Sunday, June 29, 2014


Here is me refuting a study from a friend of mine on the water baptism issue. This is no attack on him personally, just on the false baptist doctrine of water baptism. His words in italics, my refute in bold parenthesis. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

I have come to the conclusion that the "Berean" arguments for not baptizing in water are as weak as water. At first some of their points sound convincing, but they just don't hold up under real scriptural scrutiny. (Well we Bereans say the same thing about your Buptist position.)

Did water baptism cease for the present dispensation? Paul baptized in the present dispensation and he never said it would cease. Why didn't he baptize when he wrote his prison epistles? I doubt that he, as a prisoner, had the liberty to baptize. (Paul never told you to baptize and he told you to walk and be united in your calling which only includes "one faith" and "one baptism" and neither of that includes water baptism BUT ONLY the baptism by the Spirit through the faith of the operation of God according to Eph. 4:1-6, Col. 2:10-12, 1 Cor. 12:12-13. Water baptism was by sprinkling so YES he could have baptized in prison.)

Did he baptize in the Acts period to reach the Jews? (NOPE!)  The unbelieving Jews rejected kingdom water baptism! (YEP!) How would water baptism impress them and provoke them to jealousy? (IT WOULDN'T)  Ridiculous. (TRUE.)  If he did practice Israel's baptism to reach the Jews, how could he preach the gospel of the grace of God at the same time? (Now wait a minute, you don't know what water baptism is. Paul baptized as a symbol of the washing away of sins as a symbolic representation of the clean conscience.....Acts 22:16, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:25-26, Numbers 8:6-7. That is always what water baptism was, "for the remission of sins" is just an attachment in the kingdom gospel. Water baptism is symbolic and never it never saved anyone, Paul could baptize just as he circumcised.) The gospel of the kingdom required water baptism. There is no way Paul would have practiced a baptism that was essential to receiving remission of sins. (Says you. He practiced a formerly required circumcision so why not a water baptism. What makes you think Paul would have had to baptize "for the remission of sins"?)

If it was not kingdom baptism (and it was not), where did he get his baptism from? (Paul baptized as a symbol of the washing away of sins as a symbolic representation of the clean conscience.....Acts 22:16, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:25-26, Numbers 8:6-7. That is always what water baptism was.)   Although he was not sent baptize, he must have received it from the Lord. (Says you.) Else, why would he do it? (I can you one better than that, why are YOU baptizing?) That he was not sent to baptize in no way means that he stopped or that we shouldn't baptize today. He was not sent to observe the Lord's supper either but he observed it because he received it from the Lord. Isn't the Lord's supper CONNECTED with the last supper? Paul referred to the last supper when he taught about the Lord's supper. So, why couldn't God take water baptism and bring it over into the new dispensation allowing it to take on a new meaning in light of the new message He revealed through Paul? For Israel, remission of sins will come at the second coming of Christ. For us, we have NOW received the atonement. Water baptism for Israel looked forward to the second coming and establishment of their kingdom. Water baptism for the church looks back to death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Immersion in water is a good symbol of BOTH. We must be careful not to focus so much on the divisions of scripture that we fail to see the connections. In the OT the Passover lamb was symbolic for Israel. God took that symbol and applied it to the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 5:7). Jesus spoke to the Jewish apostles about the New Testament in His blood. Paul said he was a minister of the New Testament. (That was a lot of rambling and assumption the ZERO scriptural proof. Again, Paul baptized as a symbol of the washing away of sins as a symbolic representation of the clean conscience.....Acts 22:16, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:25-26, Numbers 8:6-7. That is always what water baptism was. I care about what the Bible says and what Paul delivered to me to follow him on (1 Cor. 11:1-2), I care very little about your assumptions.)

