Posted on 09/27/2010 6:17:08 PM PDT by bibletruth
Again, priestly ceremonial-washing (baptism) before approaching God in the function of 'priest' is throughout the Old Testament. You know this, I already posted this and you conceded as much when you originally wrote, "You would have to do some sufficient accurate cross-referencing between water baptism and priesthood in the post-resurrection dispensation to make this point."
Limiting acceptable responses to the 'post-resurrection dispensation' implies that you recognize the relationship in assumed pre-resurrection dispensations but have excluded those responses from the set of 'qualified' evidence 'a priori'. You also let the equivalence of 'dispensational' and 'non-dispensational' perspectives as equivalent 'a priori' axioms pass. You have let all of the important points of the idea go unchallenged and imply that I need to post Scripture relating baptism and priesthood.
It appears that your goal is simply to discount any ideas that are outside your preferred paradigm through endless, irrelevant argumentation.
You are not being honest. You know also that I invited your views from Scripture from any part of the entire word of God after you objected to my request to provide them in connection with the current dispensation.
The Holy Spirit never refered to a human priesthood outside of Israel when giving by inspiration over half of the New Testament to the Apostle Paul. Paul uses the Aaronic priesthood when illustating its differencet from the he priestly office of Jesus Christ, but never refers to believers as priests when writing either to the churches or to ministers (Timothy, Titus).
Although Paul did baptize some folks, his commission did not include any necessity of water baptism (1 Corinthians 1:17)-—rather strange if water baptism is necessary for believers to have any form of priesthood.
If believers are priests (not all Old Testaments saints are spoken of as priests), then the only baptism necessary to obtain that priesthood would be the one baptism of Ephesians chapter 4, which is by the Holy Spirit into Christ, our High Priest.
If water baptism is necessary to have priesthood conferred, then some believers are priests and some are not.
Or, by extension, you are teaching that no person not baptized in water is saved.
I am quite familiar with the Aaronic priesthood spoken of throughout the OT. But that was limited to certain men of a certain tribe of Israel, and more specific rules qualification even prevented many of the sons of Aaron from assuming the office.
So, you are either teaching baptismal regeneration wherby all believers are priests by water baptism, or you are teaching that some Christians are priests and some are not.
Since the ceremonial washings (which we concur were OT baptisms) were only performed on males, what about Christian sisters today? Are Christian women not priests?
Where does your paradigm change to allow for women priests, or lame priests, or blind priests, etc.?
You yourself would have to make some changes that are quite dispensational.
You are not being honest.
"You know also that I invited your views from Scripture from any part of the entire word of God after you objected to my request to provide them in connection with the current dispensation."
And you know that priestly ceremonial-washing (baptism) before approaching God in the function of 'priest' is throughout the Old Testament. You know this, I already posted this and you conceded as much when you originally wrote, "You would have to do some sufficient accurate cross-referencing between water baptism and priesthood in the post-resurrection dispensation to make this point."
"The Holy Spirit never refered to a human priesthood outside of Israel when giving by inspiration over half of the New Testament to the Apostle Paul."
So you reject "As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." as the inspired Word of God?
And reject "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." as the inspired Word of God?
And reject "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen." as the inspired Word of God?
Or are you simply parsing Scripture into nonsense in order to 'support' the paradigm you prefer.
"Paul uses the Aaronic priesthood when illustating its differencet from the he priestly office of Jesus Christ, but never refers to believers as priests when writing either to the churches or to ministers (Timothy, Titus)."
So you reject "As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." as the inspired Word of God?
And reject "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." as the inspired Word of God?
And reject "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen." as the inspired Word of God?
Or are you simply parsing Scripture into nonsense in order to 'support' the paradigm you prefer.
"If water baptism is necessary to have priesthood conferred, then some believers are priests and some are not."
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented."
"So, you are either teaching baptismal regeneration wherby all believers are priests by water baptism, or you are teaching that some Christians are priests and some are not."
Fallacy of the false dichotomy is noted.
"Where does your paradigm change to allow for women priests, or lame priests, or blind priests, etc.? You yourself would have to make some changes that are quite dispensational."
You are badly confused by your 'a priori' assumption of dispensationalism.
if asked by the Heavenly Hosts as to WHY I should be allowed into communion with God, I would answer
“Because my Lord Jesus Christ died and paid for my sins. I claim only the blood of Christ covers me and makes me presentable”.
