Holy Spirit baptism

[BrotherTony]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Regardless of Augustine, amillennialism has been embraced by good Baptists who have tested it and found it biblical.

Yet, a majority don't. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

10 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

A further thought - If one were to consider the predominant position during the time of the Old Testament prophets, a great deal of the time the predominant position was the position of the false prophets and false teachers, NOT the position of the true prophets of God.  In addition, if one were to consider the predominant position during the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the predominant position was NOT on the side of our Lord.  Yet I am quite certain that the true prophets of God and our Lord Jesus Christ were the CORRECT position.  Finding the "majority" position in the conflict of true doctrine versus false doctrine really does not move me much, when I consider how often the true servants of the Lord our God are in the minority.

I agree. That's why I am delighted that amillennialism gets considered in an environment in which dispensational premillennialism has been popularized. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

7 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

Its too hard to prove an unbroken line of churches from the apostles till now.  It may exist.. (and should)... But people being killed in these churches.. the people themselves not recording much of their own history and the hiding from persecution make it a fruitless exercise to fully prove.

But... God's churches do have distinctive characteristics that is seen in the first NT churches.  

 

So a church now that is solid on the Bible. .. that has those characteristics.. that does have connection to churches in the past like them.. would have the authority to baptise.

If a church carries the same characteristics of the NT churches.. it's most likely got the authority.  Because they would have got their doctrine from the same source. 

I mean.. you get a charismatic church that believed salvation can be undone.. you gonna trust their leaders to baptise and have it right?  

Therefore not all churches have the authority.

 

As I see it, the surmusing around the adequate transfer of authority leaves way too much uncertainty.

More importantly, biblically, God has left us with a more certain evidence and authority. His word alone, especially Matthew 28:19-20, gives the authority. Not a church.

[Jim_Alaska]

Matthew 28:16 (KJV) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

This authority was not given to just anyone, it was given to His eleven disciples. These eleven comprised the first church, the church that Jesus built. As such, this Scripture shows that Jesus delegated His authority to His church.

(and this church was local, by-the-way)

Authority has a source and in this case that source is Jesus Himself; God in the flesh.

[TheGloryLand]

8 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

As I see it, the surmusing around the adequate transfer of authority leaves way too much uncertainty.

More importantly, biblically, God has left us with a more certain evidence and authority. His word alone, especially Matthew 28:19-20, gives the authority. Not a church.

 

Carry on my friends 

Edited May 4, 2023 by TheGloryLand

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Matthew 28:16 (KJV) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

This authority was not given to just anyone, it was given to His eleven disciples. These eleven comprised the first church, the church that Jesus built. As such, this Scripture shows that Jesus delegated His authority to His church.

(and this church was local, by-the-way)

Authority has a source and in this case that source is Jesus Himself; God in the flesh.

The Catholics also claim authority was given to the church, which the Reformation addressed with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

God's word always precedes the church in authority. The church is subservient to God's word and accomplishes His will by obeying His word. Furthermore, we are fallible, but His word is perfect.

Catholics believe they have the authority to add doctrine by their belief. Similarly, the authority to Baptize does not lie with successionism, or the like. The logic of this is clearly false. For, according to Matthew 28:19-20, all believers are taught to baptize others because it's one of the many things Jesus commaned the eleven to do. "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

If an unbeliever were to find a Bible and become a believer, it matters not who Baptizes the person, for the Spirit has already Baptized the individual, but that is it done by a believer. For the word of God the apostles taught gives the authority to baptize to all believers, and not the fact that they were a church authorized to baptize.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Added "Similarly" and "authorized to baptize"

[Jim_Alaska]

Robert, I care not what the Catholica church teaches. I am a Baptist. The great commission and the authority to baptize was given to the Apostles, who incidentally were the first members of the first church. Secessionism has nothing to do with it and I am not in agreement with it either. 

What is it that you cannot understand regarding them being the members of the first church? The authority to baptize was given to them in church capacity, not as individuals.

Once again you quote scripture and refuse to abide by board rules by quoting from something other than the KJV. You have been told about this more than once. Because of this I am issuing you a warning. Also, just in case you have not read the rules, which is obvious, I want to tell you up front that our board holds to a "three strikes and your out" position. What that means in plain language is simply that if you are issued three warnings you will be banned. Sorry but that is the board rule.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Robert, I care not what the Catholica church teaches. I am a Baptist. The great commission and the authority to baptize was given to the Apostles, who incidentally were the first members of the first church. Secessionism has nothing to do with it and I am not in agreement with it either. 

What is it that you cannot understand regarding them being the members of the first church? The authority to baptize was given to them in church capacity, not as individuals.

Once again you quote scripture and refuse to abide by board rules by quoting from something other than the KJV. You have been told about this more than once. Because of this I am issuing you a warning. Also, just in case you have not read the rules, which is obvious, I want to tell you up front that our board holds to a "three strikes and your out" position. What that means in plain language is simply that if you are issued three warnings you will be banned. Sorry but that is the board rule.

I apologize for not using the KJV. It was honestly just a quick cut and paste of a passage. I had nothing to gain using it. Thanks for the warning

Referencing the Catholic Church's error concerning authority was to help you see yours. The authority to baptize is strictly in who Jesus is and the command itself. The command was given to the apostles as individuals, despite their church capacity.

This is borne out in the account where Peter, visiting Joppa, commands the believing household of Cornelius be baptized (Acts 10:47-48).

This is especially evident in how converts understood the command. For Philip (not the apostle) baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) after meeting him in the desert and then left him.

