Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Lord's Supper and Baptism.


Recommended Posts

  • Members
13 minutes ago, 1611mac said:

Does "Baptism" as it relates to church "membership" fit in this thread too? If not, I'll start a separate thread.  Just let me know.

ie: If you accept Christ as Saviour and then are immediately scripturally baptized are you AUTOMATICALLY a member of the baptizing church?  I've seen this practiced both ways. I also see issues with both. I see immediate and quick baptisms in the Bible, but some pastors like to see fruit before baptism and especially before membership.  What does the Bible teach?

Brother "1611mac,"

The problem with these questions is that they would raise the doctrinal debate over the nature and character of "Spirit" baptism in relation to water baptism.  Furthermore, these questions would also likely raise the doctrinal debate over the "universal" church (that is -- "Spirit" baptism into the "universal" body of Christ) versus "local church only."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I am looking forward to this discussion, for a variety of reasons.

My initial thought on this as I read the OP was that - 1. Baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. As such, since He only died once, it should be administered only once in the new believer's life, right? (Of course, I'm thinking of it as being done biblically - because if it isn't biblical, it isn't really baptism, it's just getting wet). 2. Regarding the Lord's Table - Jesus said "as oft as ye do..." thereby letting us know we are to do it more than just once in the Christian life (although not mandating the number of times). 

I know this doesn't really answer the OP, but in my mind it might be a beginning of an answer. Maybe? (as to why we wouldn't baptize someone every time they moved to a different local church)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I keep returning to the verse 1 Peter 3:21 particularly "but the answer of a good conscience toward God". How many times do we have to provide ourselves the answer of a good conscience? Maybe more than one, I don't know? Other places, I see Jesus refuting the keeping of ordinances from the law and tradition. Further, there is Paul's comments on 'elements' in Galatians 4:9 .

I'm anxious to see this develops but, it just seems to me that there is more symbolism than need. I'm sure this will help with a man who cannot be immersed but is more than willing to provide his public profession of faith (unless that becomes another thread).

Edited by 1Timothy115
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This topic excites me for several reasons.  First I am currently writing a rather long, defense for why again baptizing is both reasonable and biblical.  Secondly, the questions that will be asked in this forum should provide me with a sound pattern of thought as I address the issues to consider while writing on the topic.  Thirdly, while I will not post the entire work I will enjoy posting parts of it for your review and comments. 

 

Where do we get the authority to rebaptize?  The answer is very simple we get it from the word of God.  Jesus himself asked in Matthew 21, Mark 11 and Luke 20 if the baptism of John was of heaven or men.  The implied answer was that it was of heaven.  Jesus again told John at the time of his baptism “suffer it to be so for now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” the thought here, if I may be so bold, is that baptism (even John’s) was an act of obedience since righteousness is doing right.  We are clothed in the righteousness of Christ because he did right by God not you and me.

 

Establishing that John’s baptism did not save and was not proper for the New Testament church is simple.  Acts chapter 18:24 through 19:5 give us the New Testament story of Apollos, an eloquent man who was mighty in the scriptures.  But one who seemingly was off on his understanding of Christ and this point is of great importance he knew the word of God but it does not seem he knew Christ his faith was placed in the one who would come.  In Chapter 19 Paul meets Apollos and asks him if he had received the Holy Ghost since you believed, since he believed on the one who would come, Apollos’s response is no, I did know there was a Holy Spirit since I believed I only have the baptism of John.  At this point, Paul takes Apollos and again baptizes him, the act of obedience to the commands of Christ.

 

Those who today and in the past who reject rebaptism reject it on the bases of a universal church which is reformed doctrine but Catholic doctrine well before that.  Two things to consider when considering rebaptism; first, what does the candidate believe about Christ (what they believe is of vital importance to the Local church.  Secondly were they baptized by a proper agent of a local New Testament church. 

 

I realize my last sentence could open up further discussion on sucessionism but that is not my intent since those views be counter productive.  Forgive me if sentence structure is not tidy I am running out the door to head for evening services.    