Not because I was baptized. I could be an unbeliever who gets baptized for some reason. Or I could be an infant baptized by my parents.
Is baptism a commandment? Yes. Does that make a pre-requiste or the act upon which my salvation rests? No.
Christianity is the ONLY religion based not on what a PERSON does, but what God has DONE.
Jesus said it is finished. The work is done.
Knowing this, it should change our hearts as the Spirit works in our lives. We should turn away from the dead things, and to the spiritual things. We should love light, and not darkness.
**The ark got wet. The ark took the suffering; the ark was baptized by a watery suffering. In the ark were eight believers who never got wet.**
And who had to build that ark, in order to be saved by water? Noah believed what God had commanded and HAD to act.
**1 Peter 3 has nothing to do with any believer being baptized by water to be saved . . . if it did, then Noah and his family were still lost, for they never got wet.**
The Lord didn’t command them to be baptized. He does command us to be baptized, and it’s WAAAAYY easier than building a great big barge.
What did the flood waters do? Wash the sinful lives of the world away.
A great type and shadow is found in 1 Cor. 10:1,2 where the exodus of the hebrews was ‘under the cloud, and passed through the sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.’ And guess what? God LED them to the Red Sea, almost like being led out of the way, to a senseless place to linger. Then they say the Egyptian army had them trapped, and believed that they were condemned. But the water saved them, by washing away the sentence of death that Pharaoh was intent on accomplishing. (hmmm..think about that....are you being led on this forum to your ‘Red Sea’?)
Paul mentions in Romans and Colossians about being ‘buried with him in baptism’, and Paul baptized a good many souls. Jesus likened his buriel to the ‘sign of Jonah’. Jonah got wet. Jonah’s story is a great type and shadow. Buried at sea in the whale, Jonah came forth, and made tracks for Nineveh; a 400 mile walk. And once there, preached with such power that those uncircumcised heathen repented, and God wrath was stayed.
Jesus commanded baptism to his disciples, and they obeyed, leading off with Peter commanding it done in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.
It’s about child-like faith. Tell a child about Jesus, and that being baptized in his name will take away those sins, and they believe it.
Man says, “That’s absurd. That water doesn’t do anything miraculous, and how does saying Jesus name make any difference?”. God says it does. Who is right?
The passages you quote are through Peter, not Paul, and Peter was writing to the Circumcision, the Jews; Israel will be a holy nation of priests; it is their heritage, it is their future, when the woman finally encompasses the man.
The Body of Christ is not a “nation.”
I think you need to reexamine types and anti-types. The anti-type is never literal to the type. For example Isaac is a type of Christ yet Isaac's life was spared and Christ life was given. Moses is a type of Christ, yet Jesus was never raised a son of Pharaoh. Joshua is a type of Christ yet Jesus never attacked the wall of Jericho. Elijah is a type of Christ, yet Jesus died on a cross while Elijah goes to God with out tasting death.
But back to the understanding of types and anti-types not being literal. You stated "1 Peter 3 has nothing to do with any believer being baptized by water to be saved . . . if it did, then Noah and his family were still lost, for they never got wet", to follow your same logic, eight souls were separated from water by Gopher-wood. They never got wet. Christ separates us from sin and death therefore Christ must be made of Gopher-wood.
Peter clearly says that "eight souls were saved by water." The Holy Spirit choose those words. Either God intended to make the type and anti-type about water in this passage, or He got confused when He should have said the ark. Think about it. The subject is salvation by water not salvation by the ark. Therefore, he says, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us... Peter is not stating here that the ark is a type of Christ, (even though it is), he is stating that eight souls saved by water is a type/symbol of BAPTISM that doth also now save us.
Now I’m curious. Just what does a person do to be saved?
Yeah, you're back to your dispensational axiom again. Parsing Scripture into nonsense to fit your 'a priori' commitment to dispensationalism.
"The Body of Christ is not a “nation.”"
That's not what Scripture says. That's your parsing of Scripture into nonsense because of your 'a priori' assumption of dispensationalism.
That is why I said, "It appears that your goal is simply to discount any ideas that are outside your preferred paradigm through endless, irrelevant argumentation."
What you do is just throw the Bible in a juicer.
You're the one who is parsing the Scriptures into nonsense and picking out those parts that agree with your 'a priori' assumption of dispensationalism and ignoring the parts that don't.
And you’re the one putting it into a blender and turning it into sauce.
