John for JESUS wrote:
2) No, He was telling His disciples to baptize

J4J wrote:
Agreed. The physical act was laying of hands.

J4J wrote:
CORRECT. However, that doesn't change the fact that the disciples first preached and also baptized by the laying on of hands. I consider that baptizing, right?
Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans and they (as a result of being baptized in a physical action of laying on of hands) were filled with the Holy Spirit.

But I asked you that at the start - if it was a distinct physcal act - like water baptism?

The GC "to baptize" then had to be fulfilled through laying on of hands? (For in preaching, God had to be commanding God to baptize)

Are the two literally the same?"

I put this to you.
And you answered NO!

John for JESUS wrote:
No, they are different

You assert a label "literal baptism" by repeating a mantra "in preaching they preached, in baptizing..literally"

You keep it at this surface level where you simply assert the label. Because examining the legitamacy of steps at how you arrive at your assertion forces you to admit NO, it's different.

You admit that the command to baptize is
not met through preaching.
In the bible, the appostles "baptized" is always in reference to a distinct physical act, and never in reference to preaching as you arrive at it.

But you're crafty. Even after you admit, you will override and repeat your mantra.

You assert your label, not arrive at it. Because it is not honest.

John for JESUS wrote:
1) The command to baptize meant they were to baptize and the command to preach meant they were to preach.
2) The command for them to go and baptize meant just that, literally. That's what they literally did! So, it wasn't out of their hands.

In the command to preach, if the desciples preach then the desciples is said to have preached.
If the desciples set up and God preaches, are the desciples said to have preached?

Does God make a disnction between the two?

"One must mean one, literally!" The question is, does lieraly mean literally?

In the command to preach, the deciples preached. The command to baptize, they preached. They had full control in preachng.

But since to preach is literally the same as to baptize, the deciples baptized and had full control in "every way".

The deceptive way something is twisted to say something.

Paul in all his preaching with all the conversions never considered those baptisms to mean the same as the one commanded. Because he talked about doing this distinct baptism only a few times.

For a Christian that would suffice to bring about a clearer understanding on this.

This exposes J4 and his clever method of deception.

John for JESUS wrote:
1) The command to baptize meant they were to baptize
2) The command for them to go and baptize meant just that, literally. That's what they literally did! So, it wasn't out of their hands.

In preaching, baptISM may happen.
But baptIZING doesn't, otherwise you'd baptize everyone.

You agreed that "to preach" is not = "to baptize"

You want everyone to agree that - You preach God may or may not baptize literally means "YOU BATIZED".

1Cor1:17
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach"

Does Paul not think that the two are seperate acts? That you can actually baptize? On it's own?

John for JESUS wrote:
there is a call to go and preach/teach .., baptize

For someone who started out a staunch literalist-"one must mean one", you sure did an about face. To baptize really means baptism. The command to do is really what is out of your hands.

"The deciples went out and obeyed the GC in every way. They preached"

And on & on it goes. Your posts are a jumble of contradictions & confusions.

I showed you that preach does not mean baptize.
You agreed!
And then you dive right back into the confusing muck -
"preaching was part of the Great Commission and I am talking about preaching as it pertains to baptism in the Great Commission".

Paul is able to make a clean distinction between preach & baptize -
1Cor1:17
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach"

John for JESUS wrote:
1) Yes they did! They went out and obeyed His command to them in every way as far as I can tell

You don't have a call to baptize but only a call to preach. Baptism happens, but your version of baptizing doesn't!! Because it never was.

John UK wrote:
Excellent, excellent post Jason.

J4 wrote:
Jesus' disciples did obey. They preached, baptized by laying on hands

"Go ye & baptize!"

You keep throwing preaching in there even though you AGREED preaching isn't baptizing -see point #3 of your last post.

How then to baptize?
By laying on of hands of course!
But this as you say fell to the wayside a long time ago.

J4 wrote:
No, not anymore. Though they sometimes did. The most we can do now, it seems, is preach the gospel which results in those who hear and obey to be baptized in the Holy Spirit

John for JESUS wrote:
Jesus spoke the Great Commission specifically to His disciples, but it still applies to Christians

I asked if this baptism of the Holy Spirit was administered through a physical act - like you would give someone water baptism? You replied-

John for JESUS wrote:
No, not anymore. Though they sometimes did. The most we can do now, it seems, is preach the gospel which results in those who hear and obey to be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

So we have two competing ways to baptize with the Holy Spirit - through preaching, and laying on of hands.

The command, "Go ye therefor, baptizing them.."
In preaching, baptISM may happen.
But baptIZING doesn't, otherwise you'd baptize everyone. No, in preaching you preach.

The command is therefor given to do something over which, either way, you have no capability to obey.

"But Jesus meant that, go preach and baptism will happen?".

Some baptism may happen or no baptism may happen, you have no control. The great commision command is to baptize, but the only active thing you do is - preach.

shane wrote:
Carl from England... Fool? Remember our Lords words," if anyone says you fool, will be in danger of hell fire". Be careful brother. I don't agree with Driscoll, but, let us fight the good fight with scripture, not name calling.

I agree with most all that he says. Except that he has foisted a religious workout that everyone MUST live up to without regard to Gods hand moving in real life.

McARTHUR wrote:
Ninth, Scripture teaches that genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith

If you don't know when God restore him, then when you look at this person in the fallen state you have to declare this "genuine believer" to be unsaved.

John for JESUS wrote:
The Great Commission was given to His disciples and there is instances shown in the Bible where they indeed baptized with the Holy Spirit as Jesus commanded. I believe the commission is an example for believers to follow but was specifically for His disciples at that time.

John for JESUS wrote:
CV...
I don't believe it happens like it did before with the evidence of speaking in tongues (though some may argue). However, the baptism should be manifest by the fruits of the Spirit.

How JM presents easy belivsm, I agree with. But JM would have a problem with inviting someone down the isl after a sermon because that would also be easy belivsm.
Everyone is invited to know Jesus and it's not for you to say if it's real or not

Do you have to go through some rigor to keep your good standing to stay saved, or at least to tell God you are keeping your end of the deal?

Is your faith& repentance not a gift? Is He not the author & the finisher & the sustainer of your faith? We take our cares and our heavy yokes and cast it upon Jesus. That IS easy then.