Dead Orthodoxy

Agreed

You have a lot of ignorance to deem yourself having superior knowledge of the Scriptures. Or just arrogant

Yes, Jesus allowed his disciples to participate in John's baptism. What is the problem with that? I could care less. Of course the disciples participated with John in Baptizing people. The concept of baptism changed with the resurrection of Jesus. John's baptism is not in union with Christ. My goodness, Jesus hadn't died yet! A reasonable person would come to this conclusion. John's baptism is not Christian baptism, which I believe you know is true. This is not rocket science. Why? Because Christian baptism is in union with Jesus' death and resurrection which John's baptism didn't contain. This is not rocket science. Hello McFly! I guess you can never see the distinction between John's baptism and Christian baptism. So be it. I am finished with you on this subject matter. END OF DISCUSSION.

Ignorance upon Ignorance upon Ignorance. Early manuscripts of the biblical texts did not contain the chapter and verse divisions in the numbered form familiar to modern readers. Pre-Reformation era Bibles only contained chapter headings but not verse numbering. The first English New Testament to use the verse divisions was a 1557 translation by William Whittingham (c. 1524–1579). The first Bible in English to use both chapters and verses was the Geneva Bible published shortly afterwards in 1560. Is there any person on WCF who knows this besides myself? This is just GENERAL knowledge of Christian history....something you don't have. I wish a generally educated person would converse with me.

Jesus was NOT baptizing before his resurrection. Please the the whole text. See John 3:22-4:3 in context. 4:1 Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact IT WAS NOT JESUS WHO BAPTIZED. but his disciples.

Both baptisms wise....the last thing I want to do is jump up and down and salivate in the aisles of the church. No thanks.

I didn't address JB talk on baptism and spirit and fire, BECAUSE IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN A POST! It is like me saying you didn't address I Cor 6:11 or Eph 5:26-27 in your post either concerning baptism. You didn't comment on it because it was not apart of the conversation. Some pretty weird stuff going on here.

Jesus' disciples participated in JOHN'S BAPTISMAL PRACTICES. Hello! John's baptism is not Christian baptism as stated above. I am starting to question your comprehension skills. The first Christian baptism started on the day of Pentecost.

There is no text about baptism here. Period. You are so wrong.

Chapter and verse in the NT please?

Nope you are most certainly wrong here. Christian baptism is in union with Christ's death and resurrection (Romans 6). For Christian baptism to be baptism, it had to have been after his resurrection. This is why Jesus institutes it AFTER his resurrection but BEFORE his ascension. John's baptism of Jesus inaugurates his redemptive three year ministry and is unique.

John's baptism is not Christian baptism. Christian baptism contains at least three elements 1)the water, 2) the Triune formula, and 3) another Christian baptizing you. In Acts 19, John's disciples were baptized by him but did not know who the Holy Spirit was. John didn't use the triune formula for it contains the wording of the Holy Spirit. In fact, we don't know if John used any formula during baptism. Paul then orders them to be baptized with Christian baptism. Acts 19 is included in the NT writings in part to answer the question "What about John's disicples?" Did they have a valid baptism? The answer is "no." All of John's disciples had to undergo Christian baptism as instituted by Christ.

Where do you get the idea baptism is a symbol? Chapter and verse please. The Greek word for symbol is symbolia, AND IT IS NOT FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In otherwords, symbol is NOT A BIBLICAL WORD. This is just word salad. Quit making statements about Scripture you can't back up! Lord open the mind of this person and have them not make things up of Scripture that can't be demonstrated.

This is gibberish. Where is this word "picture" in Scripture? It is nowhere except in your mind. Are you saying all of Christ's work is a PICTURE? Is regeneration a PICTURE? New birth a PICTURE? Creation a PICTURE? Second coming a PICTURE? Nonsense.

Chapter and verse, please. Where does Scripture specifically state baptism is a PICTURE? Typical Baptist speak.

Ain't buyin' what your sellin.'