Tell me, please, what was the substance of the good news that the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy were preaching prior to the Cross?
Nope, you're the one who is parsing the Scriptures into nonsense and picking out those parts that agree with your 'a priori' assumption of dispensationalism and ignoring the parts that don't.
So you can parsing the Scriptures into nonsense and pick out those parts that agree with your 'a priori' assumption of dispensationalism and ignore the parts that don't?
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots?"
You seem to answer things as do some of the RCC lawyers who perhaps are on retainer to sit at keyboards and answer posts on threads like these (on this site and others).
Some of them, too, claim to offer something without ever really exposing themselves by explaining what they are or what they believe, or providing Scriptures for what they say they are presenting to people who would be interested in what they have to say. They, too, love words like "parse," and "a priori," etc., just like attorneys.
I told you that baptism is when you receive your priesthood.
You see, John was the son of a priest and could be viewed as the true high-priest of Israel before God, not the one installed by men. In baptizing Christ, the mantle of high-priest was transferred from John to Christ. This is why Christ said, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." That is also why Hebrews 5:5 says, "Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father." This fits back into Matt 3:17 where the voice from heaven says, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." immediately after Christ's baptism.
With that example of Christ receiving his priesthood at his baptism, it is an easy extension to see that when we as believers follow Christ in baptism, we also receive our priesthood.
That was a message to believers who may not have known that. It is a much deeper walk than the typical baptismal teaching. The Holy Spirit will lead some on that walk as He has led me. But it would require you to reconsider your 'a priori' acceptance of dispensationalism. A thing that does not appear likely, unfortunately.
"You seem to answer things as do some of the RCC lawyers who perhaps are on retainer to sit at keyboards and answer posts on threads like these (on this site and others)."
Apparently, anyone who says anything that doesn't agree with your assumed paradigm must be demonized in a manner satisfactory to that paradigm. It's a small circle your thoughts run in but apparently it works for you.
"Some of them, too, claim to offer something without ever really exposing themselves by explaining what they are or what they believe, or providing Scriptures for what they say they are presenting to people who would be interested in what they have to say. They, too, love words like "parse," and "a priori," etc., just like attorneys."
Perhaps it is only those whom you disagree with that are a threat to you and you feel that the sooner you make accusations against them, the more secure your paradigm. It's really only a desperate effort to preserve your 'a priori' beliefs.
Good luck.
I-Gather-From-Extension-And-Toss-It-In-My-Blender Anti-Defamation Organization?
Or is it . . .
The-Lord-Has-Led-Me-In-A-Deeper-Walk-Than-Anyone-Else Anti-Defamation Society?
Where is a cross reference conferring High Priesthood on John the Baptist? Elijah was not a high priest, and John came in the spirit and power of Elias. Do you also merely gather this from "easy extension?"
It would be a more logical "extension," since John was a prophet, that at baptism, the Lord was anointed as Prophet.
It would be a more logical "extension" that on the Mount of Transfiguration, where you have both Elias AND the Prophet who Anointed Aaron, Moses, that THAT is where Christ received His anointing as Priest.
In fact, we do not deny that every believer enjoys individual priesthood, and that (is only one thing that) "parses" us from Roman Catholicism. But it was not through water that we received it, but rather through His Death Baptism at the Cross, dying with Him, then being Raised with Him, which did not happen by water.
There is no water in Romans chapter 6, in the entire chapter. It must be read into the passage by water regen. folks, Catholics, Landmark Baptists, and others. There is no water in Colossian 2:12; There is no water in Galatians 2:20; etc.
You come on to a clearly marked CAUCUS thread, giving its intention for King James Bible-believers, and utterly direspect it. Since I have seen so many rebuked by moderators and others for doing the same on Catholic, Reformed, and other threads, you should be rebuked for it here.
If your intention was to lead others into some deeper walk you profess to have through some kind of water-gained priesthood, and believed that those on this thread would be interested, you would have been wiser to introduce that "deeper walk" by using private replies until the original poster considered a valididty in your position and made an invitation to you, opening it up to people who support their contentions (and you do like to be contentious) with other versions of the Bible.
And you come on a caucus thread with an attack, and continue it. Not wise.
sorry it took so long for my reply.
it is very hard to separate what actions are as a result of salvation, are a result of obedience after salvation, or are our works.
Another way of asking what does a person *do* to be saved is to turn the argument around, and examine it from the *other* side.
What must a person *do* to be sure no NOT being saved?
