Dave wrote: I'm sorry dear lurker, I've never heard that interpretation How could the new covenant not begin with the risen Christ? Proof of accepted sacrifice was risen from death, ascension. God bless
I've gone way over my limit in posting already and don't want to branch out into covenants. If you disagree that's fine. But here's something to think about.
If the NC began at Pentecost, why did Phillip baptize the eunuch on the order of John's baptism? John and Phillip ministered the office of the Levitical priesthood and in the NC we have a new priesthood on the order of Melchisedec.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Brother Lurker, I agree and disagree with your premise, if that makes sense.
Hey brother. Thanks for your reply.
I did mention that Pentecost would be a problem because many believe that is when the New Covenant began. I disagree believing it began when the promised new name (Is 62:2, 65:15, Rev 2:17) was given at Antioch.
That said, I can simplify my belief by saying that I believe OT circumcision and NT baptism are one and the same, just different figures depicting the same spiritual reality. This is reasonably established by comparing 1 Cor 10:2 to Joshua 5:2-7.
So; two covenants, Sinai (works) and Zion (faith, Rom 3:27), 2 circumcisions (flesh and heart) which are the same as the 2 baptisms (cleanse flesh and cleanse heart). Circumcision/baptism simply brings the recipient into covenant... either Sinai or Zion.
Paul commanded that all remain in the state of their calling (1 Cor 7:18). He also taught that if one becomes circumcised, Christ is of no profit (Gal 5:2) but is bound by the law.
My belief is based on circumcision and baptism being one and the same. If you can present a compelling argument that they are not the same, I'm certainly willing to listen.
the apostles do not hold your (view) wrote: 1) Act 8:36-38¬†
2) Acts 10:47
3) II Peter 3
I was hoping someone would bring these verses up. Thanks.
1) Phillip's baptism was the same as John's. There is no mention of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Eunuch was effectively circumcised in the flesh (same as John's water baptism) which brought him under the bond and yoke of the Sinai covenant. The eunuch's baptism was no different that Abraham's... he believed while in uncircumcision. This poses a problem to all who hold to the tradition that the new covenant began at Pentecost. The first covenant still stood when the letter to the Hebrews was written.
2) The house of Cornelius had already been baptized with the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water which is the opposite order from Pentecost. This instance is an exception to the norm not only for that reason but also because its contrary to the "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" rule. I don't have a better answer. If you do I'd be happy to listen.
3) Peter is speaking of Living Water baptism that saves souls and differentiates between John's baptism for the filth of the flesh and Holy Spirit baptism (regeneration) which is of the heart (conscience).
James Thomas wrote: Hey Bro. Lurker...hope all is well. One thing that helped me understand the misunderstanding is learning that Grace(Zion) and wrath(Sinai) are the antithesis of each other. In the same manner of speaking the terms peace(Zion) and war(Sinai) as well as plowshare(Zion) and spear(Sinai)....and many others. Alright....back to the thread.
Good to hear from you. I agree with your observations..... indeed many more such as:
Jer 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night....
Lurker wrote: I believe there is one NC baptism for Gentiles which began with Paul's calling; to be baptized into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus by Living Waters aka the Holy Spirit. Find a man who can confer the Holy Spirit and he is qualified to baptize.
For the benefit of those who may be puzzled by my comment.
Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Lower water is wrongly assumed here base on John's baptism.
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
This baptism clearly speaks of His death, burial and resurrection.
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Again, no mention of water. Its wrongly assumed.
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism....
Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Ezek 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean...
Regeneration, baptism of Living Water aka Holy Spirit.
Erik Casey wrote: I also used Scripture when Lurker attempted to confound scripture by saying John's Baptism is the same as NT baptism. 1.13.17- 8.36. I gave him a biblical answer, in which accused me of "winging it". I give scripture to proof my statement, he showed no appreciation for showing his error. Again Lurker abuses scripture by confounding circumcision and NT baptism with his use of Passages in Deut, and Gal. No thanks for the clarification- just "You dance well" which seems a bit derogatory. 1.13.17-12.39
I made no assertions in any of my posts to you. I asked questions to make sure I was understanding you correctly and you were dealing with everything related to your view. In return you level false accusations.
