[Biblestudent]

Whew! I have not thoroughly read through this thread; but before it's shut down, is there anyone who share my view on water baptism?

The water baptism taught and practiced by Paul has a DIFFERENT mode and meaning than the water baptism taught and practiced by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ (in His earthly ministry), and the Twelve.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Brother Brandon, as the initiator of this thread, I am going to ask that you do close it. A few of the brethren are getting a little too testy. I am not trying to turn this into a dispensational fight. Tony is not trying to "convert" us ( which won't work anyhow 'cause we know our Bibles too well ). I do not see any further discussion leading to beneficial results. Any further comments can be made directly via email. [or alternatively go to another less decent forum ]

Tim, closing the thread down is up to Brandon as webmaster, but I have been addressed with messages more than I can handle above one a day and maybe two, and as initiator I've seen very little actual rebuttal or discussion of the topic from you other than the unilateral "...well, may as well shut it down because Tony is wrong and we are RIGHT! ha ha ha!..." yet no Scriptural proof, rebuttal, or discussion as to why you are right and I am wrong from you. I didn't approach this thread as an episode of Comedy Central but a serious discussion of a serious topic that I am, for all practical means of my own origin and volition, forbidden to bring up. As Brandon correctly stated to you guys, you all had to stick bamboo shoots under my fingernails to get me into this thread and discussion, and now you are, to me, running from it. Now, as I stated to brother Parrish, the one who runs appears, to the READERS of this forum, not the members, but the thousands
of readers who stop by and read the threads out of curiosity, to be running from it. Now again, Brandon rules here, but Tim, if you shut it down, I do not want to see one single objection against any future message or statement I make that water baptism is not applicable for today because I have not yet given my full position as to why it's not applicable, as you originally initiated brother.

I'm going to say one thing of a personal nature not Scripturally based but as if you and I were face to face: I know, as CHRISTIANS you are grieved and afraid that someone will get out of line and have or cause bad feelings, as BAPTISTS I see people who MIGHT just be afraid of what I have to say?

Which is it?

If the thread closes I will never bring up the topic of water baptism as applicable in ANY age again. I tried to explain the Grace position and it will have been cut short. But if I answer a message that contains my conviction on water baptism and there is an objection to said comment, I'm going to take offense because we started a thread and pooped out on it before we could fully come to a Scriptural conclusion.

I've taken no offense at anything anyone has said in this thread so far, nor will I if it were at gunpoint. I promised to keep it civil, I hope I have. I'm up to message #47 and would like to finish and get SCRIPTURE as to why the water baptism of Leviticus 8 is not related to John's baptism of repentance, and the reasons why water baptism is alleged to be one thing under John the Baptist, another one under Paul, and yet another one under Jack Hyles and John R. Rice and the "Baptists" in this forum. I think we need to follow Luther, who said after his death he wanted his followers to call themselves not Lutherans but CHRISTIANS, and I am not pleased at being called a "KJVO" by a Junior Jesuit in the MV herd, nor do I particularly love having to refer to myself as a "Grace Believer" so that everyone can "...see whar ah'm comin' frum." I'd like to be called CHRISTIAN,

I'm offering a challenge of my own, in peace and without heat and anger: Is there anyone here can show Scripturally why John's baptism of repentance is NOT the water baptism of Leviticus 8 or is somebody gonna have to go get Dr. Ruckman out of bed to come over here and try to do it?

Grace and peace brother. I'm not the one who quit or proposed it. I'm just the one with the infected finger slowing me down. I ain't shifted out of first gear yet.

Tony Bones
Certified Church Splitter

[Biblestudent]

Brother Tony,
Leviticus 8 wasn't labelled nor referred to as "baptism" anywhere in the Bible.

[chette777]

"would like to finish and get SCRIPTURE as to why the water baptism of Leviticus 8 is not related to John's baptism of repentance,"

Le 8:6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.

This seems to be the verse that Tbones is referencing to. the whole context of Lev 8 is Moses preparing Arron and his sons for their priestly duties.

I am not sure how Moses washed them, did he fully immerse them or did he sprinkle them? did he give them a sponge bath? I guess we would have to trust it was a bath to make them physically clean.

the sacrifice later would be that which would make them spiritually clean for the moment of their duties.

here is John's Baptism.

Mt 3:1-6 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:

Mr 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

from this verse it seems those getting baptized. And but it seems it went along with confessing their sins and repentance is mentioned. It would seem baptism of John was something the people (not Levite priests) were doing as a token of their repentance from their confessed sin.