It’s an easy answer. To not care about the things of God, to offend the Holy Spirit, to not acknowledge God.
This is why a saved christian cannot commit an “unpardonable” sin...not because his actions are any better than any sinner, but because he, in his heart knows he is a sinner, and acknowledges God, and seeks after light. In other words, a “son of the light”.
So now, now can you AVOID all this? Clearly a “believer” as we use the term BELIEVES and, by the grace of God, through his faith, becomes “born again”. We then get baptized, and join the community of believers.
I know it sounds like an *easy* thing to believe, but strangely, some will never believe...In the last days, when the wraith of God (the seven bowls in Rev 16) is on display to an unregenerate world, people will curse God rather than acknowledge him.
So, it is possible to “believe” in God (the devils do) and still be unsaved - our “work” if you will, is to stop rebelling against God’s authority, accept the salvation that by His grace he has extended, and “follow” him.
Follow includes the commandment to be baptized.
To love one another, and many other important commands.
WC Fields, known for this worldly ways, was near death and in the hospital when a good friend comes in his room. The friend spots WC sitting up, reading the bible. The friends says, “hey, what are YOU doing reading the bible”. WC replies “looking for loopholes”.
There is no loophole in God’s law. There is no “scales” that if our good works outweigh our bad, we are saved. Do you get a “reward” for driving the speed limit? No, instead punishment if you do not. That is the nature of the Law...It kills...We have all sinned, and so we are already bound for Hades.
So what can change our fate? Only by Propitiation
What is propitiation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propitiation
The propitiation, which He provided in His grace, is the sacrifice of Jesus.
A believer knows he is in a fallen state, a sinner, without hope of eternity, but pleads for forgiveness, and so God looks on the perfect sacrifice, and sees not our filthy works, but the character of Christ. This is what SAVES us, from the rightfully earned wrath of God.
What is counted toward our credit, is how we run the race set before us after we join God’s family.
If we do not love one another, we destroy our witness, suffer the consequences in this world, and the next, but still are assured of our salvation. We are still the Kings sons even if the King admonishes us.
This is Good News. Our Father, like the prodigal son’s father, is running to meet us, just as soon as we give up living in the world’s pigpen.
And I suppose the first order of business on returning from the pigpen is a good bath. (of course we are speaking here of the flesh, not of the spiritual things like baptism).
So what REALLY saves us is grasping hold of the death of our Savior, by whose death we are put back into proper a proper relationship with our Heavenly Father.
Your position would be much easier to understand if you would just say what one must do to be saved. :o)
I feel your pain though. Because to be consistent with your earlier statement, (Christianity is the ONLY religion based not on what a PERSON does, but what God has DONE.), the answer must be a person does NOTHING to be saved! We both no that can't be the right answer. In the body of your response you state belief, faith and grasping hold of the death of our Savior, and I do not disagree with that.
The point I'm trying to make is this.
................................Man................God
Who believes?...........X
Who has faith?..........X
Who confesses?.........X
Who Baptizes.................................X Col 2:12
It appears to me that you are the one advocating for salvation by work of man, and I am advocating salvation by the work of God.
Consider Naaman. No one advocates that there was any magic in the water of the Jordan river to cure leprosy. No one advocates that in reality the water had anything to do with it other than that was the commandment. No one advocates that the Naaman earned his cure by obeying the prophet. It was his obedient faith in the power of God that cured Naaman. II Kings 5:13 And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? Again Col 2:12, Acts2:38. I Pet 3:21 (the answer of a good conscience toward God)
Consider the children of Israel on Passover night. Would anyone claim the blood on the door post was earning the life of their oldest son. Would anyone say, "I'm not putting that blood on the door post because I'm trusting in God to save my son?" No! We recognize that their trust was in God, but to fail to paint the blood was a lack of trust in God.
You stated when talking about following Him, "Follow includes the commandment to be baptized." This seems to me to be the opposite of what many here are advocating as over and over again they say 'you don't have to be baptized'. I would take the stand of the servant of Naaman and say, How much more then, when he says to you, `Wash, and be clean'? Acts 22:16
Just to be clear, I know that the blood of Jesus is what saves us. I know that nothing I do earns that salvation. I also know that if my LORD says to do it, the argument is over as far as I am concerned, and I will do it. I also know that anyone who says 'you don't have to do what my LORD commands' is not a friend, and could be to very one to encourage a father to not paint the doorpost at the expense of his son's life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.