 

              

 

Edited by Orval
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

DaveW, this morning something was said in church that got me thinking about baptism and the local church. And so a couple of questions came to my mind.

1. What local church baptized Cornelius? (touched on in your post above...)

2. What local church baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch? And, then, to what local church was the Eunuch sent? 

(and, please pardon me if it seems my questions are just repeating what you've already basically said...I just thought it was interesting, in light of this thread, that these questions popped into my head this morning)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

DaveW, this morning something was said in church that got me thinking about baptism and the local church. And so a couple of questions came to my mind.

1. What local church baptized Cornelius? (touched on in your post above...)

2. What local church baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch? And, then, to what local church was the Eunuch sent? 

(and, please pardon me if it seems my questions are just repeating what you've already basically said...I just thought it was interesting, in light of this thread, that these questions popped into my head this morning)

Things to consider certainly, but the important point as to them in my mind is not "What church baptised them" - it is the authority under which they were baptised.

In both of these instances, Peter and Philip were appointed officers of the church at Jerusalem, and therefore were serving under that authority.

But were they baptised "INTO" the church at Jerusalem? That is far less clear.

I think that is what you are pointing to.

There are many who would say without hesitation that these both were added to the membership of the church at Jerusalem.

I would say that there is no question that they were baptised by authorised agents of the church at Jerusalem, but were they made members of the church at Jerusalem?

Far less clear.

As far as Cornelius is concerned they were worshipping the Lord together in an organised way, but none of them was baptised.

I think that we can see from Acts 2:41 that there is an order - salvation, then baptism, then church membership.

These at Joppa Ceasarea were saved, but not baptised, therefore they could not have been a full and proper church.

But once baptised, there was nothing lacking for them to be a full and proper church. My(Hastily formed at this stage) opinion is that these were baptised under the authority of the Jerusalem church, into the newly formed Joppa Ceasarea church.

The Ethiopian is far more complex. The proper authority was there certainly, we see salvation in Acts 8:37 (Notably, in the KJV, but not in many modern versions), then we see baptism, but there is no comment or information on church membership.

I "lean towards" the position that baptism is prior to church membership, but not the actual mechanism to church membership.

This means then that baptism is done under the authority of a local church, but is not done for "church members".

This could be the difference between these two "church ordinances" - Lord's supper is done with church members in mind and there is clear example (although no as clear on particular teaching) of it being restricted; baptism is done under the authority of a local church, but is actually done to people who are not members.

 

I think I can live with that (although it will take more study to refine this).

Church ordinances both - performed under the authority of a local church.

The "application" of each ordinance is different, the Lord's Supper by example restricted to church members, Baptism by necessity restricted non-church members. (Because baptism comes before membership.)

Thanks Happy - your questions directed my thoughts to a solution that I am happy to consider further.

 

Of course the discussion can continue, but at this point I will probably bow out from participation, and simply watch and learn.

In the meantime, I now have some things to look further into on my own with this.

 

Thanks folks for a good natured and profitable discussion.

Edited by DaveW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I must apologise - It just occurred to me that the events that I ascribed to "Joppa" actually happened in Cesarea - Peter was called FROM Joppa, not TO Joppa.

I have corrected the posts by using strikeout and inserting the correct name, as follows: "Joppa Ceasarea"

Concentrating on the issue at hand and slipped on a stray detail.....

Thanks for just rolling your eyes at me and not attacking me for a wrong place name.

Edited by DaveW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 6:00 PM, Orval said:

 Jesus again told John at the time of his baptism “suffer it to be so for now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” the thought here, if I may be so bold, is that baptism (even John’s) was an act of obedience since righteousness is doing right.  We are clothed in the righteousness of Christ because he did right by God not you and me.

          

 

Please help me understand but, I thought this pointed to the symbolic act of (John as Esaias Elijah) with (God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit) being present to announce (so to speak) Christ's deity and beginning of Christ's earthly ministry. I've never thought the 'us' ever referred to 'you or I' in these particular passages. Is this also a testament of the trinity to the work John (as Esaias Elijah) has done giving credence, and also a passing of the torch from "one crying in the wilderness" to the Messiah? Maybe another thread for this or a PM.