I'm not a Baptist and am not here to defend a Baptist view. I was, however, interested to hear your defense of Paedo-Baptism which you have chosen not to offer. If you ever decide to, let me know.
In the mean time; I believe, as scripture states, there is one NC baptism for Gentiles which began with Paul's calling; that is, to be baptized into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus by Living Waters aka the Holy Spirit. Find a man who can confer the Holy Spirit and he is qualified to baptize. Hint: Ezek 36:25
Nik wrote: You guys claim SAVED BY GRACE, SAVED BY GRACE,, WHERES THE FAITH!!! And if you don't need this faith if you believe it's AAAAAAAALLLLLLL GRACE. Then please be so kind to tell me what this grace is you speak of, if it be unmerited favour like so many use as a cop out for not having any understanding or anything better to say than what they picked up in bible college or seminary ,a commentary or from their professor whatever, if it's unmerited favour then no sinner merits it and all sinners are saved, Tell me what this grace is that saves you without faith and what EXACTLY is this grace Praise the Lord
First off this conversation has NOTHING to do with the thread topic.
1 Tim 1:16 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with **faith and love** which is in Christ Jesus.
Faith = Love God
Love = Love the brethren
Together they fulfill the righteousness of both the Sinai and Zion covenants and are the righteousness of Christ Jesus......... NOT your freewill.
You should stop railing against things you know nothing of.
Erik Casey wrote: Act 19:3-6 KJV - 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
I'll get back to you this evening.
In the mean time, Phillip baptized the eunuch in water in Acts 8. You said John's baptism was idolatry after the new form of baptism was ordained. Yet, the Spirit was apparently with Phillip blessing his ministry. Can you explain?
Erik Casey. wrote: Well guys, I have delivered what i promised. I have shown in the light of Baptist hermeneutics that Baptist reject PB for something other than "it not in Scripture" I have supplied ample S passages to show that B is the same in essence with C. No one has even attempted to disprove my approach or scriptural evidence. I believe i have done my due diligence regarding this doctrine. Now to answer your important question. While C and B are the same spiritually they are not the same materially. C was a bloody ordinance signifying the blood of Christ, which Christ had shed. To perform C as with any other Ceremonial law is now idolatry. Paul was speaking of C, not the new ordinance of B.
I compliment you, Erik. You dance well.
Now tell me about water baptism being a materially new ordinance. John the baptizer... was he a Levite? Did he administer the office of the Levitical priesthood when he baptized Jesus? Was he the voice crying in the wilderness called and sent by God. Is the new covenant administered by Levites?
Now if water baptism for the filth of the flesh didn't become a new ordinance with John's baptism... when? Scripture proof?
I think you have a few wrinkles in both your doctrine and hermeneutic you have yet to iron out.
Erik Casey. wrote: You allow women to go to the table.
Before you keep going you may want to deal with my previous post of 1/12/17 11:31¬†PM.
For the record, the better promise of the NC (Heb 8:6) is found in Jer 31:31-34..... God's laws (love God and neighbor aka the gospel) written on hearts of flesh by means of preaching the gospel. The prophecy came to pass when Paul was sent to the Gentiles.
Isaiah 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
Erik Casey. wrote: What do you thinks about the first amendment and FoR? - if your a baptist
I'm not a Baptist but I have no problems with the first amendment. It was crafted in answer to the repression we came out of from the Church of England. I see no conflict between the first amendment and the Decalogue.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Erik Casey wrote: I. Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith,¬†
Permit me to comment on the direction of your posts. It seems to me you have blurred the lines between circumcision of the flesh and heart. Of the flesh brought Abraham and his seed under the Sinai covenant even though it wasn't published when Abraham was circumcised. He was already circumcised in heart before in the flesh which is the pattern for us Gentile Christians. Two circumcisions... 2 covenants... Sinai and Zion given in Deut 29-30 cf. Gal 4:21-28.
As for circumcision being the same as NT baptism; are you prepared to deal with this?
Gal 5:1-3 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Just replace the word circumcise with water baptism of the flesh.