A careful study shows that the command given by Jesus to the eleven is to them as individuals in the church to reach individuals everywhere and for them to do the same. Acts bears witness to it being carried out that way.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen" (Matt. 28:19-20).

Most commands given in a group context are intended for the individuals in the group to be obedient to. The command to baptize is no different.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

4 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Robert, I care not what the Catholica church teaches. I am a Baptist. The great commission and the authority to baptize was given to the Apostles, who incidentally were the first members of the first church. Secessionism has nothing to do with it and I am not in agreement with it either. 

What is it that you cannot understand regarding them being the members of the first church? The authority to baptize was given to them in church capacity, not as individuals.

Once again you quote scripture and refuse to abide by board rules by quoting from something other than the KJV. You have been told about this more than once. Because of this I am issuing you a warning. Also, just in case you have not read the rules, which is obvious, I want to tell you up front that our board holds to a "three strikes and your out" position. What that means in plain language is simply that if you are issued three warnings you will be banned. Sorry but that is the board rule.

You might have made a typo, because I am not referring to "secessionism," which refers to a group leaving a nation to form another nation, which some Baptists in America supported in the period around the Civil War (Baptists and the American Civil War: In Their Own Words, Yes, the Civil War Was About Slavery, Bruce Gourley).

Successionism on the other hand comes from the word succession which the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a follows:

a :the order in which or the conditions under which one person after another succeeds to a property, dignity, title, or throne
b :the right of a person or line to succeed
c :the line having such a right

"Baptist successionism (or Baptist perpetuity) is one of several theories on the origin and continuation of Baptist churches. The theory postulates an unbroken lineage of churches . . ." (Baptist successionism, Wiki).

Regardless of that explanation, the origin of churches matters not when it comes to obeying to the command to baptize.

I would suggest that Jesus’s response to John, regarding John's intolerance of an outsider to their group driving out demons, can be applied to baptism too.

"John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part" (Mark 9:38-40). 

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

You might have made a typo, because I am not referring to "secessionism," which refers to a group leaving a nation to form another nation, which some Baptists in America supported in the period around the Civil War (Baptists and the American Civil War: In Their Own Words, Yes, the Civil War Was About Slavery, Bruce Gourley).

Successionism on the other hand comes from the word succession which the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a follows:

a :the order in which or the conditions under which one person after another succeeds to a property, dignity, title, or throne
b :the right of a person or line to succeed
c :the line having such a right

"Baptist successionism (or Baptist perpetuity) is one of several theories on the origin and continuation of Baptist churches. The theory postulates an unbroken lineage of churches . . ." (Baptist successionism, Wiki).

Regardless of that explanation, the origin of churches matters not when it comes to obeying to the command to baptize.

I would suggest that Jesus’s response to John, regarding John's intolerance of an outsider to their group driving out demons, can be applied to baptism too.

"John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part" (Mark 9:38-40). 

All of this bloviation over a typo? Really? I think just from reading the previous posts we all know what is being spoken of. Just more proof that "knowledge puffeth up." UGH!

[Napsterdad]

23 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

All of this bloviation over a typo? Really? I think just from reading the previous posts we all know what is being spoken of. Just more proof that "knowledge puffeth up." UGH!

Didn't know if should have given you an "I Agree" badge or "LOL", so I'll give both .

 

[BrotherTony]

4 minutes ago, Napsterdad said:

Didn't know if should have given you an "I Agree" badge or "LOL", so I'll give both .

 

Thanks!

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

3 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

All of this bloviation over a typo? Really? I think just from reading the previous posts we all know what is being spoken of. Just more proof that "knowledge puffeth up." UGH!

Excuse me, Tony, but I was very curtious, unlike you, once again, with your judgmental spirit. I said, "You might have made a typo" and then took the time to show the difference in case he had no idea what I had been on about. After all, Jim had said "Secessionism has nothing to do with it," when successionism has much to do with the topic.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Removed space, added underlining

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

3 hours ago, Napsterdad said:

Didn't know if should have given you an "I Agree" badge or "LOL", so I'll give both .

 

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6).

May the fear of God be on us, for the verse continues, 

"because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

[Jim_Alaska]

7 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

I apologize for not using the KJV. It was honestly just a quick cut and paste of a passage. I had nothing to gain using it. Thanks for the warning

Referencing the Catholic Church's error concerning authority was to help you see yours. The authority to baptize is strictly in who Jesus is and the command itself. The command was given to the apostles as individuals, despite their church capacity.

The only error here is yours, Baptism and The Lord's Supper are church ordinances. Of course individuals must be included because individuals serve to make up a New Testament Church. Your error is in the assumption that: "The command was given to the apostles as individuals, despite their church capacity." When the command was actually given to the Apostles BECAUSE of their church capacity. The eleven were "the church" at this early date. 1 Corinthians 12:28 (KJV) And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

This is borne out in the account where Peter, visiting Joppa, commands the believing household of Cornelius be baptized (Acts 10:47-48)

This is especially evident in how converts understood the command. For Philip (not the apostle) baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) after meeting him in the desert and then left him.

Both Peter and Philip were members of the first church at Jerusalem; as such, they baptized under the authority of that church.

A careful study shows that the command given by Jesus to the eleven is to them as individuals in the church to reach individuals everywhere and for them to do the same. Acts bears witness to it being carried out that way.

As individuals, the eleven would not be capable of teaching "all nations", nor would they be able to do it until the end of the world. But the institution that Jesus built and called His church, comprised of these eleven, would.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen" (Matt. 28:19-20).

Most commands given in a group context are intended for the individuals in the group to be obedient to. The command to baptize is no different. Laboring under this false assumption would indicate that Jesus never gave any commands to individuals in church capacity.