and God chose what the world thinks weak to shame the strong. 28 God chose[ad] what is low and despised in the world, what is regarded as nothing, to set aside what is regarded as something, 29 so that no one can boast in his presence. 30 He is the reason you have a relationship with Christ Jesus,[ae] who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”[af]
um yeah i ain't 'attacking' anyone's character or teaching anyone not to be baptized.
i was showing you, because i noticed you specifically ask for it, an example in scripture showing that people can take water baptism and turn it into a reason to boast.
you'll note that the same Paul that says 'let the one who boasts boast in the Lord' is the Paul that is glad he didn't himself baptize very many people, because he knows full well that people would be boasting in having been personally baptized by him.
so i wonder why Jesus didn't baptize anyone Himself?
((because i believe what John wrote; i don't say that's an error in the Bible))
i was showing you, because i noticed you specifically ask for it, an example in scripture showing that people can take water baptism and turn it into a reason to boast.
you'll note that the same Paul that says 'let the one who boasts boast in the Lord' is the Paul that is glad he didn't himself baptize very many people, because he knows full well that people would be boasting in having been personally baptized by him.
so i wonder why Jesus didn't baptize anyone Himself?
((because i believe what John wrote; i don't say that's an error in the Bible))
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Interesting. "Attack" is your word. As is the notion defending the scripture that refer to the importance of baptism to salvation is akin to boasting.
I believe Jesus baptized because there is scripture that says he did. And because I know also what the ( ) in scripture, like that found in John, means when reading the narrative.
I believe Jesus baptized because there is scripture that says he did. And because I know also what the ( ) in scripture, like that found in John, means when reading the narrative.
I never said a thing about false testimony. Those are your words. Again. And yes, I read the same footnote as you did.
sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.
Remembering we don't have the original manuscripts, called autographs, and that the Disciples themselves did not write the books we have in scripture because the Gospels were anonymous, the author then is credited with claiming in that passage that Jesus did not Baptize.
While the other non-parenthetical scripture says he did along with his apostles.
Parentheses of Scripture
sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.
Remembering we don't have the original manuscripts, called autographs, and that the Disciples themselves did not write the books we have in scripture because the Gospels were anonymous, the author then is credited with claiming in that passage that Jesus did not Baptize.
While the other non-parenthetical scripture says he did along with his apostles.
Parentheses of Scripture
-
1
- Show all
E
Boasting. By defenition it is taking credit for something you earned
Take baptism for example
One person was baptized in a nice warm baptismal in a nice warm church. The other had to walk 5 miles to find a cold body of water and was baptized in that freezing water
person number 2 can boast if his baptism as being greater because it is harder work
Another example
Person 1 believes he was baptized into
Christ’s death burial And body by god Himself and no work if his own
Person 2 believes he also was baptized by god. But only when he obeyed god and was baptized in water
Again Person 2 can boast of how his work caused god to save him
Not if works lest anyone should boast. If there is even the hint of a possibility that one can boast. It is a work and is not if god. But is a false gospel
Of works
Take baptism for example
One person was baptized in a nice warm baptismal in a nice warm church. The other had to walk 5 miles to find a cold body of water and was baptized in that freezing water
person number 2 can boast if his baptism as being greater because it is harder work
Another example
Person 1 believes he was baptized into
Christ’s death burial And body by god Himself and no work if his own
Person 2 believes he also was baptized by god. But only when he obeyed god and was baptized in water
Again Person 2 can boast of how his work caused god to save him
Not if works lest anyone should boast. If there is even the hint of a possibility that one can boast. It is a work and is not if god. But is a false gospel
Of works
you're really sticking with "the Bible is contradictory & wrong" and you get to choose for yourself which part to believe and which part to reject?
why then do you bother reading it or quoting it.
This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things;
why then do you bother reading it or quoting it.
This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things;
and we know that his testimony is true.
(John 21:24)
(John 21:24)
Not joining in this debate but I would Just like to point out “ born of water” is clearly hands down Jesus referring to a natural birth. If you read the context this phrase has nothing to do with water baptism but both Jesus and his questioner see it as meaning natural birth.
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. [1] "4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit [2] gives birth to spirit.7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You [3] must be born again.'
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. [1] "4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit [2] gives birth to spirit.7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You [3] must be born again.'
Consider who us refers to in “as upon us at the beginning”. It includes the 6 who accompanied Peter. They also received the Holy Spirit in the same manner.
Also consider Acts 11:16-17: Peter again uses us to refer to the party of the circumcision and includes them as having received the Holy Spirit in the same manner. Notice here he said that the gift was given upon belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.
You see it again in Acts 15:7-9: Peter uses us in reference to all of the brothers present and also says he made no distinction between us and them. Clearly he is saying that all of the brothers present received the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the Apostles and the house of Cornelius.
Also consider Acts 11:16-17: Peter again uses us to refer to the party of the circumcision and includes them as having received the Holy Spirit in the same manner. Notice here he said that the gift was given upon belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.
You see it again in Acts 15:7-9: Peter uses us in reference to all of the brothers present and also says he made no distinction between us and them. Clearly he is saying that all of the brothers present received the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the Apostles and the house of Cornelius.
S
It is not so "hands down" natural birth. "enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" The way into the Kingdom is the context. It seems unnatural logic to think that he is saying you must be born of the flesh and of the spirit when he just got through saying that which is born of the flesh is flesh.. He has moved on from flesh to a different concept "water and spirit" This is also an interpretation and which one is more natural is the question.
The view that water is referring to natural birth might be correct. If I had an example of ancient text that referred to a natural birth in this way it would be strong evidence that Jesus meant natural birth. Maybe there is such an cultural textual reference.
If not, then the "water and spirit" being the "spiritual" antithesis of "flesh" seems a more natural interpretation especially since they were baptizing people and preaching baptism which was what everyone knew about Jesus and his disciples.
Think about it. Jesus and his disciples are going from town to town baptizing people and preaching repentance and the Kingdom of Heaven. They are famous for it. They just baptized 200 at the river that day. And then Jesus makes the comment "you must be born of water and the spirit" as the opposite of being born of flesh. Put yourself there in Nicodemus place. What would you think?
I doubt the average man had detailed knowledge about fluids involved in birth as they did not accompany their wives when they gave birth but left it to midwives and women to take care of. This idea that it would be understood that being born of water had to do with a natural birth seems to have been invented. Does anyone know when it first shows up in commentaries or church writers?
The view that water is referring to natural birth might be correct. If I had an example of ancient text that referred to a natural birth in this way it would be strong evidence that Jesus meant natural birth. Maybe there is such an cultural textual reference.
If not, then the "water and spirit" being the "spiritual" antithesis of "flesh" seems a more natural interpretation especially since they were baptizing people and preaching baptism which was what everyone knew about Jesus and his disciples.
Think about it. Jesus and his disciples are going from town to town baptizing people and preaching repentance and the Kingdom of Heaven. They are famous for it. They just baptized 200 at the river that day. And then Jesus makes the comment "you must be born of water and the spirit" as the opposite of being born of flesh. Put yourself there in Nicodemus place. What would you think?
I doubt the average man had detailed knowledge about fluids involved in birth as they did not accompany their wives when they gave birth but left it to midwives and women to take care of. This idea that it would be understood that being born of water had to do with a natural birth seems to have been invented. Does anyone know when it first shows up in commentaries or church writers?