The bath Moses gave them was not for remission of sins but physical cleansing. the sacrifice was for the remission and forgiveness of sin.

John also Preached that baptism was for repentance for the remission of sins. So if a person got baptized it was so they could receive the remission of their sins. I really don't see any similarity to the bath Moses Gave Arron and his sons in Lev 8.

the law required Jews to bring a sacrifice. but the person that the animal was sacrificed for was not told to take a bath. the bath that Moses gave was for the Levite priests only not for the whole congregation.

John was giving them remission with no sacrifice which is different from the Law which required the sacrifice of an animal.

There are many differences between the bath of Lev 8 and John's baptism. but there are no similarities.

[Brother Tim]

Okay, Tony, I said that I was finished, so I am already going past where I determined to stop. But I must answer a few things.

1 ) If you will review the beginning, you can see that it was not my intent to SOLVE the difference in belief and unify everyone. Instead, it was to find out if the belief expressed by you was common. I never committed to debating the subject. I do appreciate your willingness to explain as I have not studied the argument for ending baptism before. I did leave one forum because the new moderator held that belief and intended to push it on everyone.

2 ) I do recognize that Brandon is in charge. That is why I asked instead of demanded that the thread end.

3 ) Levity is not wrong. You use sarcasm as a means of expressing yourself, unless you are boasting of being a church splitter. (I certainly hope not!)

4 ) I know that I will not convince you to change how you see this. This is why I did not give a series of reasons why you are wrong. Others have, so why would my input be differently received? You should also know that I am not moving either. If you wish to continue the thread explaining in its entirety your doctrine on baptism, please do so. Only do not accuse me of being a quitter or running away.

[Diligent]

I guess I should speak up. Here's where I stand:

As I see it, Tony was asked to state (and by extension, defend) his position on water baptism. And as I see it, he has not yet had an opportunity to do so. I would like Tony to be able to give his defense/arguments before I shut the thread down (assuming I have to). I believe it would be unjust to shut him out of the discussion at this point.

Now, to be open and clear: I have heard the arguments about water baptism being under the Law before and I find them very unconvincing. One reason I would like Tony to give his position is because I don't understand how someone who is so "straight" on so much could go for that -- and I'd like to understand.

[Brother Tim]

Brandon, I agree that Tony should have the opportunity to explain his belief. We are on page 9 or so and in the 85+ post range. He has said several times that he is not "out of first gear" yet. I am happy to give him as much room as needed to cover the subject front to back and then he can answer questions about it. If questions or comments are made otherwise, then when will we know that he has been able to present the whole set of facts as he sees them?

You expressed well my own thoughts on the matter. This doctrine is strange to me. Tony has hit a lot of other topics right in the center, but this one is way off in left (or right) field, far from mainline belief.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Brandon, I agree that Tony should have the opportunity to explain his belief. We are on page 9 or so and in the 85+ post range. He has said several times that he is not "out of first gear" yet. I am happy to give him as much room as needed to cover the subject front to back and then he can answer questions about it. If questions or comments are made otherwise, then when will we know that he has been able to present the whole set of facts as he sees them?

Maybe he will tell us, maybe we will just know. The vast majority of threads on the forum are not "shut down" but run their own course. I shouldn't have to shut the thread down anyway. That's how I see it.

Originally Posted by Biblestudent

Brother Tony,
Leviticus 8 wasn't labelled nor referred to as "baptism" anywhere in the Bible.

In fact, the term "baptism" doesn't even appear anywhere in the entire Old Testament.

Somehow I feel like that won't matter.

Tony has been shown scripture after scripture from the start of this thread as to why the Lord's INSTRUCTIONS on believer's baptism are important and applicable for today and not part of any law. Bro. Chette just gave a very good overview also, as to "washings" vs. baptism.

Brother Tony has been treated with "kid gloves" on this thread because he is very likeable and a welcomed contributor. Sadly, now he is out in the ring swinging his Bible, challenging the Baptists and suggesting they might be "afraid" of his views? Oh brother...

This is the nature of doctrinal disputes, churches have been split and entire denominations have been started over things like this. IT IS WHAT IT IS, peeps. Brandon, I'm glad to see you involved in the discussion brother.

[Brother Tim]

Brandon, I agree under normal circumstances that threads should be allowed to continue or die on their own, but you had said back at the beginning that if things got out of bounds that you would shut it down. In my judgment, some of the posts were getting that way. It is difficult not to get personal, when you are made to sound like you haven't a spiritual clue.