I suspect you don't know the spiritual reality of circumcision/baptism of the flesh. Its right there in the Galatians text if you can perceive it.
Erik Casey wrote: It's Rodger Williams and the government is Providence and later Rode Island. In answer to Lurker statement stating that i was confusing the government with the baptist. The statement was surely about the civil government, but it is the approval of Mr. Williams construct of his government which is important. Its the perfect manifestation of Baptist theology in this area of doctrine.
Sorry to disappoint you Erik, but Rodger Williams is not the infallible spokesman for all Baptists.
If you want to know what a Baptist thinks about the first amendment or freedom of religion, just ask one.
Erik Casey wrote: The government which he established was based upon the principle of perfect religious liberty. A man's religion was held to be a matter for which he is responsible only to God... All such interference is an infringement of the most SACRED RIGHTS of men. Freedom in matters of religion is not simply a privilege, but a Right belonging to all men alike, whatever their forms of religion may be, whether Christian, Mahometan, Jew or Pagan. These were the views held by Mr. Williams‚Ä¶Hence the religious freedom which he established was NOT toleration, but liberty in its LARGEST, FULLEST, FREEST sense. Cook, Richard. The Story of the Baptists in All Ages and Countries. 1884
The Baptist claim that God has given man the right to worship whomever he deems fit. If it‚Äôs a right given by God it can't be a sin, or are the first two commandments still binding. Can anyone help me with this?
Notice the first 2 words of the commentary "The government.....".
Your comment "The Baptist claim that God has given man the right to worship whomever he deems fit." is a false construct of your own making. The commentary makes no such assertion. It speaks (I assume) of the US Constitution.
Kev wrote: I believe the circumcision that matters is the circumcision 'not made with hands' this is the operation of the Holy Spirit in the new birt. God looks upon the heart.
I agree Kev.
But Erik is a Paedo-Baptist and I'm challenging him with something I don't believe the paedos have ever dealt with that puts a significant dent in their doctrine. You must understand that paedo-baptism has its roots in Genesis 17.
Erik is right that its the presuppositions which cause the disagreement and to that I say...... put away the presuppositions and argue from scripture. If paedo-baptism is biblical then the bible should be more than sufficient to objectively defend it.
Erik Casey wrote: 1) We must notice it was of divine appointment to take away the ordinance. 2) Circumcision is a positive law not moral therefore can be changed. viz. the Lord's Day. 3) It was a grievous chastisement for the people to have their sign of the promise to the land taking from them. God often takes away his ordinances as chastisements. viz. Babylonian captivity. 4) It was proper to take this ordinance from them because: a) It was their lack of faith in God that kept them from taking the Promise Land but when Joshua had them circumcised they were behind enemy lines showing great faith in God. b) Circumcision is the sign of God's promise to give them the Promise Land. Since they weren't willing to take the land, it was proper to take that sign from them.
1) I am unaware of any scripture temporarily suspending the command of 8th day circumcision during a day of the Lord. Help me out here.
2) Not familiar with a "positive law". The command is part and parcel of the Levitical Law (Lev 12:3).
3) & 4) You've confused the unfaithful first generation who perished with the second generation who was faithful to God from birth. (Deut 4:4) That is the reason they went on to receive the promise and the circumcised first generation did not.
Erik Casey wrote: If you would like to have a conversation on this topic you can e-mail me.
Probably a good idea to take this discussion to email. But there is something I hope you will answer before you and Kev go PM.
All Israel was circumcised/baptized unto Moses when they crossed the Red Sea:
1 Cor 10:1-2 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
All that generation save Caleb and Joshua perished in the wilderness. The next generation was circumcised after entering the Promised Land:
Jos 5:3-5 And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins. And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt. Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.
God said all males who were not circumcised on the 8th day would be cut off (Gen 17:14), yet they were not. Why?
Kev wrote: Can you give me bible Verses to b/infants?
The Presby's affirm what they call "covenant theology". You may want to look it up for the full details but basically they make their appeal to God's covenant with Abraham (Gen 17) which called for 8th day circumcision of all males. From there circumcision of the flesh becomes NT baptism and mysteriously infant females are included. I've often wondered if they actually observe the command of 8th day or if close is good enough.