I have previously taught that John's baptism was probably either by pouring or sprinkling. However, after further study, I believe that it could very well have been immersion. The Bible says that John baptized Jews IN Jordan (Matt. 3:6) and he baptized at a place where there was MUCH WATER (Jn. 3:23). Pouring and sprinkling does not require the person being baptized to be in much water but immersion does. When Jesus was baptized He came up straightway out of the water. When Philip baptized the Eunuch they both went down into the water. Again, if it was only sprinkling or pouring, why go all the way into the water? Why not just stand near the water? Being immersed in water symbolized a thorough washing for Israel. It symbolizes death, burial, and resurrection for the church. So the mode of water baptism didn't change but the purpose did in accordance to what God revealed to Paul. (More assumption. Why do you Buptists always invent this junk about water baptism picturing the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? Paul baptized as a symbol of the washing away of sins as a symbolic representation of the clean conscience.....Acts 22:16, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:25-26, Numbers 8:6-7. Water baptism raised a question about purifying, John 3:25-26, and that was the law sprinkling, Numbers 8:6-7. It is also described in Hebrews 10:22. Baptizing thousands of people required "much water" even when done by the pouring/sprinkling. The historical records show that two people would stand in ankle deep water and baptize. That would be the easy thing to do. Also see in Joshua 3 where the priests were "in Jordan" but only standing ankle deep.)
  There are actually more references in Acts to Paul baptizing with water than Peter. (Three references to Paul baptizing (Acts 16 and Acts 18). What is your point? You are being deceitful here, you are trying to make it out like Paul did most of the baptizing in Acts when REALLY the apostles of the circumcision did most of the baptizing. Count the references and see who is doing the baptizing, it is mostly KINGDOM GOSPEL apostles.) By the way, the expression "baptized WITH water" could apply to immersion. That he re-baptized some of John's disciples PROVES his baptism was distinct (Acts 19:4-5). That is so clear that the Bereans have to mess with the passage to change the meaning of it. (LOL. Smiley face ;). HAHAHA. What a joke buddy! What version are you using? The AV does not say that Paul re-baptized anybody in Acts 19, that is Buptist tradition. Might I ask WHY Paul would re-baptize in Acts 19? Acts 19:5 is referring to what John did, that is Paul is telling what John did. But I realize the modern versions (non-AV) have quote marks around verse 4 but not verse 5 making Paul re-baptize. But if the AV is your authority than Paul did not re-baptize. Do you mind telling me WHY Paul would re-baptize?)

Where are we told to baptize? Many were baptized at Corinth and Paul only baptized a few of them, so he must have instructed his fellowlabourers to baptize. Paul told Timothy to keep the things he HEARD of him (would include his ministry during Acts) and to commit them to faithful men also (2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2). Well, Timothy was with Paul at Corinth and evidently helped him baptize many of the believers there (Acts 18:5-8). Paul didn't say, "keep what you heard from me EXCEPT water baptism which has now ceased with my prison ministry." (Paul said that we have "one faith" (Eph. 4:5), which is the doctrine committed to him for the church age revelation (1 Cor. 16:13, 2 Cor. 13:5, Eph. 4:13, Col. 1:23, Col. 2:7, 1 Tim. 3:9, 4:6, etc.) which is the mystery revelation doctrine committed to Paul (Col. 2:6-7, Titus 1:9, 13). And guess what? Water baptism isn't in that "one faith" of Ephesians 4:5 nor is it the "one baptism" of the same verse, that is the baptism by the Spirit through the faith of the operation of God upon salvation according to 1 Cor. 12:12-13 and Colossians 2:10-12. Paul said to "redeem the time" in Ephesians and Colossians 4:5 and that would not include all of us waiting around at church to watch you buptize someone. You have made much assumption but have produced no verse that says to baptize or that Paul told other people to baptize.)The fact is that water baptism was such an established practice that there was no need for Paul to give instruction on it in his epistles. He was writing to water baptized believers! (BOLONEY!!!!! Since when does "well established fact" among the preacher boys stop God from putting some commands and facts about it in His word? Did Paul establish water baptism better than he did Christ's resurrection? Read 1 Corinthians 15:12 where some of the Corinthians were saying that Christ did not rise. So Paul established water baptism so well, (which according to you pictures the resurrection of Christ), but he did not establish the resurrection of Christ? Sure.....) On what basis should we baptize today? We are commanded to follow Paul and when he made that statement twice in in 1 Corinthians, it was during the book Acts period at a time when he was baptizing converts. I know, I know, he also circumcised Timothy and worked signs, etc... Well, he later taught that signs would cease and to let no man judge you in regard to circumcision but he never said anything about water baptism no longer being practiced. (UHGG! Huh, again, Paul never said TO baptize so why would he tell you not to baptize any more? God gave us one faith (Rom-Philemon) and "one baptism" and He told us to "redeem the time". That VERY WELL eliminates water buptism.)

That there is one baptism that one Spirit uses to put believers in one body in no way proves that there is only one valid baptism today. The way that the Bereans misuse Eph. 4:5 to support their view is pathetic (1 Cor. 1 also). (Where did I misuse Eph. 4:5? I said that there is one baptism and one faith in our calling and that we are to redeem the time and therefore BYE-BYE water baptism!!!)

