Dead Orthodoxy

Sorry about the usage of "baptist." I'll refer to the generic "credobaptist." I will quote from my previous post on this thread: This is change of meaning of the word Baptizó is demonstrated when Ananias baptized Paul (Acts 9:18). Paul is blind, in the house of Judas, and he didn't eat for three days and "18 And immediately something like fish scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight, and he stood up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened. Just how is it possible for Paul to be immersed standing up inside of a house? The "not eating" before his baptism and "eating of food" after his baptism, are the contextual bookends that this all happened in the same location. Ananias' command is not a call for Paul to get-up-and-go-someplace to be baptized, rather Ananias is ordering a more suitable posture for baptism than reclining in the room where they met. Furthermore, as Paul retells this story in Acts 22:16 he uses the same language. "STAND UP and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name." Same Greek for for "stand up" in both passages. So we have two passages of Scripture, talking about the same event, both mentioning the administration of baptism, AND CONTEXTUALLY IT IS NOT IMMERSION BAPTISM. Additionally, Acts 22: 16 "Now why do you delay? Stand up and be baptized" demonstrates the immediacy of Annanias' command to Paul to be baptized in the same location. This is the plain and ordinary meaning of this particular historical narrative.

Matthew 3:16 After He was baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; The sequence: A) Jesus was baptized. 2) He came out of the water. Coming out of the water was done AFTER Jesus was baptized. Two separate completed actions. Baptists want to combine the actions as if Matthew were saying: As Jesus came immediately out of the water while in the process of being baptized. Ain't buyin' what your sellin.' How do you explain Paul's baptism? Baptism was administered to him in a standing position.

You might want to talk to your pastor about this statement.

Oh really...a lot of water? What about 3,000 baptized on the day of Pentecost? Jerusalem was located on a mountain top! No flowing rivers there. Did 3,000 people bring a towel and an extra change of clothes? Did 3,000 people walk around dripping wet? Did 3,000 people strip down to their Palestinian G –Strings? Did 3,000 people go skinny dipping? And would you like to be the 2,989 person baptized? My goodness toilet paper hadn’t been invented yet…and you want me to be baptized in that bio- hazardous soup? It is hilarious reading about how Baptists try to justify three thousand people were immersed during a festival time in Jerusalem, with a swollen population, and limited water supply and water being precious commodity. You also conveniently neglected to list or to offer any justification how the Philippian jailor could be immersed in jail complex. Did the jailor and Silas get lowered down a well to be baptized? Did the jailor and Paul temporarily escape jail to take a night hike to a river? I kid you not…these are some of the explanations Baptists have come up with that I have read. Unbelievable. NOPE. Not a lot of water.

Not so. There are (1) four passages in the NT (2) in which the word Baptizó is used, (3) water is applied to the human body, (4) and contextually it CANNOT MEAN IMMERSION. Before the NT was written, the Jews first took the Hellenistic word “baptism” out of its original Greek context and used it for the practice of general ceremonial washing. This is the culture Jesus was born into. It typically meant “to wash with water,” whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling. We see the general ritual washing of hands with the word Baptizó and without full body immersion in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:2-4. In Luke 11:38, the Pharisee was astonished that Jesus didn’t ceremonially baptize (Baptizó) his hands before dinner. Jesus didn’t fully immerse himself in water, but rather the usage of water was just enough to fulfill the Jewish custom whether sprinkling or pouring. In Mark 7, the disciples were criticized for not ceremonially baptizing their hands after buying food at the market. In both Luke and Mark, the word for “washing” of the hands is Baptizó . Jesus and the disciples were not criticized for not immersing themselves fully in water as original Hellenistic word would suggest, rather they were criticized for not washing their hands as this new meaning of the word “baptism” allows. A change in meaning occurred at the time of the NT from baptism being some act of submersion to simply the application of water to the human body. This is change of meaning of the word Baptizó is demonstrated when Ananias baptized Paul (Acts 9:18). Paul is blind, in the house of Judas, and he didn't eat for three days and "18 And immediately something like fish scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight, and he stood up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened. Just how is it possible for Paul to be immersed standing up inside of a house? The "not eating" before his baptism and "eating of food" after his baptism, are the contextual bookends that this all happened in the same location and in short time. Ananias' command is not a call for Paul to get-up-and-go-someplace to be baptized, rather Ananias is ordering a more suitable posture for baptism than reclining in the room where they met. Furthermore, as Paul retells this story in Acts 22:16 he uses the same language. "STAND UP and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name." Same Greek for for "stand up" in both passages. So we have two passages of Scripture, talking about the same event, both mentioning the administration of baptism, AND CONTEXTUALLY IT IS NOT IMMERSION BAPTISM. This is the plain reading of the text. No "plenty of water" as you state in Paul's baptism.