Edited by 1Timothy115
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you for your response. 

 

The thought I presented here in conjunction with Christ's baptism was that even in its origination baptism was the response of a clean conscience toward God.  We know that Jesus had no sin and therefore no obligation to repent, none-the-less he was still to be obedient to the prophet/priest John the baptizer.  The presence of God’s voice and the Holy Ghost’s symbol was God’s response to Jesus’s doing right. 

 

We know that baptism does not save, and that baptism has no impact on our life apart from a clear conscience toward God for being obedient, therefore, it is most probable that since Jesus came to do the will of God in all things, it was also God’s will that Christ submit to baptism as an act of obedience to the prophet’s message.  Under the ministry of John, repentance became linked with baptism as an act of obedience.  

 

While it is true that John came in the Spirit of Elijah, that prophet never baptized he was sent to proclaim the acceptable time of the Lord and to herald the coming judgment of God on Israel for Baal worship and other atrocities.  In a small similarity, we can also see that Elijah was preparing Israel for Elisha who was granted a double portion of Elijah’s Spirit. But understand that the primary purpose for Elijah’s ministry was to inform Israel that God was going to judge them for their wickedness and therefore repent and return to God. 

 

At the time of John the Baptizers revealing to Israel, Israel had not had a prophet in 400 years and when John came on the scene as a man of the wilderness (similar to Elijah) the nation understood that God was again being active in the lives of the Jews in accordance with the prophecy of Malachi.

 

Malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Malachi 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
 

 

Unlike many believers today, the Jews knew the law and the prophecies and they quickly identified Malachi’s prophecy with Moses’s words in Deuteronomy 18 during John’s showing.

 

Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
Deuteronomy 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
Deuteronomy 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Deuteronomy 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

 

When John spoke of the coming judgment, of true repentance toward God and being Baptized as a sign of that repentance, he was embraced by Israel as the prophesied prophet that Moses and Malachi spoke of.  Israel came into the wilderness out of fear of God and their understanding that they were not right with God in regards to being obedient to their law. 

 

John pointed these same Jews to The Christ saying that he, the Christ, would be the author of judgment.  Since the Jews looked at John as the prophet, it was expected that as Elisha paid homage to Elijah that Christ would also honor John (which he did) it was unlikely they would have accepted Christ apart from his obedience to the baptism of John.    

 

Matthew 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

 

Luke 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

 

You see John was the forerunner and proclaimer that God’s judgement was on the horizon and for this reason nearly all of Christ’s ministry he was constantly asked about the physical kingdom of God, because the Jews looked at the judgment as being poured out on the gentile nations that had placed them under servitude.  After which the Lion of the tribe of Judah would establish his physical kingdom. 

 

John was to reveal that God was going to establish his kingdom.  When Jesus submitted to baptism it is my understanding that Jesus was also proclaiming that God was now active in the personal lives of his people.

 

I hope I have answered your question and not caused to much confusion.  I love the questions as they are truly a help in focusing my thoughts.   

 

I trust this is not derailing the original post, if it is I apologize.        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, Orval said:

Thank you for your response. 

 

I hope I have answered your question and not caused to much confusion.  I love the questions as they are truly a help in focusing my thoughts.   

      

Thanks, you've put a lot of effort into your reply, it is appreciated. I may not have been clear with my request for clarification. So, what I'm really saying is this particular scripture Matthew 3:15 is all about Jesus and really little to do with the act of Baptizing. I'm not denying that baptism is an act of obedience and an outward show of identification with my Lord Jesus Christ. All I'm saying is using this scripture as a requirement for 'believer's baptism' is not a proper rendering of the scripture. I understand these scriptures Matthew 3:11-17 to be a similar event to Lazarus death, in John 11:4 particularly "that the Son of God might be glorified thereby." If I may speak plainly, this is not for the promotion of Baptizing but for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fulfillment of God's word. I'm  just giving my opinion and not promoting a doctrine.

I corrected my original post by strike through of Esaias and inserting Elijah, call it a prophetical slip :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...