What? The Word of God REQUIRES all Christians to be baptized. Matthew 28:18f and Acts 2:38. Two commands in Scripture to be baptized. Are you saying baptism is optional for a Christian?

Christian baptism as practiced historically contain at least three elements: 1) water applied to the human body 2) usage of the Trinue formula 3) another Christian baptizing you. The distinctive feature of NT baptism is the Trinarian formula. No formula no baptism. The only time were are commanded to use the name of the trinity in Scripture is in our baptism. Many of the washings in the OT didn't apply to all the people of Israel. Some were just for priests. Difference here is baptism is for all Christains, not just some. In OT cleansings, the person is active whether ceremonial washings or in mikvah bath. No so with NT baptism. In NT baptism, the recipient is passive. No person baptizes himself. There are some similarities with OT cleansings, but Christian baptism is all together a different institution.

Amen. At least two individuals were converted during our Lord's suffering and death. The thief and the Centurian when he said "Surely this man was the Son of God." A gentile and a sinner one side of the cross and the pious Scribes, Sadducees and Pharisee's on the other.

Any standard Bible dictionary gives several meaning to the word "baptize." Christian baptism as practiced historically contain at least three elements: 1) water applied to the human body 2) usage of the Trinue formula 3) another Christain baptizing you. These elements are not present in Luke 12 because Jesus uses another meaning of baptism, to refer to his suffering. Luke 12:49 has a different meaning than the historic administration of Christian baptism. John's baptism is not Christian baptism. Why? The absence of the Trinue formula. In Acts 19, John's disciples never heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul then ordered them to be baptize into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Time and again this question comes up when the topic of baptism is discussed. Specifically we see this question under a thread title such as "Is baptism necessary for salvation?" For me, the question doesn't make sense at all. I find the possibility of the thief being baptized as an impossibility. 1. Christian baptism was instituted by the command of Christ AFTER the resurrection but BEFORE the ascension per Matthew 28:18f. 2. The first Christian baptisms occurred on the Day of Pentecost some 53 days after the thief was executed. 3. To ask the question of baptism..."But what about the thief on the Cross?" is as relevant as asking if King David or Saul was baptized. Christian baptism didn't exist at the time of the thief's death. 4. It is possible the disciples didn't know they were to baptize "all nations" until Jesus taught them in one of his post-resurrection appearances.

I have never heard of a baby hurting "itself." Bad grammar. Why would someone say something like this? Seems like Michael37 is trying to distance himself of the HS being a person. "Itself" has a connotation of the HS being some kind of force. This historically is called Macedonianism and it was condemned by the early church.

Any mere association is a real and absolute transgression of the law for some people on WFC. The similarity of "ge" and "Je" is what you think constitutes and Second Commandment transgression. Nobody would make this association of "geez" and "Jesus" if the Spanish language were used. As in "Hey" and "Ge." The legalism here is one language is what language is used. Judge not lest ye be judged. But at least I corrected your belief that "Geez" is a first commandment transgression. I will continue to use Geez in the sense as if I were using the Spanish language without using the Spanish language.

I am glad you admit that "claiming to have gone to heaven" is a false teaching of Scripture. Marathoner should have stated his statement had nothing to due with heaven per Paul's explanation of Scripture. A reasonable person would have believed Marathoner was talking of heaven. I am glad I corrected you on this. Blaspheming is a transgression of the first commandment. (Claiming the to be God while human). Using "geez" is nonsensical here. It has nothing to do with the first commandment. If "Geez" where such a transgression of the 10 commandments it would be the Second. Misusing the name of God. I don't understand why you can confuse the meaning of the first and second commandment. Please elaborate why you be believe "Geez" is a transgression of the first commandment. Jesus MAY have a word for you....."Judge not, lest ye be judge." Isn't it true, you love to judge others, while making the mistake of the wrong commandment thereby the judgement you are judging them by is wrong. But it is joyful on your behalf? I don't know your heart so I can't judge. But you seem to know my heart and you do judge. No apology is necessary but I hope you are capable of an apology.

This conversation is over. I am going to BBQ a steak and have a beer.