All believers in the OT were saved without baptism. How were they saved? By faith (Hebrews 11). They trusted their sins were forgiven through the sacrificial system and the coming Messiah as the whole of the OT promulgates. It is presumed the thief was Jewish as he uses "kingdom" in his petition to Jesus. Was it possible the thief heard Jesus preach about the "kingdom" before is demise on the cross. One does not know. Scripture reveals at least two individuals were converted when Jesus was on the cross. The thief and the Roman Centurion. And both were converted the exact same way...through the preaching of the Word. As the Scriptures, say "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." What is interesting, the preaching of or about Jesus comes from two separate sources: Jesus' own words as he does quote a psalm and secondly, from the Scribes and the Sadducee's in their accusations against Jesus. The Roman Centurion said after Christ's death "Surely, this man was the Son of God." So how does the Centurion who was a Gentile come to the conclusion he is the Son of God. The text doesn't state Jesus ever said these words, but it does state that the Sadducee's made these statements as the Centurion witnessed what was said. After six hours on the cross, the Centurion hears accusation after accusation by the Scribes and the Sadducees. It is interesting to note, these accusations contain statements of Jesus true teaching prior to being put on the cross. The centurion believes he Jesus is the Son of God because Matthew records twice his accusers said he was. So faith was worked into the Centurion in the oddest of all ways....through the accusations of Christ's accusers. He doesn't believe the Scribes and the Sadducees accusations but he believes the content of the accusations as true. Faith does come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

Excuse me? Baptism was not instituted until after Jesus' resurrection and before his ascension. The first Christian baptism occurred on the day of Pentecost. How is it possible for the thief to be baptized, when the first baptisms occurred 53 days after the thief's death. Saying the thief wasn't baptized makes as much sense as saying King David wasn't baptized. YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS.

Which mode is "being a follower of Jesus?"

Is "symbolic of a new life" immersion, pouring or sprinkling?

The Papa Bear of Immersion: The Papa bear will state that immersion baptism only specifically symbolizes Christ’s death and resurrection (Ro 6 and Col 2). The Papa bear states sprinkling and pouring doesn’t depict this symbolism. Therefore, only immersion is a valid mode of Baptism. The Mama Bear of Pouring: The Mama bear doesn’t believe immersion specifically symbolizes Christ’s death and resurrection. The Mama bear believes pouring symbolizes the Holy Spirit being "poured out" to the Gentile world (Acts 2) plus Christ’s blood "poured out" for many (Mt 26) through His death on the cross. The Mama Bear states immersion and sprinkling doesn’t depict this symbolism of the Holy Sprit and Christ’s blood. Therefore, only pouring is a valid mode of baptism. The Baby Bear of Sprinkling: The Baby bear doesn’t believe baptism is symbolic of Christ’s death or resurrection nor the giving of the Holy Spirit. The Baby bear believes sprinkling symbolizes Jesus of the New Coventant “sprinkled in his blood” (Heb 12); it symbolizes without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9); it symbolizes Jesus being whipped with those droplets of blood signifying “by his wounds we are healed” (I Peter 2). The Baby bear states immersion and pouring doesn’t depict this symbolism. Therefore, only sprinkling is the only valid mode of baptism.

God created humanity, he didn’t create sin. Jesus became human, he didn’t come sin. Jesus redeems humanity, he didn’t redeem sin. And in the resurrection, we will have a recreated body with no sin. To be human and sinful are two separate categories and are not to be blended into a single substance, like sugar dissolved in water. However the corruption from sin is so intense, we have no experience from it. So from our perspective it seems as if sin and ourselves are fully blended. From Scripture they are not. Jesus came to DESTROY sins attachment to the human body.