Paul's silence on water baptism in his prison epistles proves nothing. He was also silent on hell and the virgin birth. (Lies, virgin birth (Gal. 4:4, 1 Tim. 3:16), hell (Rom. 2:8-9, 12, Col. 3:6, Eph. 5:6). So ha.)

I know that Acts is a transitional book. But that is not an excuse to get rid of water baptism. (Yes it is.) There are things that Paul did during Acts that we are not to follow after the transition. He told us about that in his epistles. He never said a word about water baptism being an exclusively Jewish practice that ceased along with sabbath keeping and circumcision. (????? Water baptism was completely a law ordinance, a symbol of the washing away of sins as a symbolic representation of the clean conscience.....Acts 22:16, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:25-26, Numbers 8:6-7. That is always what water baptism was. Paul banned water baptism when he said "ONE FAITH", "ONE BAPTISM", and "REDEEM THE TIME". Why would he tell you it ceased if he never told you it started. To follow what Paul DID without scriptural reason is following Paul as a man. I do not care to follow a man, I want to be a follower of God according to Ephesians 5:1.)

Is water baptism an ordinance? Well, why did the Gentile jailor get baptized? Paul must have told him to. That would make it an ordinance. The ordinance of the Lord's supper symbolizes the death of Christ. The ordinance of water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection if Christ. Those aren't ordinances that were written by hand in the OT and were against us! There are other ordinances that Paul gave the church, but there are only two memorial ordinances. (????? Water baptism was completely a law ordinance, a symbol of the washing away of sins as a symbolic representation of the clean conscience.....Acts 22:16, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:25-26, Numbers 8:6-7. That is always what water baptism was. Neither the Lord's supper nor water baptism could be an ordinance because neither one were commanded and we are told not to be subject to those ordinances...Colossians 2:
[13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
[14] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
[15] And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
[18] Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
[19] And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
[20] Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
[21] (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
[22] Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
[23] Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

The "Grace churches" that I know about seem to be made up mostly of former Baptists, Methodists, etc.... (What church in America isn't???) Where is the fruit of new converts in the Berean movement? Where is the missions emphasis? They don't seem to be building churches. Some are so spiritual they just study the Bible at home. God forbid they ever go to a Baptist church! There also seems to be a spirit of superiority among them. There is definitely a spirit of strife and division which is ironic in light of their emphasis on the one body. (That is all boloney and false accusation. The Bereans I know are heavily trying to get God's message of grace out as best as they can. They are not a big movement so they do not have all the money and resources that the Bupdizzzts have. Are you judging their doctrine based on whether they have mega churches or not? Paul didn't have a big audience or following and he did not have a lot of money (Phil. 4:12). If you have a big, rich, and steadily growing movement in America than you are probably not preaching sound doctrine. You as a man are looking on the outward/earthly things but God rewards people according to what "sort" their work is and not how succesful it is.....1 Cor. 3:13)

Just because men like Stam and Bullinger taught some good things on dispensational truth doesn't mean we should follow them all the way to some of their extreme positions. (Agreed.) Both of them were Bible correctors. That had a lot to do with them dropping baptism. (True, but I am no Bible corrector. However, you seem to use something other than an AV in Acts 19.) I appreciate the good things that I have learned from the Bereans. But I also appreciate the good things I have learned from the Baptists. Where the Bereans line up with the Bible, great! Where the Baptists line up with the Bible, great! Where they depart from it, I depart from them. (Agreed. Likewise.)

The name Baptist is a perfectly good name full of historic significance that identifies our church with certain core beliefs. I see no need to ever drop that name. There are almost as many brands of Bereans as there are Baptists! The main thing is to be identified with Christ and His holy word. (Yeah, yeah, yeah. In other words you are sticking to Bupdizzzt tradition.)

I hope these random thoughts which were written while sitting on my coach watching college football (Maybe that was your problem) are some help to you. I wrote them off the cuff but they are the result of about 10 years of studying this issue and praying about it. (EEEK! You might try just a few more years.) I am thankful that the Lord has brought me to a concrete position on water baptism. ("Concrete"??? I would hate to see what you thought a weak position was.) It is much safer and more scriptural to keep it than to throw it out. (Do I really need to answer that one?)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your questions or comments welcome.