Thanks for your post. Did me well. You stated you wanted a simpler way....Let me go simpler. With respect to Duet. 1:39 the "little ones" and "children" are twenty years of age and younger as found in Numbers 13-14. Those who were under 20 years were allowed to go into the promised land BUT NOT EXEMPTED FROM GOD'S JUDGEMENT. Those under twenty years still had to wander in the desert for forty years. Those under twenty years who were allowed to go into the promised land is a picture of God's mercy and grace, not due to fact they were guiltless individuals or merited anything special because of their age. The universal judgment for all Israelites in Numbers 13-14 is an indicator of the universal sinfulness of all mankind. God is a just God. If those under 20 are without person sin and guilt as some credobaptist believe, then God's judgment would clearly be unjust because they have not merited the suffering they must endure. The only way that makes sense is those under twenty sinned in Adam, and the God's judgment upon them is seen as just and yet merciful.

Oddly enough, the flaw with a belief in the Age of Accountability is in the doctrine of Creation. Scripturally, infants and young children are created in the image of God. They have living souls. They are spiritual creatures. Paedobaptists believe that God the Father can speak to anyone of his spiritual creatures, through His own Word and bring them to faith regardless of age. Credobaptists don’t baptize infants because they believe infants do not have the ability to have faith. For Credobaptists, infants are seen as incomplete creatures of God, and don’t become complete creatures of God until the Age of Accountability and at they point they can have faith. In other words, God specifically creates all of mankind without the ability to have faith until a certain age. And even God Himself can’t bring anyone to faith until the Age of Accountability. Credobaptists intensify this belief in infants being incomplete creatures with of their treatment of the severely mentally ill (SMI). The SMI will have to suffer through life always as incomplete spiritual human beings, never to be baptized, never have church membership, never take only communion, and never having adequate pastoral care due to not being a member the church. Complete Ostracification. . Furthermore, credos also believe that infants and the severely mentally ill are not so dissimilar to the animals, because animals are living creatures, but they cannot and do not have the capacity for faith either. Credos believe you are more human after the Age of Accountability than before. And God always looks more favorably a fully functioning person with stout mental capabilities than the ones with a greatly diminished cognitive abilities. For Paedobaptists, there is no moment in life when a person is more human than another, and no time when a person is more capable of faith than other.

Is. 7:15-16 He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. Some modern credobaptists are loath to affirm mankind inherits Adam’s moral guilt before God. However, they do believe that all of mankind inherits “death” from Adam’s fall. So it is “no” to original sin, but “yes” to original death. The major proof texts credobaptists appeal to concerning the Age of Accountability are Is. 7:15-16, Duet 1:39. Ezek. 18:20, Romans 9:11, Romans 7:9. Paedobaptists will appeal to texts like Romans 5:12-18, I Cor. 15:22, Romans 3:23, and Romans 6:23 and believe that mankind does inherit guilt from Adam. The way that Scripture develops the Doctrine of Original Sin, allows no fence sitters. You’re either be on one side of the fence or the other. And you can’t have a Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Methodism, Roman Catholicism or historic western Christendom without the belief in Adam’s imputed or inherited sin. But you can have a Baptist theology with the belief of non-imputed guilt. THE CONTENTION OF ISAIAH 7: 15-16. Credobaptists believe when Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub is old enough to “refuse evil and choose good” is a functional equivalent of guiltlessness before God prior to the Age of Accountability. Paedobaptists don’t believe this at all. For Paedobaptists, “to refuse evil and choose good” is a Hebraism which is linguistically equivalent to maturity and immaturity. It has nothing to do with guiltlessness before God of Isaiah’s child and the context of Isaiah 7 bears this out. What vs. 15 means is when Isaiah’s child can distinguish between the mild taste of curds (substance of milk obtained by coagulation, like cottage cheese) and the appreciate the harsher taste of honey, Jerusalem will be safe from a military attack from the Northern Kingdom and Syria. A toddler will eat mild food like cottage cheese but will spit out harsher tasting foods like honey. As the child grows and matures he will be able to eat honey. Within the larger context of Is. 7, Ahaz in Jerusalem is deeply troubled about being invaded by the alliance of Northern Israel and Syrian. God tells Isaiah with young his son Shear-jashub, to go to Ahaz and have Ahaz ask for a sign from God for Jerusalem not to be conquered. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, but God gives Ahaz two signs anyway. The first sign is a remote and Messianic (7:14); the second sign is when Isaiah’s son has mature enough to appreciate the taste of honey (refuse evil and choose good) the two kings planning to conquer Jerusalem will not be a threat any more “two kings you dread will be forsaken.” Within a few years Shear-jashub is able to eat honey, Assyria had already conquered the Northern Kingdom and Syria and took them into captivity. God saves Jerusalem through the sign of Isaiah's son. Many times credos just cut and paste Scripture verses as proof text, without studying the context. The same can be said about Duet 1:39 And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land."

Does this mean they are given sin-for-free card that expires at a certain age?

Nope. Never even thought of it that way. How sin is transmitted to the person is not mentioned in Scripture. This is equally true for people who believe in the Age of Accountability. There is no satisfying theory how sin is transmitted to a person one day (or one second) after reaching the age of accountability.

The soul of the newborn infant is derived from its parents, in the same way Eve’s soul was derived from Adam. Scripture informs us God breathed life into man only once and we are never told that it was repeated. Therefore, God breathed the breath of life (soul) into Adam not Eve. Eve acquires her soul from Adam. We see a similar instance in the Incarnation. Jesus derives his sinless nature from the Holy Spirit and not from Mary. In conformity to Scripture, the place where the seat of sin resides is the soul. This is the immaterial part of man. In the Fall, Adam’s sin now resides in his soul. Adam’s sin is passed on from parent to child through propagation. That propagation includes the sinful soul. How this occurs is unknown and how the soul contracts sin is unknown. Scripture is silent on this issue. With the soul contaminated, we inherit Adam’s sin. When the sinful soul is passed on from parent to child through propagation, this explains how a infant could be sinful and guilty without having committed sins personally. . This then also relieves God from the charge of being the author of sin or responsible for its continuance. Adam and Adam’s descendants are solely responsible for the continuance of sin. Sin is therefore not an external substance, internal maturation reasoning process or learned behavior of the environment, but the very part of the essence of what it means to be a person.

"Since your most serene majesty and your high mightinesses require of me a simple, clear and direct answer, I will give one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is as clear as noonday that they have fallen into error and even into glaring inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by evident reason, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise; God help me! Amen."

What then did Jesus mean by this? He did use a copula and a copula renames the subject.

Did Jesus think that or did you think that?

Yes, many people today interpret scripture via the THREE "S" SISTERS: Symbolize, Spiritualize, Signifies. So when in doubt of the meaning of Scripture, it is always symbolic of "X" or "Y." And in my opinion....handling Scripture this way is superficial. The word Symbolia (Hellenisitic Greek) isn't even in the LXX or NT. Grammatically, a "symbolic" understanding of Jesus' words does not pass muster. Why? Symbolic is not a copula. Symbolic does not "rename" the subject. Futhermore, "symbolic" aligns it more with an action verb...and when any action verb is used, the predicate nominative ALWAYS TURNS INTO A DIRECT OBJECT. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS. This then is direct altering of the text...hence its meaning.

Ain't buyin' what your sellin' The "I am" ARE METAPHORS NOT ANALOGIES.

My OP just gives the bare essential grammatical construction. More complex usages of the copula can be found in metaphor, synecdoche, and metonymy. So I agree with the copula as a comparative as you have stated. However, I have strong reservations against seeing Jesus' words as an analogy. An analogy is a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Some individuals use the term analogy as an umbrella description for parables or allegories. Others have distinct categories within the usage of term analogy such as illustrative analogy, ordered-pairs analogy, antithetical-pair analogy, etc. The common feature however of an analogy is a comparison of two distinct ideas, places, concepts or things. Contextually, I don't see the plain words of Jesus giving a strong two point comparison.

Agreed. I fully understand the distinctions between the substance and accident per Aristotle.

Transubstantiation allows for NO BREAD to be present which is contrary to the post.